Yes it can, since they changed the rules to force over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations.
From https://x.com/Hedgeye/status/2060435253928604065:
"Rule changes for the SpaceX $SPCX IPO:
Index providers waived the profitability requirement and cut the seasoning window from 90 days to 5.
This forces over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations.
Bloomberg Intelligence estimates S&P 500 funds must absorb 19% of SpaceX's float within 6 months.
Russell 1000 and Nasdaq 100 funds will absorb 24%.
The rules built to protect passive investors:
1. S&P 500 has required 12 months of trading and 4 quarters of GAAP profitability since 2002. Both waived.
2. Nasdaq cut its inclusion window from 90 trading days to 15.
3. FTSE Russell cut its to 5.
All three benchmarks are now structured to buy SpaceX at IPO pricing."
1. Twitter is purchased with debt
2. Debt is transferred to xAI via acquisition of X/Twitter
3. Debt is further transferred to SpaceX via acquisition of xAI
4. SpaceX IPO offered at extreme valuation
5. Index fund inclusion rules waived for SpaceX IPO: profitability requirement, inclusion period cut from 90 to 5 days
6. Index funds are largely held by passive investors such as pension funds.
7. Index fund managers are not incentivized to exclude a SpaceX from their indexes. (?)
8. Holders of original X/Twitter debt (banks) incentivized to support the rule waiver since post IPO, SpaceX will have liquidity to service/pay the debt.
9. Passive investors are unable to rapidly respond to these types of changes because liquidating portfolios will incur capital gains taxes. (?)
10. SpaceX is in Texas jurisdiction, where shareholder lawsuits are not possible and must instead go for arbitration. (?)
Correction: index funds don't have a choice. They must follow the index, and so must buy the stock.
side effect: they'll have to sell other stocks, pushing their prices and weighting in market cap weighted indexes down.
> Passive investors are unable to rapidly respond to these types of changes because liquidating portfolios will incur capital gains taxes. (?)
For some active investors, yes. For passive investors (say you through your employer's pension fund), the tax isn't the problem. It's that the market has such a short time to adjust the price of these companies before indexes are forced to include them--and so might buy them at wildly inflated prices. Then, not too long after, the early investors can sell at still-high prices as soon as their lockup periods end. It's a massive transfer of wealth from pension funds and index investors to the early investors in those companies.
Maybe, most indexes do not have to follow the index. they just need to match the returns. An index fund manager has choice of what stocks to buy. However an index fund doesn't have enough managers to make many choices and so they normally buy just what is in the index. However all index fund managers know they are large enough that if they change their holdings "instantly" when the index it self changes the market will collapse and so the fund will under perform. Thus index fund managers are always trying to figure out what the index will do so they can start buying/selling stocks in smaller amounts before the change happens.
How each fund handles this is up to the managers. (and "total market" funds have less ability and need to do this)
Just look up the performance of Mutual Funds vs S&P500.
Again, the vast majority of the time they are matching the index stocks. However they have the right.
Typically managers pay is such that they don't get awards for guessing correctly, so they won't get any upside from a correct second guess, and they will see downsides from incorrect guesses.
Also unlike traditional funds, there are not enough managers to follow every company, so they can't pick stocks that will win just because they don't have enough to time research the stock. When they pick a stock they are just looking at the high level will this company perform like the other peers in the industry long term.
On the other hand, do you want to be the one who says, "As a rule we follow the index, but this time we decided to break our own rule, and as a result we lost X% of returns"?
Better wrong with everybody else than wrong on my own.
Changing one of those features undermines the reasons for including the index. Doing it specifically for the purpose of including a firm where large pension funds have also been extraordinarily critical of the governance structure as a particular source of risk [0] even moreso.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/new-york-california...
Right, if they've advertised as an S&P 500 index fund, they have to robotically follow the S&P 500, stupid inclusions and all. Changing that strategy would require ... a lengthy process involving input from shareholders.
However, someone can still start e.g. a "classic S&P 500" fund that follows the old rules for inclusion, and I suspect we'll see that in response to these recent decision.
Nevertheless it is part of a pattern of weird deals in Elon’s companies. He’ll do anything to move the goalposts and turn his failures into successes. There is no norm he won’t violate, no boundary he won’t cross.
