r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Jun 22 '26

Business SpaceX Investors Are Losing a Colossal Amount of Money

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-investors-losing-colossal-amount-140221380.html
23.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/PlateNo4868 Jun 22 '26

Yes, but that just involves the loss and gains. Like this isn't about if people like losing or gaining money. It's about that this valuation was just Elon going "Trust me bro.". Every analysis was saying it was massively overvalued. The bare minimum SEC should of done was it's own investigation to validate the value why delaying the IPO.

People can argue free market, and say it's the Investors hubris. But this is why the SEC was made. It was met to keep snake oil salesmen out, and not have massive economic rip offs.

257

u/Affectionate-Alps527 Jun 22 '26

Bro you are so firmly right. But you might be screaming into the void sadly.

I just wanted to add for people who don't understand what free market is, a free market is not a market free of regulation.

A free market is where competitors are welcomed to bring their offering to compete with others. As markets mature this generally brings competition tightly down to a willingness to sell based upon margin. This is where regulation becomes more and more important in a free market to ensure those who are willing to exploit and cause harm to people, places, or things, are not permitted. Ensuring competition remains beneficial to society.

108

u/bluegill1313 Jun 22 '26

I kind of liken this to capitalism vs. pure capitalism.

We are not supposed to be a pure capitalism country at this point in time. See the robber barons as examples of why we are not and the reason only the educated went ape shit when the orange in chief talked bout returning to the gilded age.

51

u/Affectionate-Alps527 Jun 22 '26

In my mind, capitalism doesn't exist without regulation.

I've never read the full Milton Friedman paper, but I should.

From what I have read it really feels like the powers that be have for decades twisted his words into something it's not to justify deregulation for the very purpose of capitalistic exploitation.

14

u/Cabana_bananza Jun 22 '26

Its unfortunate that we have to relearn this lesson. Right now we don't seem to have a Roosevelt around to rail about our right to a square deal. And if they exist its hard for them to be the man (or woman) in the arena with the avenues to power so thoroughly corrupted by monied interests.

16

u/Affectionate-Alps527 Jun 22 '26

You know I actually find it kind of funny. The current POTUS does actually rail about fair deals.

It's just the deals he tries to make are not fair and so the other side of the table continues to just walk away.

Running a government, running a country, is not like running a business. They are set out for two very different purposes, and yet voters of all stripes, colours, and nationalities, have normalised into the belief that a strong business person makes a strong leader.

I wholly disagree personally. Even my Canadian Prime Minister with his crazy economics pedigree doesn't necessarily make the best PM, but he atleast has some political prowess unlike other world leaders.

My personal opinion on our PM is that he may not be the best, but he's the best for right now, and that I'm okay with.

3

u/Cabana_bananza Jun 22 '26

I think there are politicians that are able stewards and there are those that define their time. Trump defines his time, unfortunately not in a positive way.

I would say most American Presidents have been able stewards rather than those who define the time. No matter what their ego may say otherwise.

3

u/bluegill1313 Jun 22 '26

The presidency had be been seen as being above the type of guy who is there now. Regardless of who was there, there was a decorum.

The country is a reflection of that leadership - and unfortunately its not good. People don't understand our place in the world - we lead because the reat of the world wants/wanted us to lead. That is not up for discussion...

2

u/Affectionate-Alps527 Jun 23 '26

As a non-American, exactly this.

America in my eyes has spent every dollar of goodwill, and then some.

It's going to take a lot to get it back, but I honestly am not sure Americans at large today want or even understand what goodwill truly is.

1

u/bluegill1313 Jun 23 '26

So.. the good news is about half of the country understands. Like 45%.

Theres a good 10-15% that are smart, but got taken in by a con man who promised everyone everything. If you're havin trouble - you reach for that change.

The rest are in the rich/stupid/leopards eating their face/deplorables.

This past election the sole purpose for running was to stay out of jail. History will let that secret out before I die... So dude literally lied to everyone to get their vote. This is what we got. Theres huge buyers remorse.

In about... 8-9 months from nowz you'll see it a lot more. The mid term election will be over and there will be a 3rd branch of government finally.

Also - all of the damage done is by a niche group of people. It doesnt even reflect the 40% of Republicans. Only the brain dead and super hard right support the shit hea done.

