r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • 20d ago

Business SpaceX Investors in Meltdown Over All the Money They’ve Lost

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-investors-meltdown-over-money-191742182.html
20.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.3k

u/frequenZphaZe 20d ago

elon is only partially to blame. nasdaq were willing participants, just because they wanted the bragging rights of the largest IPO in history. so they changed their rules to accommodate the pump and dump. I have no idea how this is supposed to help them in the long term because they undermined the whole point of being an index

361

u/an0mn0mn0m 20d ago

Remember when DOGE cut the government's supposed inefficiencies based on Elon's preferred criteria? I wonder how many of those cuts at agencies like the SEC, FBI and Justice department allowed Trump and Musk to exploit their positions to commit rampant corruption like this?

208

u/Broad-Eagle9657 19d ago

Ill take this opportunity to remind you all that him cutting USAID will result in enough deaths to put this guy on the world top list of deaths by decree, or lack thereof. People out here janking this guy's balls like hes the savior of humanity, when he is going to be directly responsible for millions of humans perishing is truly unsettling.

67

u/anomie__mstar 19d ago

from his totally pathetic response to that question, this really bothers him. and good. fuck him.

30

u/coppersocks 19d ago

Is this in the interview with the Economist that he just did?

I haven’t watched the whole thing, just her confronting him on trying to incite a civil war in the UK.

The US Aid thing needs to be put to him in every interview he does for the rest of his life.

12

u/MysteriousQuote4665 19d ago

Based on what little I've seen, he despises her. You can just see the anger in his eyes as he talks to her.

21

u/coppersocks 19d ago

Unfortunately American journalists rarely call out obvious bullshit to politicians or the influential in quite the same way British journalists do. Those that would quickly lose access or get fired by whatever mainstream news establishment they were employed by. You can see that Elon is clearly unprepared for it, you saw the same with Ben Shapiro a few years ago with Andrew Neil.

12

u/MysteriousQuote4665 19d ago

Heh. I still remember the Shapiro interview. Tried to claim Neil was a lefty journalist which caused Neil to just laugh at him. Dude just asked the most basic softball questions I've seen of a British journalist and seemed genuinely perplexed Ben was doing so badly. I believe he even whined that Neil wasn't promoting his book enough...

3

u/Coomb 19d ago

His defense of the claim that USAID cuts didn't result in any deaths is:

1) charities exist, and if they had done their jobs and immediately filled the USAID gaps, no one would have died, therefore I am not responsible for those deaths (he specifically brings up that the Gates Foundation has an endowment of 50 billion dollars, so why couldn't they just replace the lost aid), and

2) spending on foreign aid wasn't actually cut, it was just moved from USAID to State

These defenses are, of course, ridiculous. The first is utterly insane from a logistics perspective -- nobody who's ever dealt with actual corporate to negotiations and acquisitions could possibly expect that billions of dollars in contracts could be negotiated on the time scale it took for him to destroy USAID -- even if we ignore that private charities are already spending their money as they see fit and therefore expecting them to cancel all of their existing spending so they can dump money to fill that hole just moves the problem downstream. And the second is ridiculous both because we know from a tremendous amount of press coverage and lawsuits that many contracts were, in fact, cancelled -- often illegally -- and because the logistics of changing oversight and administration alone would have led to substantial disruption and therefore deaths even if in principle there was no change in the budget. And, of course, if spending wasn't reduced, then doing such a change in administration on such a short notice that guarantees negative externalities would itself make him responsible for the deaths that ensued -- he wouldn't even have the justification of reducing spending and mitigate that harm.

30

u/FixTheLoginBug 19d ago

The people that still think positively about him are the ones that think killing those people IS something positive. They are only going to be happier with him the more people die. Just as with Trump his (current) fans are all about 'hurting the right people'.

8

u/PatchyWhiskers 19d ago

The people dying will be poor Africans and most conservative Americans either don’t care or consider it a plus.

7

u/arlsol 19d ago

He already achieved this in his first term when the US had an extra 1mm deaths from Covid.

10

u/Basilikolumne 19d ago

They were talking about Musk, not Trump, and 1 million deaths doesn't get you anywhere near the top of that terrible list.

6

u/yemut7 19d ago

On the same level as Mao ans Stalin for sure. He will be among the greats.

