> It's the 1920s all over again; publicly pump and privately sell into the demand you're creating.
It's not the 1920s all over again.
> Of the investment banks that helped SpaceX IPO, Goldman Sachs has their price target at $205 (139x implied price to sales), JP Morgan at $225 (152x implied P/S), Deutsche Bank at $255 (173x implied P/S), Morgan Stanley at $300 (203x implied P/S), and Raymond James at $800 (542x implied P/S). ... I'm guessing you're perfectly fine with this behavior from the largest market participants?
Who do those investment banks sell to? How familiar are you with, for example, Goldman Sachs finding buyers for SpaceX shares? The minimum account requirement at Goldman last I checked was something like $10mm - do you really care if such investors are buying shares in overvalued companies or, like me, declining to purchase?
You are just throwing things around and not providing a coherent argument. Everyday investors don't have to buy these shares. They can continue to follow industry standard advice to buy total market index funds, or target date retirement funds or whatever. Investment banks sell to high net worth individuals who are by definition sophisticated investors - they know and accept the risk of such offerings. So no I don't care even a tiny bit if a Morgan Stanley client decides to buy what you consider to be overpriced shares in a "pump-and-dump" scheme based on your own certainly flawed and unsophisticated valuation of SpaceX or any other company.
Every day investors absolutely buy these shares; these price targets are publicly available and SpaceX shares are equally publicly available. You've claimed everyone who is disagreeing with you in this thread is not providing a coherent argument. Have a great day mate.
> And you can just not buy the shares. It's very straightforward.
Sure, but the SEC exists, in theory, to make that decision one you can make an informed decision on, because con artists don't typically put a disclaimer in that says "this is bullshit".
You can't make an informed decision on it unless you do your own research and analyze an individual stock. Then it's up to you to decide if it's worth investing in. This is true for any investment. Just because you think something is bullshit doesn't mean it is. Maybe you're just wrong. Buy the security or don't.
> Most retail investors suffer from significant information asymmetry. We have regulations, in part, to mitigate this fact.
I don't disagree - however that's a separate point from the OP's it's all a scam and pump-and-dump sentiments and doesn't detract from any point I've made.
> A point you yourself might remember when arguing on the internet.
I know it feels great to write things like this but I don't care - my point stands alone and it's only applicable to you and what you wrote regarding valuations.
Then just don't buy the pump-and-dump and stick to ETFs.
Already explained things like lockup periods. Investment firms marketing the IPO also do. not. want. IPO prices to crater after the IPO. It makes them look bad, it harms their business, investors will avoid shops that loop them in on what turn out to be obvious scams or whatever. But even if they don't, who cares? They (I) are sophisticated investors. If I make a bad investment I'm an adult with means and I can live with the consequences.
Why didn't I buy the SpaceX IPO? Because I think it's a crappy investment! They tried to pump-and-dump but they sure couldn't catch me. See how easy it is?
I feel like you're unclear on what information asymmetry means.
This is "just don't get murdered!" style advice.
> Why didn't I buy the SpaceX IPO? Because I think it's a crappy investment! They tried to pump-and-dump but they sure couldn't catch me. See how easy it is?
The naïve retail investors you suggest should buy index funds will be exposed to SpaceX and the other AI companies through them, no?
> The naïve retail investors you suggest should buy index funds will be exposed to SpaceX and the other AI companies through them, no?
You're exposed to any company that hits the public market, depending on which ETF you buy. Could be the S&P 500 or a Total Market Index or some mix of those two plus international ETFs. You name it. Of course that's the downside of the ETF, but it's also the upside because the assumption is you can't pick winners and losers in the market so you buy them all.
I think, for example, Microsoft is a terrible investment because almost all of their products suck ass. I have shares though through an ETF and that's the price I pay because while I think it's a terrible investment I could be wrong. Just like you can be wrong about SpaceX.
Your point of contention here really just doesn't make a lot of sense.
You're declaring IPOs like SpaceX to be pump-and-dumps but not providing your own research and valuation model, and then at the same time complaining that retail investors who aren't doing their own research are going against industry advice and buying those IPOs, while also complaining that big banks shop IPO deals (as they have done for a century) to their high net worth clients who are... responsible investors who are making sophisticated decisions? And of course you're ignoring the fact that in order to offload bags one has to find someone to offload those bags to, there are lockup periods, due diligence, and other mechanisms in place to prevent or mitigate the scenario you are describing because it is bad business and you can be sued for doing shady things.
And you know what, maybe you're just wrong about SpaceX[1] and because the retail investors have shares due to the ETF they make more money than they otherwise would. In other words, calling something a pump-and-dump is just like, your opinion.