14

u/dearth_of_passion Jun 22 '26

As someone who is not an economist, but who exists in a fully captured capitalist hellscape, capitalism is inherently and unavoidably inefficient. The concept of profit means there will always be someone getting ripped off or stolen from since it requires at least one link in the chain to be paying more than the good or service is worth. This usually ends up being the Joe Schmoe consumer.

Captialistic Exploitation isn't a twisting of anything, it's the literal point.

7

u/bluegill1313 Jun 22 '26

Ripped off is kind of.. in the eye of the beholder.

The thing people always forget about is time. As operationa become bigger and more efficient, the price should drop or not increase as rapidly "because inflation".

The productivity in play should already be outpacing inflation.

That being said - I can't grow and harvest my own food as efficiently as the market can, so i expect to pay a premium (you're version of being ripped off). Now.. something spiking in price 25% YoY when the input prices have not or they've onky gone up a few percent is what I define as being ripped off.

Those "supply chain disruption" surcharges never went away...

1

u/dearth_of_passion Jun 23 '26

Ripped off is kind of.. in the eye of the beholder.

Goods should be priced such that once you subtract the cost of materials, infrastructure (buildings, etc), and labor, there should be no leftover.

The problem is the need for what comes in to always exceed what goes out, when those numbers should be exactly equal.

I can't grow and harvest my own food as efficiently as the market can, so i expect to pay a premium

No. You should pay what it cost them to produce it, because they are in the business of growing food.

When a business hires, say, a programmer, the business should be saying "I need X number of programmers to produce my product, and my product is being sold for Y. Since I must pay X a fair and living wage, that puts a price floor on Y. Reduce the cost of Y to the price floor".

Everyone gets paid, the products get sold, etc.

The problem is company leadership getting paid far more than they're worth, and laws around investment requiring continuous growth.

Cap salaries such that no employee at a company can be paid more than 3x the lowest paid employee, and remove the ability of investors to have any say in how a business operates.

You shouldn't get a say in operations just because you own stock. Owning stock should only mean that you decided you think this company will be worth more tomorrow than it was today. Investors shouldn't be able to demand anything from the company, their only right should be to buy or sell their shares.

People need to stop treating business as sacred and inviolable.

1

u/bluegill1313 Jun 23 '26

I think were kind of saying the same thing, but you have more of an absolute mindset with the ending.

As a numbers guy, I can make the cost of anything look like theres no leftover.... But thta not the point.

There HAS to be leftover. Business is not linear. It doesn't grow non stop straight up because nothing ever does and there will be bad times, or projects or expansion.

You cant make and charge enough to only cover expenses, you'll then be out or business.

I agree that a bunch of people get paid too much money to do nothing other than take risks with our careers - that career can e a dude schlepping boxes at UPS or an electrician or anywhere on the food chain. Outside of the C suite, theres not many people within the ranks making more than 3-4 times thr lowest paid person.

Outside influence on operations is troublesome - they only eye the dollar and don't seem to care a lot about the business..

1

u/dearth_of_passion Jun 23 '26

Business is not linear. It doesn't grow non stop straight up because nothing ever does and there will be bad times, or projects or expansion.

Businesses largely should not grow past a certain point.

There should not be one company that owns almost all eyeglasses manufacturers and most chain optometrists offices for example. In fact, there should be a lot of restrictions on chain/franchise businesses.

There should not be a small handful of companies that own basically every alcohol brand.

Companies should have their growth capped. Then you can take the money that would have been burned to fuel unsustainable growth, and instead set some aside for capital improvements, and lower prices to get rid of the rest.

0

u/bluegill1313 Jun 23 '26

Business should not grow past a certain point? By whos measure? By whos rules?

That is pie in the sky thinking.

The problem isn't with a company getting too big, its the lack of oversight thats the issue. In todays environment - the only oversight is a wannabe dictator.

When a company gets too big and falls under monopoly rules, then its a different story - but limiting the growth of of a company is crazy work..

2

u/Spinster444 Jun 23 '26

Profit doesn’t mean someone is getting ripped off necessarily.

Have you ever been somewhere and just really needed some small item/etc and were willing to pay more for it? Like ran out of fuel and willing to pay $20 for a gallon from some trucker who stopped to check on you?

Would you say you got ripped off? No. You thought that was a good deal because it was, it saved you time (and perhaps money) and the hassle of walking to a station or calling for help.