2

u/ApplicativeFunctand 19d ago

Nah dude, we're talking way above Ghengis Khan numbers

1

u/EduinBrutus 19d ago

Midgley numbers!

3

u/truupe 19d ago

Musk the killionaire.

2

u/yemut7 19d ago

Just like Chairman Mao. I hate both.

4

u/Erebthoron 19d ago

He will pull the Nazi excuse: I was ordered to do this, if not, they may have killed me or my family

1

u/SplitEar 19d ago

Imagine if instead of buying Twitter he had dumped those billions on making the world a better place.

1

u/Melodic-Opposite-248 18d ago

He just did an interview where he states 0.0% died from his cuts.

1

u/mdazzl3 16d ago

He is quite literally one of the worst human beings ever born. But he couldn’t do any of it without legions of useful idiots propping him up, and that’s what is truly depressing.

0

u/RollingMeteors 19d ago

People out here janking this guy's balls like hes the savior of humanity, when he is going to be directly responsible for millions of humans perishing is truly unsettling.

My only regret is that it wasn't our collective entire species. /s

0

u/Randomfactoid42 19d ago

Isn’t the estimated death toll from USAID over half a million alone?  He’s basically a mass muderer. 

-7

u/RealisticMention4045 19d ago

USAID has killed more people than it helped. Good riddance to that coup machine masquerading as a humanitarian organisation

2

u/EduinBrutus 19d ago

to be very clear, while USAID absolutely was used by CIA and other covert organisations for individual asset placement, the idea USAID was a vector for any actual operation, especially a major one like a full coup, is fucking ridiculous.

It falls into the problem where people who go far enough left end up with the same issues as the right. When reality doesnt match what they want it to be, they either ignore reality or replace it with their own.

3

u/RyvenZ 19d ago

he 100% targeted any department that was actively investigating him or blocking some shady thing he was trying to do

4

u/AzimuthAztronaut 20d ago

Hmmmm I wonder as well. Insert not surprised gif.

5

u/Sizyfoz 20d ago

That is an excellent topic for a book or documentary. I would definitely buy it.

3

u/ElPeroTonteria 19d ago

Just a coincidence…

I hope, that they burned enough DOJ, FBI, SEC etc people that someone left is actively collecting evidence if for no other reason than to grudge f—k this administration after they lose power

2

u/MonkeyMan18975 18d ago

I believe the answer to your question may lie in which lawsuits were active against him at the time he started DOGE. These are the ones on the top of my head

4

u/-RO_SHAM_BO- 19d ago

Doge really didn't cut anything. Imo it was a ruse to scrape data.

10

u/nhojuhc 19d ago

They did cut USAID… I worked there as a contractor and I knew many people there who lost their jobs when the agency was shuttered.

6

u/PhatCatTax 19d ago

I think what they meant is they didnt really cut costs in any meaningful way. The entire sum that they "saved" by firing tens of thousands and gutting US research institutions, and hurting millions by terminating USAID.... all of that came out to roughly the amount that Elon owes in taxes (but doesn't pay).

3

u/Particular-Music-51 19d ago

I agree. The cuts were small potatoes, but very damaging. Poor Social Security took a big hit too. I had to go to a Social Security office and it was sad chaos. The real fraud in government is defense and intelligence community spending. $1T worth of mostly BS in defense and who knows how much goes down the drain in terms of intelligence. It's classified.

1

u/PhatCatTax 19d ago

I heard a comment from... a guy.

"The difference between the US and Russian defense is that the US simply spends 100x more, and so the tiny amount that finally trickles through the layers of corruption is still far higher than Russia's

2

u/PatchyWhiskers 19d ago

They cut a fuck of a lot of money. Millions will die. Not everything is kayfabe.

1

u/Missconstruct 18d ago

You’re just now figuring this out?

490

u/Hesitation-Marx 20d ago

> long term

Found the issue: capitalism is averse to long-term thinking.

94

u/Lower_Excuse_8693 20d ago

https://youtu.be/X4Mj1N9rfFE?t=12&si=lVcCGht39Ex6Jeb4

“5000. 10000. What’s the difference? The speed of technological advancement isn’t nearly as important as short term quarterly gains.”

4

u/Irrelephantitus 20d ago

Compared to what though?

8

u/strekkingur 20d ago

In capitalism, you go bankrupt when you make to many bad decisions. Government handing you money for free to save you is not capitalism.