But the story is not about all indices being wrong, the story is about index management being corrupted. Like bond ratings on mortgages in the run-up to 2008.
"Im too busy to spend 30 minutes to move my retirement somewhere I trust" just doesnt cut it.
People should honestly read Killing the Sacred Cows it’s an eye-opener for anyone invested in 401k.
Doesn’t it say that it’s a retirement fund, intended to be saved until retirement age? The 10% penalty is little more than a wrist slap level deterrent, too. It’s usually like ~1 year of returns. Not a huge deal if you need to dip into it.
(There’s plenty to criticize about the whole 401k system of retirement accounts. But these criticisms seem misguided)
People putting retirement funds in a pile of companies that often have little impact on local communities they live in.
They’re changing laws to fast-track sketchy IPOs, putting hard earned money at risk why? So we can send people on a death-mission to Mars?
Point being, they are doing what they will with other people’s money and won’t suffer the consequences. Removing the checks and balances is exactly how financial disasters happen.
No, they absolutely don't fear prison (but they should).
It's just the aggregate behaviour of a group of people optimizing for short term profit and self-enrichment over everything and without any need for long-term careful planning because for various reasons they are pursuing the short term at all costs.
Let’s not make billions into a footnote?
Twitter has about $13B of debt, and about $1.5B of annual interest payments (that’s how much it actually needs to come up with this year). SpaceX has a planned IPO market cap of $2T and plans to raise $75B cash during the IPO.
Is 5% a footnote, maybe.
It could nonetheless be worth trillions by the end of the day.
Simple as.
To explore this (hopefully parody) alt history, I don't know why the us gov wouldn't waited 70 some years for spacex to reach this point to grant that monopoly versus handing it off to the usual collection of defense contractors, eg raytheon (or whatever they're called now), Rand, etc.
Unfortunately, if you really start digging in to what is going on in the financial world, you will find he has violated no norms here. This is not a defense of Elon; this is a condemnation of the entire financial industry.
The whole thing scares me, honestly. It has never been a clean happy market where lots of honest people get together and are just honestly trying to make a better world for each other, there is no golden past where people were just nice or anything, but damn if computers don't let people build some structures that the robber barons of old could only have dreamt of. I'm really concerned that "index and chill" doesn't just have a "best by" date but that the best-by date could be in the past; I've heard of an awful lot of ways of exploiting it and other retirements schemes we have, this is just one. I find it implausible that these ideas exist but nobody is doing them.
There is video explaining the process
Pension operators are not typically passive. It's a different story to say that maybe they should be given that their returns don't always match up with index funds.
Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citigroup
They all know how idiotic Tesla investors are, and they all want those idiots to pick up their bags.
Also: SpaceX debt is $20 billion.
Personally, I do think SpaceX is overvalued at these proposed IPO numbers and I will trade accordingly. So should anyone else who is confident and competent at taking appropriate market positions.
1. https://www.investmentnews.com/practice-management/spacexs-i...
which is exactly why public markets have always been a superior price discovery mechanism in comparison to private markets
Like if both these stocks become penny stocks what happens to the indices?
Isn’t the whole point that they are hedged across the whole market?
how could an index fund possibly have anyone's back? It's in index of the top 500 publicly traded companies. that's all. If SpaceX or Tesla or Anthropic or anyone else fall out of the top 500 then they fall off the index by definition.
I think a lot of these comments are coming from extreme emotions associated with AI and Elon Musk and not so much the way things work and will play out.
* S&P500: 0.08% – 0.12%
* NASDAQ-100: 0.47% – 0.70%
* Russell 1000: 0.1%
What Spacex/Elon are doing is sketchy as hell. But the numbers involved here are not terribly meaningful for your portfolio.
At IPO, $75B of Spacex shares will be bought/sold. The S&P 500 uses float-adjusted weightings, and the current float-adjusted total is $54T. If you are 100% invested in SPY, then about 0.14% of your holdings will be spacex on IPO day (75B/54T~=0.14%).
Obviously Musk and friends will start dumping some of the locked up float (~1.65T) when they can. But they definitely will not be doing so in a way that crashes the price or the market. That's in nobody's interest.
If you assume that half of the shares end up as float eventually (post-lockup), you'd end up owning around 1.6% of spacex in your S&P 500 etf (875B/~55T~=1.6%). That's not nothing but it's not significant enough that you should consider liquidating your 401k.