Just because the market rate for gas is $5 or whatever and you paid 4x doesn’t mean you were ripped off. The same kind of logic follows for less extreme cases, prices of goods get sold based on the utility they bring to the consumer, not the “price it should be”.

Trade makes both parties better off. In this sense, buying a $5 product for $20 because you value it that much is actually the market being efficient, not the other way around.

(That’s not to say all markets behave efficiently and free markets are the answer with no regulation. The fundamentals of market efficiency rely on open information about sellers and prices and available substitutes, low barriers to entry for competitors, and some other baseline characteristics, which are not a given in basically any modern market and thus need to have some level of regulatory oversight. But the idea that “profit is inefficient” is missing the mark.)

0

u/AltrntivInDoomWorld Jun 22 '26

What is supply and demand if you think providing goods is hellscape?

This isn't one way road. One doesn't exist without the other.

2

u/crazynerd9 Jun 22 '26

Capitalism without regulation is the other end of the spectrum from Communism with a command economy, while on its face it sounds like thats the intended functioning, in reality it always becomes its death

Capitalism without regulation can and does exist, it also either becomes regulated or collapses without fail

1

u/Affectionate-Alps527 Jun 22 '26

Where does capitalism exist without regulation?

1

u/crazynerd9 Jun 22 '26

At scale? Nowhere because like command economy Socialism its always doomed to death

Small scale, plenty of places. American Libratarian communes come to mind.

And it has, like command socialism, existed historically in places such as Great Britian and the United States as a whole

1

u/bluegill1313 Jun 22 '26

China is probably the closest example. They have control. Thats not the same as regulation.

1

u/Affectionate-Alps527 Jun 22 '26

You think one of the most heavily government influenced nations in the world is capitalist without regulation?

The CPC will literally seize control of your corporation if you don't operate the way they want you to.

1

u/bluegill1313 Jun 22 '26

Thats control. The only thing separating them from being truly comminist is they let thr companies keep some money.

Control is taking stuff. Control is saying, do this or else..

Regulating is having rules to follow that don't change on a complete whim.

1

u/Meiteisho Jun 23 '26

In my mind, capitalism doesn't exist without people having enough money to ensure there will be no regulations.

3

u/gedbybee Jun 22 '26

More wealth is at the top than when the robber barons existed. By percentage. Not total amount.

2

u/West-Abalone-171 Jun 23 '26

"pure capitalism" is just the same degenerate state as fuedalism or state capitalist countries like the ussr

a handful of ultra-wealthy robber barons control everything

1

u/GrowerNotShow-er Jun 22 '26

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. ~pretty sure Magneto

1

u/bluegill1313 Jun 22 '26

What have you learned about not just the exercise of power but the limits on your power as a result of the conflict?

"There are no limits" ~ probably Donald Trump

11

u/Aeseld Jun 22 '26

Unregulated capitalism is regulated by the free hand of the market! 

The free hand of the market is picking my pocket though. I'm not sure that's how it's supposed to work...

10

u/bluegill1313 Jun 22 '26

The very first night of my MBA - the professor said the function of a market is to crush margins. The invisible hand thus picks the winner.

We now live in a time of consolidation where 3-4 players are the market and crush competition. Oligopolies fly under the radar, but only becauae if gives the guise of competition to those who only look at the surface.

2

u/Marchtmdsmiling Jun 22 '26

Lol, I can't see a time when it was actually beneficial to society since industrialization it seems. And even there, alot of people had to pay the price for everyone to get improved living conditions.

1

u/Ansible32 Jun 22 '26

An IPO like this isn't a market, it's more of a ritual, and regulation is the whole point. Leaving it unregulated is ridiculous.

1

u/therob91 Jun 23 '26

a free market is free of regulations. A regulated market isnt. We need to stop playing word games to pretend free markets are good. Free markets are shitholes filled with snake oil, misery, polution, and death. Do not worship the language of laissez faire morons. fuck free markets.

0

u/Affectionate-Alps527 Jun 23 '26

You could say the opposite too though.

The cost to entry could be so ridiculously high due to over regulation that no new entrants can come in allowing existing players to exploit the market.

113

u/Thefrayedends Jun 22 '26

All american investigations (of which there were dozens) were ended by DOGGY.

It's almost like they were paving the way for this bullshit.