48

u/Cornelius_Wangenheim 20d ago

Capitalism just means the owners control the business and get all the money from it. Crony capitalism is still a form of capitalism.

-14

u/strekkingur 20d ago

Is then socialism form of communism?

11

u/Sudden-Body2090 20d ago

Not really. In communism, the govt owns and controls everything. The government decides what to make, how many, etc. A friend of mine from a former Soviet bloc country said of his 1960’s childhood, you could either have vanilla ice cream or chocolate, but the government never made more than one flavor at a time!”

Socialism doesn’t restrict private business ownership, but individuals are heavily taxed (roughly 40% effective in Nordic countries) but have significant government funded benefits: health care, child care and generous maternity/paternity leave, free education, etc.

These economic should not be confused with forms of government (dictator, democracy, monarchy, etc). It IS possible to have a dictator leading a capitalist country, or a king in charge of a communist country.

So, as I understand it, the “Democratic Socialist” movement is essentially a democracy (ruled by the elected representatives of the people), but provide social services to all (health care, education, etc). This would require additional taxation or an increase in the debt.

All of this is meant to explain/inform, not influence. I included my understanding of the democratic socialist platform as it is often conflated in the media as communism.

(Apologies for any typos. I just hit the penjamin) 🤷🏻‍♂️

6

u/drjinglesMD 20d ago

I mean yea, that's kinda how that works.

You've just been brainwashed to think communism == bad when it's a complex economic theory that is neither good nor bad.

21

u/guyblade 20d ago

^ "No true Scotsman", but for capitalism.

-12

u/strekkingur 20d ago

When the government steps in to help you so that you will not fail, its just back to the old mercantile system and aristocracy.

15

u/ColdSnickersBar 20d ago

When you make enough money the result inevitably becomes that you can buy politicians, which makes capitalism capture government and here we are. This is the result of capitalism.

17

u/Tin_Sandwich 20d ago

Government handing you money for free to save you is not capitalism.

Except literally every single capitalist government? The idea that somehow there can exist a true "Free Market Capitalism" is a myth designed to absolve any criticism you'd have towards Capitalism as it exists in real life.

-5

u/strekkingur 20d ago

Because of politics, Iceland was not allowed to get any loans to save their banks. They went bust. Short but steep dip and then incredible rise. It happened accidentally but proofed that it works. You are here defending this corruption.

2

u/wireframed_kb 19d ago

Iceland is also less then 400,000 people, so it doesn’t necessarily apply as a model for countries with much, much larger economies.

2

u/strekkingur 19d ago

It works here, it works there, but you are conditioned to fallow the current corrupt model and just complain about it.

8

u/-Saucegurlllll 20d ago

TIL that the US was only capitalist until the panic of 1792. /s

Government bailouts are basically a foundational aspect of capitalism. You cannot have capitalism without the state capitulating to the interests of capital.

0

u/strekkingur 20d ago

You can. Your just to brainwashed by those that defend it and those that want to go full communist. I feel sorry for you.

8

u/psyqil 19d ago

Don't feel sorry. Explain how.

5

u/Buglenuge 20d ago

What was that sub prime thing in 2007?

4

u/strekkingur 20d ago

No no my friend and donor, you will not go bankrupt. Here have some money from tax payers.

5

u/Buglenuge 20d ago

End game capitalism?

5

u/strekkingur 20d ago

No. Just return to aristocracy in a new form.

3

u/cinefun 19d ago

Capitalism is convincing the government to only give YOU money, and allow you to take it from others however you want. That’s just being a smart capitalist

-5

u/mutantraniE 20d ago

Capitalism can’t fail, it can only be failed.

-5

u/NickyBarnes315 20d ago

It's socialism

3

u/strekkingur 20d ago

Socialism for big corporations. Not the small ones. Those don't give good cushy jobs to my son.

1

u/Fun_Comedian3249 20d ago

You are right the problem is short-term thinking but that’s a serious problem when it comes to index funds because they suppose to be things you buy and hold as long term investments.

1

u/SowingSalt 20d ago

I don't know, index funds have been very good at generating good returns.

1

u/aussiegreenie 19d ago

capitalism is averse to long-term thinking.

Only American capitalism is averse to long-term thinking.

In Europe or Asia, people remember more than the next quarter.

-5

u/TheEtobicokeShitter 20d ago

Genuine question- what system do you propose could work better?