I'm picking on Spacex specifically because they are the biggest and imo, have the sketchiest/worst finances of the 3.
IF SpaceX is actually worth 400-500bn and it's a few hundred billion dollars of fleece, sure, that's a "small" amount (still.. lord almighty it is never enough for these people). But the hazard is that it is a fleece. That would shake confidence in the system, the bear case is basically unlimited at that point.
I dunno, the logical explanation makes sense, but markets don't work on logic especially on the short term. People fearing what other people will do and act in anticipation is known to happen.
Spacex/Anthropic/OpenAI almost certainly won't crash the market. The most probable thing to happen is that all 3 of these rally a surprising amount on their opening day, because there will be so much forced buying of the shares.
In my opinion, the most likely bagholders will be any retail traders that buy these stocks before the lockups expire.
I think it's very likely that we see the following:
IPO day -> all 3 close higher than opening price.
1 month -> price settles into a range 20-30% higher than IPO price.
6-12 months -> price is back near IPO price +-5%. Anyone who bought and held in the first 3 months has unrealized losses.
IPO's fairly reliably pop on day one. The performance in the first 6 months is mixed but skews slightly negative.
But the size of these 3, combined with the rule changes that are allowing them to be included in the indices much quicker than normal, means this time is very different than what we've seen before.
What you should do is have an Investor Policy Statement[0].
This should contain at least two things:
- your desired Asset Allocation (e.g. 30% U.S. stocks, 30% International stocks, 20% U.S. bonds, 20% International bonds) which should be decided upon based on specific, personal goals and risk tolerance
- your strict policy rules for if and when to do anything, if ever, e.g. (don't sell anything ever, or... rebalance your portfolio if one of your allocations is more than 2% from the desired goal)
Now... if say U.S. stocks took a big dump in the next 6 months (while other asset classes either grew, held steady, or simply didn't drop as much), when it would drop below 28% of your allocation, and you'd open a spreadsheet and figure out which other asset classes to sell a few percentage of, to buy the reduced price U.S. stock funds. (This is a policy-driven buy low, sell high strategy.)
[0] https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Investment_policy_statement
On what grounds? What tort have you suffered?
If you want change (and who wouldn't?) you need to talk to your representatives, not the courts.
Also some EU pension funds are already in the process of divesting from US markets...
And where will they go to?
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/124-trillion-global-stock-m...
Amazon is worth $2.81T right now and only represents 4.03% of the S&P500.
So a $1T share would represent less than 2% of the S&P500. This is significant for a single company, and 6% for 3 shit-tier companies (SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic) is even more significant, but we're far from "losing retirement if they go bust"-levels.
It is especially telling if we try to list out all the psychological biases at play:
- Availability & salience bias - vivid, memorable things feel more important than they are
- Narrative bias - humans tend to think in stories, and AI tells plenty
- Recency and novelty bias — new things feel more consequential than established ones (this one already drives like 80% of all HN content btw)
- Proportionality neglect - people are bad at intuitively grasping what percentages mean, even if they see the stats
- Social proof and reflexivity - coverage signals importance, and drives more coverage
- Status quo invisibility - things that work reliably become invisible (surprisingly, HN is really good in terms of working against this bias, I feel like at least 5% of all posts are some niche "inner daily workings" topics)
- Speculation premium in attention - uncertainty generates more discussion than certainty
- In-group signaling - cutting-edge things are status markers among influencershttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_float
I hear S&P 500 is weighted on float rather than on market cap, while Nasdaq 100 is based on market cap.
> most share indices weight firms in proportion to the value only of shares they have released for public trading (the “free float”). For SpaceX, this means just the $75bn or so of stock it intends to issue in June—so its initial weight in the S&P 500 will be around 0.1%. The NASDAQ 100 is an exception, and has changed its rules to weight companies at up to three times their free float, in an apparent effort to woo Mr Musk. Even so, SpaceX’s probable initial weight in this $40trn index will still only be around 0.5%.
NVIDIA Corp NVDA 8.02%
Apple Inc AAPL 6.53%
Microsoft Corp MSFT 4.84%
Amazon.com Inc AMZN 4.01%
Broadcom Inc AVGO 3.36%
Alphabet Inc GOOGL 3.32%
Alphabet Inc GOOG 3.09%
Meta Platforms Inc META 2.23%
Micron Technology Inc MU 1.71%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc AMD 1.19%
Oracle Corp ORCL 0.99%
That's 40% of the S&P 500.