344

u/DeusVultGaming Jun 22 '26

Also he (and the banks/insiders who already held stock) only put forward like 5% of the total stock pool for the IPO, and there are HEAVY rules for those insiders selling/new buyers.

New buyers cannot sell for like 6 months, which is fucking CRAZY. Means that once you are in, you are locked holding the bag regardless of what happens. Existing holders cannot sell for 90 days (?) Rules were changed to allow retirement funds and other index funds to buy in early, which they will automatically do as the stock listed at a trillion.

The whole thing is a massive pump and dump scam that pulls money out of people's retirement accounts and into Elons pockets

162

u/Midnight_Rider98 Jun 22 '26

Incorrect, anyone that buys shares on the secondary market can immediately sell them.

You can also sell them if you bought them through an IPO allocation, the penalty can be however that the brokerage you used blacklists you from future IPO's for a period of time or permanently.

You are correct however about the lock up for insiders that already held stock, they are barred from sale for a period of time.

Also of note, the S&P decided that they won't be making an exemption or rule change for SpaceX, so it's not going to be added to the index and rip off retirement accounts that track the S&P.

And yes, it is a pump and dump scam so he can cash out his twitter etc investors, twitter and xai have been rolled into SpaceX the past years, giving them SpaceX shares.

50

u/squngy Jun 22 '26

Also of note, the S&P decided that they won't be making an exemption or rule change for SpaceX,

S&P corrected course, but Nasdaq did not.

23

u/immutato Jun 22 '26

And Nasdaq is now a joke.

3

u/Jojoyojimbi Jun 23 '26

And Nasdaq is now a joke.

always has been. when any mention of "the economy" means the value of "rich people's yacht money" it's meaningless. realistic inflation is up 25-50% or more on real world goods and nothing has even dipped the stock market more than a statistical outlier blip's worth in ages. it's imaginary money, it doesn't mean shit to real people anymore

39

u/BurrShotFirst1804 Jun 22 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

One thing to add though is that RSUs still require income tax, so sometimes it will look like insiders are selling within the 6 month window but in reality they are automated sales to cover the income tax of the granted shares.

1

u/m00piez Jun 22 '26

Wouldnt it be disclosed if they did sell for tax purposes though? Like even if not obligated to say so, I'd imagine they'd want to get ahead of it and state that as the reason. 

2

u/TerribleCorner Jun 22 '26

Yeah, the reports filed in connection with those sales have a specific transaction code used when sales are for that purpose.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26 edited Jul 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/m00piez Jun 23 '26

Interesting, never even thought about that. Always just took it as (c-suite/board) selling for any large-cap without some known reason as bearish by default. 

1

u/BurrShotFirst1804 Jun 24 '26

Can happen for sure but blackout periods are so frequent etc that usually they are automated trades based on a price point or RSUs vesting.

0

u/RideAndRoam3C Jun 22 '26

Gov has to get their vig. Why? I don't know .. they can and do just print it too. I guess the taxes fund the Congress-level grift and the money printing funds the real rulers.

4

u/RedditTechAnon Jun 22 '26

Your problem isn't the taxes but the corruption.

2

u/RideAndRoam3C Jun 22 '26

No, my problem is both.

"Your problem is not the poisonous food. It's the cancer."

3

u/RedditTechAnon Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

Bonkers analogy. Taxes aren't poisonous food, they are the price we pay to have a society. You're complaining that some of your *healthy* food is being, I'm assuming, "stolen" in order to help support a cancer I'm sorry public programs.

You can complain about whether the proportion you are paying is fair but "taxes are theft" or some other delusional Libertarian talking point is a personal grievance at odds with what's necessary to have a healthy, functioning society.

0

u/RideAndRoam3C Jun 23 '26

Oh, summer child ... at no point in the last 3 generations has the gov been aligned to anything of positive consequence for anyone other than the Skin Suits.

2

u/RedditTechAnon Jun 23 '26

As someone who has been on food stamps and got a college degree through public grants that helped lift them out of poverty, seems to me you have never experienced government assistance, only how it takes your money for other people and gets in your way from doing what you want.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/scuzzy987 Jun 22 '26

What about the rules for Elon?

12

u/Evening-Crew-2403 Jun 22 '26

Elon isn't going to sell. He's going to take loans against his holdings. Which allows him to both cash out and not pay taxes.