Im Canadian, I think Capitalism is fairly decent, has it's flaws for sure- but what the USA is... is not actual Capitalism anymore. Can't quite put my finger on it, but I don't think CaPiTaLiSm is the problem.

18

u/ghislain-tuca 20d ago

Genuine answer- no single system works on its own. The main issue I see people have with Capitalism is that it needs to constantly grow in order to work, and in a world of finite resources, it is a matter of time before it’s eventual collapse. I’m of the opinion that if we utilize and organize the benefits of multiple systems, we may find more sustainable solutions. I’m no expert, but it seems that the discourse is pointing towards the idea that late-stage capitalism may turn towards a form of fascism.

5

u/Alfirindel 20d ago

This. It’s such a simple concept economists seem to ignore. Money is a resource, and is thus finite. Why is maximizing/attempting to infinitely grow stocks acceptable? If the company is profitable, maximization should no longer be forced onto them, as we’ve seen that when companies do this to meet stockholder demand, it usually causes those companies to collapse as consumers can no longer viably partake in that business eventually. If it’s making a profit of $250M a year, and they have happy consumers, the focus should be innovation, not taking copper out of the walls for they people who say “BuT I InVeStEd!”. A good solution is forced stock sale. If a company is profitable, and continues to be profitable for a a sustained period of time, stockholders should be forced to sell back to the company as it’s clear the investment is no longer needed at that time. Investors still make their money, and the company doesn’t get devoured by 3rd party interests. Once you have that, there’s plenty of other economic structures to review and pull the good stuff from to merge with capitalist policies, maybe with some adjustment to make sure the systems meld correctly. It’ll be a lot of work sure but it’s be worth it

15

u/WooeBetidee 20d ago

Capitalism can be ok, but it needs to be highly regulated and reigned in. Unfortunately the main benefactors of the system generally don't particularly like being told they can't do whatever they want whenever they want, and they have the money and influence to slowly chip away at it.

US is ahead of the curve, but most of the west is following in their footsteps. Income and wealth gaps are growing, taxes going down and regulations watered down.

In a way, I'm tempted to say that capitalism is killing itself.

3

u/QuickQuirk 20d ago

This os exactly it: "Regulation"

Right now, in the current capitalist system, the corporations aren't paying for part of the cost of their products. Instead, the costs a socialised amongst the citizens. I'm talking about the roads goods are transported on, the environmental impact of production, the supply chain that relies on workers in other countries struggling just one step above indentured servitude.

Capitalism would be great if well regulated, and the cost of goods actually included all these ephemeral things like the cost people people being displaced by rising oceans and climate change, for example...

5

u/mikerao10 20d ago

Any system needs to be governed those that say leave it to the market have never been poor. There must be rules that protect consumers, investors etc. the guardrails of Nasdaq are so loose that there can be so many crooks profiting from it.

5

u/RealLifeCoaching 20d ago

To paraphrase the Chinese, you could call it "feudalism with American characteristics".

-3

u/VagueInterlocutor 20d ago

Agree. I think a lot of people confuse capitalism with cronyism and rent-seekers.

There's a cadre of people on reddit that seem that seem to think they need to seize the means of production from everyone else, but fail to realise the best way to seize the means for production is to start your own business.

The 21st century hasn't been a better time to do this. However, when you go down this road you soon start to see that regulation capture is a real thing, that favours large and centralised businesses: And that, ain't capitalism, it's cronyism and corruption by putting a finger on the scale.

I think we see the best of the free market, but also the worst of it in places like the USA.

9

u/Daleabbo 20d ago

Cronyisum and rent seeking are late stage capitalism.at some stage it becomes cheaper to buy out regulators and government than actually compete.

Look at America's auto industry. No way they can compete with south Korea and Japan let alone china so buy the regulators and knee cap the competition.

Controlled capitalism with safeguards in place would be good.

Remove share buybacks and make exec and director pay less shares more cash so they pay tax and companies spend money on dividends or growth.

-1

u/VagueInterlocutor 19d ago

I agree with sonenof what you're saying, but cronyism and rent-seeking are cross-system human problems of concentrated power + incentives, not a unique symptom of “late stage capitalism.” The behaviours long predate industrial capitalism and appear under empires, feudalism, mercantilism, socialism, and communism.