[1] I have no shares in SpaceX and don't care much about the company one way or the other besides being generally positive on space technology and exploration. I think Elon Musk is a loser, and I also don't own any direct shares in Tesla.
You appear to have misunderstood the role of the SEC. They will investigate civil violations of securities laws but there has been no credible allegation of such here. They don't take responsibility for stock valuation.
Well not really. So you're wrong here yet again. What's the total value of all minerals and resources on Earth. If SpaceX had a goal to colonize other planets or asteroids and the sum total value of the minerals and other resources that they had access to was greater than the value of what is here on earth, what exactly is a lie about that statement?
Of course, the aspiration and attempt may fail, but in this quote they did say if.
You're letting your dislike/distrust of Elon Musk cloud your judgement. If you don't like him or don't like what he says, don't buy shares in his companies, don't buy his products, and don't read what he writes.
> Well not really. So you're wrong here yet again.
I can do this, too, you know? "Nuh uh!"
> What's the total value of all minerals and resources on Earth.
That seems like an odd definition for Earth's value.
> You're letting your dislike/distrust of Elon Musk cloud your judgement.
No, I'm considering the fact that he has provably (in court!) lied about stuff like this, repeatedly, to the point of the SEC slapping a minder on the guy's tweets for a while.
> That seems like an odd definition for Earth's value.
It's not, you're just being argumentative for no reason.
It's very normal for someone to value a planet or other celestial body in terms of the value of the minerals or other resources on that body.
You can ask for clarification from them for what they really mean though, but just calling it an outright lie doesn't seem accurate.
> No, I'm considering the fact that he has provably (in court!) lied about stuff like this, repeatedly, to the point of the SEC slapping a minder on the guy's tweets for a while.
Don't buy shares in his companies if you don't like their business plans or believe their assumptions. Use your own judgement, create your own models, make your own assumptions.
> It's not, you're just being argumentative for no reason.
Aww, twinsies!
> It's very normal for someone to value a planet or other celestial body in terms of the value of the minerals or other resources on that body.
I don't think anyone has really had to value a planet yet.
(I'd assert Earth is at least as priceless as, say, the Mona Lisa.)
> Don't buy shares in his companies if you don't like their business plans or believe their assumptions. Use your own judgement, create your own models, make your own assumptions.
Sure but that applies to all of us with anything we disagree with. I think taxes are too high. "Blah blah do XYZ" I can just say "I have to live in this economy, unfortunately.". Ok.
Your argument is basically "in my opinion SpaceX is overvalued, therefore a lot of pump-and-dumps are going on and retail investors are buying them and losing money, therefore the economy is rigged" or something along those lines. Feel free to reframe it how you'd like but that's the gist of it. At the end of the day it's just not very coherent and I've repeatedly pointed out systematic reasons that it's wrong, I've pointed out how your valuation of any specific company is incomplete, and finally as you've tried to piece these things together you still have not made a consistent point and you've meandered around basically just complaining without really bringing anything to the table here. If SpaceX or any other company that is going to IPO is a pump-and-dump, show your work. At the end of the day it's just your opinion, and one in which most of society disagrees with.
> I don't think anyone has really had to value a planet yet.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's not possible or that you can't actually value the resources and minerals.
> (I'd assert Earth is at least as priceless as, say, the Mona Lisa.)
I'd mostly argue the same, but what something is worth is mostly just an opinion.
It's not the 1920s all over again.
> Of the investment banks that helped SpaceX IPO, Goldman Sachs has their price target at $205 (139x implied price to sales), JP Morgan at $225 (152x implied P/S), Deutsche Bank at $255 (173x implied P/S), Morgan Stanley at $300 (203x implied P/S), and Raymond James at $800 (542x implied P/S). ... I'm guessing you're perfectly fine with this behavior from the largest market participants?
Who do those investment banks sell to? How familiar are you with, for example, Goldman Sachs finding buyers for SpaceX shares? The minimum account requirement at Goldman last I checked was something like $10mm - do you really care if such investors are buying shares in overvalued companies or, like me, declining to purchase?
You are just throwing things around and not providing a coherent argument. Everyday investors don't have to buy these shares. They can continue to follow industry standard advice to buy total market index funds, or target date retirement funds or whatever. Investment banks sell to high net worth individuals who are by definition sophisticated investors - they know and accept the risk of such offerings. So no I don't care even a tiny bit if a Morgan Stanley client decides to buy what you consider to be overpriced shares in a "pump-and-dump" scheme based on your own certainly flawed and unsophisticated valuation of SpaceX or any other company.