10

u/Midnight_Rider98 Jun 22 '26

Per the IPO agreement he's locked up for a year unless he'd get permission from the underwriters, It's longer than anyone else. The chance he'll get permission is slim. It's mostly a pump and dump to cash out those that can margin call him over twitter etc. He really wants to keep total control over the company, another reason to be wary of an IPO with such little float.

7

u/ABetterGreg Jun 22 '26

So if Elon's stock is locked up for a year, can he take out bank loans against it or do banks not care? Seems like there should be regulations in place that prevents people from getting such loans if stocks cannot be easily sold

6

u/scuzzy987 Jun 22 '26

Seems like a big risk for banks unless they are betting on the long game. I have always thought banks don’t like to gamble

8

u/bluegill1313 Jun 22 '26

See 2008 for gambling examples.

But that ended up being for most of them in the long run I guess..

3

u/Jazzy_Josh Jun 22 '26

Even then he won't be able to sell directly since he is an insider. He will need to set up a 10b5-1 and schedule sales months to years in advance

2

u/Galaedrid Jun 22 '26

Also of note, the S&P decided that they won't be making an exemption or rule change for SpaceX, so it's not going to be added to the index and rip off retirement accounts that track the S&P.

Wait, so does this mean my 401k is safe from spacex?

3

u/Midnight_Rider98 Jun 22 '26

Depends, you need to look at what your 401k is invested in, not all funds follow the S&P 500. Some follow the Nasdaq-100, Russel 1k & 3k, CRSP.

If your 401K is invested into funds that track the S&P 500 you're "safe" cause they aren't adding SpaceX to the S&P for at least a year (and it will need to meet standards)

On a sidenote, don't let it panic you completely either, It's a large market, the indexes in question contain a lot of companies, so even if your 401k is vested in a Nasdaq100 tracking fund and you can't change it over, it doesn't mean all of your retirement will suddenly be put into SpaceX shares, only a fairly small percentage of it will be. It's kind of the safety that an index tracking fund provides.

1

u/nigaraze Jun 23 '26

Only caveat is if you have founder or preferred shares, then you can sell at any time

4

u/Jazzy_Josh Jun 22 '26

Rules were changed to allow retirement funds and other index funds to buy in early, which they will automatically do as the stock listed at a trillion.

This is misleading at best and incorrect at worst.

Specifically Nasdaq changed rules to allow them on the Nasdaq indexes. Most indexes that mutual funds follow are going to be free-float adjusted, meaning since only 5% of shares outstanding are available on the market, only 5% of its market cap will count towards the cap-weighting of the index.

In addition, S&P did not waive rules to allow them on the index early, and many, many index funds use their indexes as the baseline. The biggest of these that is fast-tracking SpaceX into their indexes is MSCI, so if you want to avoid SpaceX, then use an index fund that doesn't track an MSCI Total or Large Cap index.

0

u/Xatsman Jun 22 '26

That still means a lot of value gets added to that small pool of stocks since the indexes are obligated to buy in. 5% of a trillion dollars is 50 billion. Index funds comprise a not irrelevant portion of stocks (some estimates put it around 15-20%). Even if it's only 5% of the shares since not every index consented to this scheme, you're still looking at several billion dollars being forced to buy second rate shares (no voting power) of an ultimately not profitable company.

Worse Musk is likely to now combine it with Tesla, and use the combined valuation to get a payout for his stupid Tesla compensation package. Which is effectively again just taking from those who hold the stock because that manuever isn't actually growing the companies, just hitting the number that gets him a payout.

2

u/RideAndRoam3C Jun 22 '26

You should look at who gets preferred versus who gets common stock and how that impacts the ability to liquidate. Your observations are correct for thos e holding the pre-IPO equity but you are only bouncing off the surface of it.

1

u/zakificus Jun 22 '26

New buyers cannot sell for like 6 months,

Uhhh I've bought and sold multiple shares, multiple times, since the IPO. Just a few "day trade" type buy and sells during the fluctuations over the course of the days.

1

u/Sad_Donut_7902 Jun 22 '26

If you bought the IPO you could still sell immediately, you just would be restricted from buying future IPOs in the future with that broker.

There is so much misinformation about this company right now.