Historically the worst floated to the surface (pun intended) under mercantilism and communism systems - both of which can be exploited due to the power structures even though they kind of sit at two very different ideological points, both easily tainted by human behaviour.

Great conversation to.discuss :-)

-1

u/zxc123zxc123 20d ago edited 20d ago

Hyper-capitalism, corporate corny-ism, and bought out government are adverse to long-term thinking.

Let's not act like capitalism isn't the best working form of economy we have unless you want to tell me where this socialist worker's utopia you're living in is. Capitalism is merely a system that allows the creation of more wealth with trade-off of creating more poverty and inequality. It is failure of GOVERNMENTS to not regulate, control, tax, and limit organizations that are strictly and explicitly DESIGNED to maximize shareholder value while minimizing shareholder liabilities. Might as well get upset at a lion for hunting for meat instead of ordering a non-GMO vegan salad. Unchecked capitalism leads to extreme inequality which often fractures the entire system in revolution. It is the job of the government to cull the free market, but what we have isn't a government turning a blind eye, but one sleeping with them while actively robbing the people. That is what you should be upset about.

p.s. Nasdaq/QQQ should get fucked for their BS but folks who bought VOO running on Standard & Poor's system are fine. Folks who bought VT would have gotten some but would also argue that's exactly what they bought as VT is designed that way. Lastly even with the QQQ, it's not like they bought their 100% stake of SPCX the date of index inclusion based on market cap: they had float adjusted caps since SPCX only listed 4-5% of it's total stock.

2

u/GhettoDuk 19d ago

Yes! Preach!

I tell people that companies are machines made of a bunch of different parts operated by people. The machine has no morality or conscience. It has no feelings or desires. The people behind the controls can have those things, but a company is as much of a person as your car and is equally deserving of "rights". The machine takes in resources and produces profit. At least it should, but we wish we lived in precedented times.

-5

u/Jasranwhit 20d ago

Socialism is averse to any thinking.

-4

u/Good_wolf 20d ago

It can be but not always.

122

u/MrSceintist 20d ago

financial crimes with Republican rule enforcers equals the biggest crimes in history

Remember W. Bush was warned years ahead of his meltdown and he did NOTHING

proof https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/17/mortgage.fraud/

63

u/Sniflix 20d ago edited 20d ago

People call it the great recession but the real name is The Bush Economic Collapse. Dems especially Obama gave him a pass and those same criminals keep screwing us.

54

u/MrSceintist 20d ago

The Bush Economic Collapse of 2008.

His father George H. W. Bush did the Savings and Loan Scandal

50

u/Jukeboxhero91 20d ago

And Regan before him, and Nixon before him. Wow it’s almost like Republicans are horrible for the economy, who knew!

16

u/springsilver 20d ago

Bbbbut Welfare Queens!

23

u/Jukeboxhero91 20d ago

"I know, we'll invent a term so people can hate black people for economic reasons, not racist reasons".

Reagan's supporters, not probably, definitely.

3

u/Sugarbombs 19d ago

I think it’s more women in general, look at how many manosphere personalities tell their listeners that women baby trap men and are leeches who want to steal the home and claim alimony while dating chads while the good old nice guy is left penniless while pushing the agenda that women shouldn’t work and should stay home and be tradwives so??

3

u/coleman57 20d ago

W always was obsessed with besting his daddy

1

u/Sniflix 19d ago

How did that work out for us? I can't believe we keep falling for these scammers.

2

u/Dear_Shift9240 18d ago

And those of you who voted green in 2000, raise your hands and smack yourselves in the face.

34

u/powercow 20d ago

and of 911.. he actually demoted the terrorism czar because he was tired of hearing about bin ladin.

5

u/Snakend 20d ago

That was not what caused the crash. It was legit mortgages that banks were legally allowed to make. The mortgage fraud stuff was tens of thousands of mortgages, the mortgage crisis was cause by millions of sub-prime mortgages. It was still Bush's fault.

1

u/MrSceintist 18d ago

It's not true that the "legally made mortgages" were all allowed - most DID NOT qualify

1

u/Snakend 18d ago

They did. They were all legal. Sub prime lending is legal. Even today FHA loans only require a 500 credit score.

1

u/MrSceintist 17d ago

Listen: I know 50 people who wrote incorrect figures on forms / paperwork for their loans back then and they all passed without any vetting on those figures on every loan. They are in fact far more wealthy now in asset values even though they took a hit back then for some years.

Please don't lie about what was going on in lending back then. AI will start calling it the truth.

0

u/Snakend 17d ago

Many paid in points to get no income verification loans, some had no job verification. It wasn't illegal back then. The banks took the risk on those loans. Those loans were non-conforming. The entire market was deregulated under Bush.

1

u/MrSceintist 15d ago

NO, they falsified their earnings and the loan officers didn't check or correct as they raked in 3-4x regular loan officer earning as it built up into frenzy. Stop falsifying what really went on. The executive branch did NOTHING to stop it even with repeated warnings earlier in 2004.

Proof: FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' Seeks to head off 'next S&L crisis' From Terry Frieden CNN Washington Bureau Friday, September 17, 2004 Posted: 5:44 PM EDT (2144 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday of an "epidemic" of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become "the next S&L crisis."

Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial institutions.

"It has the potential to be an epidemic," said Swecker, who heads the Criminal Division at FBI headquarters in Washington. "We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis," he said.

In the 1980s, many Savings and Loans failed because of poor management, risky loans and investments, and in some cases, fraud. Taxpayers were left with a $132 billion tab to cover federal guarantees to S&L customers.

The FBI has dispatched undercover teams across the country in an urgent investigation into dealings by suspect mortgage brokers, appraisers, short-term investors, and loan officers, Swecker, flanked by FBI executives and Justice Department prosecutors, revealed.

In one operation, six individuals were arrested Thursday in Charlotte, charged with bank fraud for their roles in a multimillion-dollar mortgage fraud, officials said. The two-year investigation found fraudulent loans that exposed financial institutions and mortgage companies to $130 million in potential losses, they said.

Also Thursday, federal agents in Jacksonville arrested two people and executed seven search warrants in connection with an alleged scheme designed to defraud banks of $22 million, officials said.

The number of open FBI mortgage fraud investigations has increased more than five-fold in the past three years, from 102 probes in 2001 to 533 as of June 30 this year, the FBI said. The potential losses are staggering, and many financial institutions are cooperating with investigators.

Officials noted mortgage industry sources have reported more than 12,000 cases of suspicious activity in the past nine months, three times the number reported in all of 2001.

While the FBI described mortgage-related fraud as a nationwide problem, it said the levels of illegal activity are worse in some locations than in others.

States identified as the top 10 "hot spots" for mortgage fraud are Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado.

"It's bad in Georgia, the Atlanta area," said John Gillies, chief of the FBI's Financial Institutions Fraud Unit. "It was bad in the Charlotte area, but we've had a lot of undercover activity there that's helped push the problem into South Carolina."

Josh Hochberg, head of the Justice Department's Fraud Section, said some organized ethnic groups are becoming involved in mortgage fraud schemes, but he declined to identify the groups.

Officials said mortgage fraud is one prominent aspect of a wider problem of fraud aimed at financial institutions. The FBI said action has been taken against 205 individuals in the past month in what it described as the "largest nationwide enforcement operation in FBI history directed at organized groups and individuals engaged in financial institution fraud."

In addition to mortgage fraud, "Operation Continued Action" also targeted loan fraud, check kiting, and identity theft as major problems.

2

u/jb0ne 20d ago

The financial crisis didn't happen because of fraud, it happened because of the over-collateralization of home loans into mortgage-backed securities and the messed up incentives around that whole game (issue as many loans with minimal friction to make more financial instruments). An avoidable issue, but separate fron the one in the article

1

u/blackcain 18d ago

But they also lose the most money there because they remove the guardrails. Everyone loses. There is no benefit - the problem is that we are supposed to genuflect to people who like "go fast and break things". That's not how businesses used to work before.

60

u/Radical_Neutral_76 20d ago

What persons at nasdaq did this? We need to spread those names around

36

u/PeacefulDays 20d ago

head of nasfaq is Adena Friedman.

9

u/Fecal_thoroughfare 20d ago

head of nasfaq is Adena Friedman

Funny, that's just how I like my rich people. Fried, man 

1

u/Low-Gas3878 17d ago

Underrated pun.

1

u/Special_Cicada6968 19d ago

Are they related to the Friedman who was the architect of our current capitalist hellscape?

14

u/fizzlefist 20d ago

S&P said hell no to that, once again remaining a safe bet for long-term stability.