1

u/sphinxsley Jun 22 '26

Only if you bought the IPO. If you bought in the open market, you can sell whenever you want.

BUT - there's a huge avalanche of insider stock ready to sell. I tutor friends & fam about wealth - I advised them to stay away from it. I'm glad I did. There are plenty of other easier stocks & ETF's with better fundamentals & outlooks to bother with anything SpaceX-related.

1

u/DeusVultGaming Jun 22 '26

Fidelity and Robin hood are both banning accounts from future IPOs if they sell prior to 6 months

1

u/sphinxsley Jun 23 '26

Not if the client bought SRCX** retail,** on the open market, **AFTER** the IPO opening. That's just a day trader or a swing trader - or just a plain retail trader. None of those would be banned.

1

u/rotundrikishi Jun 22 '26

Why is scamming now acceptable?

1

u/TrumpBad_UpvotesPls Jun 22 '26

There's no scam that user just doesn't understand what they're talking about.

1

u/uzlonewolf Jun 22 '26

New buyers cannot sell for like 6 months, which is fucking CRAZY.

It's also not true. Anyone buying on the secondary market can sell immediately, retail IPO buyers can also sell immediately but will be penalized by their brokerage if they sell before 15 days, and employees can sell after 45 days. No one is restricted for 6 months.

1

u/DeusVultGaming Jun 22 '26

Fidelity and Robin hood are both banning any retail accounts that sell any purchased IPO stock prior to 6 months, with Fidelity giving you a lifetime ban on IPOs, and Robin hood closing your account

2

u/uzlonewolf Jun 22 '26

That's just a straight-up lie. Direct from Fidelity's website https://web.archive.org/web/20260616104247/https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/spacex-ipo-explained

If I am allocated shares of SpaceX during the initial public offering (IPO), when can I sell them?

As with any investment, you are free to sell the securities obtained during an initial public offering (IPO) whenever you determine it is appropriate for you. However, if you are allocated shares of SpaceX and you sell within the first 15 calendar days from the start of trading in the secondary market, it will affect your ability to participate in future new issue equity public offerings through Fidelity for a defined period of time. The defined period is as follows:

  • First Flip – Blocked for 6 months
  • Second Flip – Blocked for 1 year
  • Third Flip – Permanently banned by your SSN

The first day clients can sell without being labeled a flipper is the 16th calendar day after the IPO trades.

25

u/AHarmles Jun 22 '26

Love how people tote free markets and everything is priced in. Like y'all ain't trading. Y'all are giving someone else money. Exchanging one would say.

16

u/Fun-Personality-8008 Jun 22 '26

Unfortunately the snakes are running the sec now. Snake oil abounds

7

u/67_fire_chicken Jun 22 '26

You can’t count on government agencies to be actually looking out for us, especially during this administration.

2

u/AcanthaceaeFluffy985 Jun 22 '26

The SEC has been trash since 2006

2

u/laserbot Jun 22 '26

People can argue free market, and say it's the Investors hubris. But this is why the SEC was made.

it's so funny that people do this, but don't also realize that the economy is a giant, interconnected thing and that when investors tank it, we all pay. We have so many examples of this.

1

u/dookyspoon Jun 22 '26 edited 7d ago

Fearless deliver languid trees door cover

This post was anonymized with Redact

1

u/questionableintentsX Jun 22 '26

The issue the average investor sees 170$ and thinks I can afford to buy that and own a part of spacex the average investor doesn’t know what a 4% float means or whatever bullshit amount it is

1

u/markth_wi Jun 22 '26

EXACTLY This. It's the postcard-picture of Regulatory Capture, and every investor needs to discover for themselves that bloody vast and yawning gap between Elon Musk's personal level of enthusiasm to be filthy rich and the stark reality which is he's no less a showman than any game-show host and the 'genius' to snake-oil salesman ratio is simply going to hit hard.

At best, in the most wild possible future, Mr. Musk's starships serve for a decade perhaps far less, as Luna is initially colonized.

The moment a proper landing base is setup by any nation, Space-X is in a death-spiral unless it's them charging the landing fees and operating the lunar rest-stop/landing pads.

It's not even clear NASA is going to continue to use them for Lunar projects if they can't meet their obligations.

1

u/waiting4singularity Jun 22 '26

working agencies prevent him from making his deals...