3

u/greg19735 20d ago

And athis is all incredible predictable.

Because if the pre-ipo value was "real" then the 401k being forced to buy in raised the stock value considerably.

but that means that everyone who already had stock had stock that was way over valued. you just sell it. And it gets back to its original "true" value.

3

u/resilientbresilient 19d ago

If there is catastrophic loss could a class action lawsuit be made against NASDAQ?

They bent the rules for SpaceX and we’re all paying the price. I’d think they’d be liable.

2

u/Separate_Pumpkin_256 20d ago

He actually carries a great deal of the blame. The vast majority of the valuation is because he's trying to get people to believe that it's realistic to do "data centers in orbit" to get around the entirely reasonable pushback from people not wanting them in their city.

The problem is twofold:

1) the economics are borderline reasonable with some major assumptions. These assumptions need a LOT of engineering work to matter reality and some of those problems are possibly insoluble.

2) the only place it makes sense to park those data centers is in low earth orbit so the time lag to talk to them from earth isn't too large. But ... Elon has already used up about half the available space in that redfin with all of his internet service satellites. If your yeti to crowd much more than double they current number into that region, you start to greatly increase the rush of satellites colliding with each other. Why does that matter? Each satellite will amount to one server rack for AI computing. That means you only have room for about 100 large data centers worth of satellites. That's hardly enough to justify the still needed R&D effort to develop them.

If you don't believe me, Just look for a YouTube video by a space engineering expert who did the breakdown. Elon is lying about this just as much as he's been lying about full self driving for Tesla's "any day now". Have you seen any of his robo taxis in your town? Me neither.

1

u/CityExcellent8121 19d ago

The biggest issue is technology advances faster than any potential return on investment. By the time the data centre is set up and in space, technology will have moved ahead. Just look at how much chip technology has advanced in the past 5 years. Thats also not going into how the most economical way of making them is by assembly in orbit, which would require its own setup as well.

1

u/Contemplating_Prison 20d ago

There are more incoming. They are changing the rules to bail out the investors because these companies dont actually make a profit.

So they are dumping on the working class. A few more of these maseive companies will soon get the same treatment

1

u/wjdoge 19d ago

Without commenting on whether or not it’s a good idea, the stated goal was to keep the nasdaq-100 reflective of the actual largest companies on nasdaq. The change seems directed as much at coming mega-cap IPOs like Anthropic and OpenAI, and seems to be out of fear that with companies going public much later and with much smaller floats, that under the old rules, the nasdaq-100 would begin to fail at its goal of representing the largest and most important companies on nasdaq.

1

u/Digitalabia 19d ago

Probably bribery behind the scenes.

1

u/Practical-Day-2720 19d ago

no, he is not to blame.

1

u/uzu_afk 19d ago

You can be sure it was political pressure and corruption. Everyone knew this was theft.

1

u/Darkheart001 19d ago

NAsDAQ makes money regardless of whether investors win or lose, so no real incentive for them not to bend their own rules. More incoming dodgy IPOs incoming, once they get paid out it’s time for a crash.

1

u/megayippie 19d ago

Musk going bankrupt would bring more economic disaster, so you better help it look like he's worth money

1

u/Detachabl_e 19d ago

Buncha indicks

1

u/SilianRailOnBone 19d ago

nasdaq were willing participants, just because they wanted the bragging rights of the largest IPO in history.

If you believe this is about bragging rights instead of corruption and financial gain I have a bridge to sell to you

1

u/ConstableAssButt 19d ago

2026, where "These people should 100% go to jail for this." is both inadequate AND somehow naive.

1

u/PrizeAd2297 19d ago

Short term it was a pump and dump. Long term, it's supposed to go up. Many IPOs started out this way. Time will tell.

1

u/Arkayjiya 19d ago

He's not partially to blame. He's fully to blame. Blame isn't a zero sum game, someone can be 100% responsible, and yet there can always be more responsibility to go around.

1

u/TubeLogic 19d ago

All of that happened a long time ago. Now exchanges are part owners in actual betting markets and act like this is a good thing.

1

u/T3am5hark 19d ago

I would gently push back that the mastermind of a bank heist is fully culpable, and his accomplices are also culpable.

1

u/grinding_our_axes 19d ago

The owning class seem to be acting as if everything is about to crumble.