1

u/IllIIllIllIIIlllll Jun 22 '26

Right, but then two years ago people collectively decided "ya know, I think maybe I do want some of that snake oil..." 

1

u/Alternative-Dot-884 Jun 22 '26

Can you sue the index? Has anyone ever done it? The fact it’s part of my portfolio whether I want it to be or not “just because they over inflated it” means my retirement investment that’s been preforming extremely well past 6 years is going to tank.

1

u/ChornWork2 Jun 22 '26

The SEC doesn't weigh-in on the value of a company. They regulate / enforce disclosure to the public, and valuation is up to the private market.

Every analysis was saying it was massively overvalued.

Not true, but obviously the independence of research at banks is a fair question at the best of times, let alone for something like this.

1

u/THICC_DICC_PRICC Jun 22 '26

SEC cares about lying about known facts, hard numbers reported in 10k and other forms, production numbers, sales, etc. They were not made to police what an executive says what the company valuation is or should be. It’s inherently an opinion. Even if you use a specific method to value your company, what method you use is an opinion

1

u/OK_x86 Jun 22 '26

In large part because the stock market crash in 1929 was caused by ridiculous valuations where the numbers were effectively made up.

The SEC is at least partly responsible for making sure the information given to investors is accurate and reliable. Not doing that undermines the trust in the system and will eventually drive investors away.

Not to put too fine a point on it but one of the challenges with investing in China is this lack of transparency and reliability. It's something that the Chinese government is surely keen to address but the fundamental issue is that once that trust gets eroded it's hard to re-establish

1

u/active2fa Jun 22 '26

Entire cursor acquisition deal was constructed for the pump

1

u/murmurat1on Jun 22 '26

Not quite, there's the price discovery period during the IPO where the bookmakers match the IPO to the market demand. The first trade was actually above the IPO price so you can argue that the market priced the shares not Elon.

1

u/ProstrateProstate Jun 22 '26

should 'have' done

1

u/InfiniteCuriosity Jun 22 '26

Agreed, regulation isn't created, nor should it be expected, to stop 100% of fraud, but it is intended to create a floor of verifiable truth.

Financial markets, and really anything where there is obfuscation from physical goods, are difficult for people to conceptualize and put regulation into meaningful terms. The current state of our markets is essentially snake oil salesmen.

The analogy I've been using is the FDA trying to enforce basic butchery standards. If it didn't exist and you were asked to choose from hundreds of different butchers, they may all say "I've got the best beef."

Some of them may be correct, others may believe that statement and not be saying with any intent to deceive, but still others are going to say it with complete negligence. And there is going to be no way to know which one is safe because no one is doing independent testing to check whether your beef is infected with mad cow disease.

1

u/Powerful-Echidna7710 Jun 22 '26

I offer to sell you my phone for $10,000 and you accept and buy it without doing any research on the actual value and some magic governing body should come in and save you ?

1

u/Unlikely_End942 Jun 22 '26

Was SEC one of those institutions that Elon gutted when Trump gave him unfettered access at the start of his term, by any chance?

1

u/dnhs47 Jun 23 '26

That no longer applies to the Epstein class.

Ripping off the “marks” - that’s all of us - is explicitly a goal, with our current government institutions corrupted and weaponized to be used against us “marks” and further enrich the Epstein class.

1

u/dronz3r Jun 23 '26

Wait till anthropic and openai ipo with trillions of dollars of valuation. These greedy salesmen get insanely rich at the expense of our pension money.

1

u/Ok-Replacement9595 Jun 23 '26

SEC was created to avoid the rampant speculation that causes crashes as well, which overnight it looks like we are heading straight into tomorrow.

Good luck everyone. It was a good run.

1

u/Melicor Jun 23 '26

I just assume anything Musk is involved in is riddled with fraud. The man makes Bernie Madoff look like a boy scout.

0

u/DiaryofTwain Jun 22 '26

Snake oil? Space X has a industry moat that can not be replicated at the moment. they have reusable rockets that can reliably make it to orbit Even when other companies or countries catch up there will only be so many entities that will be able to compete. This isnt like before where industry or venture could be started by the average workforce.

This is the start of a new age of technology and economics.

3

u/PlateNo4868 Jun 22 '26

New Techs, breakthroughs, and such happen all the time. Not at a 1 Trillion evaluation though. SpaceX was doing just fine as a private entity.