And if anything happens to the AI bubble all of these go down together. While they won't all go to zero and cause a "-40%" overnight, Nvidia's rise is so meteoric that they will trigger a -8% and the rest's valuation has more than doubled since 2023. Even Apple, which isn't much of an "AI company", is still following the AI-tech hype.
If Nvidia eats shit, and the others go -50%, that translates to an overall ~-24% on the stock market.
Before any contagion outside the tech industry is considered. Look at the Dotcom Bubble and a -40% to -50% crash is quite plausible.
This is the key comparison. It's not the "Pets dot com" side of the DotCom bubble, but the Telecom Bubble that followed. (All the AI startups that just repackage someone else's inference will go the way of Pets dot com, but their economic impact is minimal)
Certainly, Big Tech has massive cashflows. But those cashflows were priced into the 2023 valuations.
That is what makes the current valuations so ominous. Just a correction back to 2023 would be enormous. And as you note, a lot of these companies are taking on debt, dumping huge investments into AI. They're worse off than they were in 2023. Oracle may straight up go bankrupt.
> Oracle may straight up go bankrupt.
And nothing of value would be lost.
I do not want things to go kaboom, the CAPE index seems to indicate that what I want isn't relevant.
And that is on top of the IPO companies losing value themselves, this seems likely to trigger a doom-loop until the market reaches a low enough value. This will likely trigger layoffs and companies reducing spending and investments further depressing the economy. Added inflation from oil prices and war.
This doesn't seem like one big balloon ready to burst, but more like a house suspended by hundreds of balloons and they are about to be ran over by an airplane.
You mean our pension funds?
"Reasonable" is doing herculean amounts of work as usual, as it is implicitly operating under a thief's logic that the target didn't really deserve it anyway therefore if I steal all of it I will be justified.
We see the same shit when regiemes 'nationalize' segments of the economy and then wonder why instead of miraculously getting better without the 'exploiters' things turn to shit and absolutely nobody wants to trade with them. Empathy such a foreign concept to them that they don’t understand why merchants refuse to trade with those who steal businesses wholesale. Whose only response when confronted about their crimes is lame whataboutisms and victim blaming.
But this doesn't solve the problem in any way; it simply leads to production drop.
I mean, this is literally the logic of every communist government in the 20th century. They had the same logic that "given the mechanization of agriculture, food practically produces itself; you just need to throw a seed in the ground and give it a couple of tractor rides, and the earth will do the rest. Therefore, we need a tax on such activity, because we have enough resources to feed everyone".
In other words, it's literally a pure tax on automation. The results were mass deaths from starvation every single time.
There has yet to be an attempt at a centrally planned economy that actually had accurate data to plan with.
Not advocating for central planning but the important point is that these failure modes are possible under any tyrannical regime. For an example of where capitalist competition fell down in a similar way, look no further than the Irish potato famines.
Actually, no. What you're describing is more of a part of the next stage, designed to solve the already existing problem of famine, rather than its cause.
When communists come to power, they don't try in the first place to reorganize food production under strict centralization; this directly contradicts Marxism, according to which the state gradually withers away as a communist society is built. They simply try to redistribute what is already being produced in a more fair manner, to force peasants to contribute their "fair share" to society.
This causes production to plummet, people are dying of hunger, and only then the government takes control of organization of food production, and only after that do the factors you mentioned become relevant.
But the famine itself under communism, at least in its initial, most massive iteration, is not a consequence of a tyrannical regime, but is a consequence of the "taxation policy" being pursued.
It's absolutely correct that we can easily feed, clothe, house everyone. We can even give everyone comforts. It's mostly greed that prevents it. Greed that capitalism spends $trillions cultivating by brain-washing us all to want more and never be satisfied.
> It's mostly greed that prevents it
Greed is a human axiom. Anything that depends on humans not being greedy isn't worth the paper it's printed on. That's why capitalism won, despite its many faults: it requires human greed to function.
No, I don't think so. From a historical point of view, everything is quite clear: after communists came to power, the most severe famines occurred even before this totalitarian dictatorship is build, as a consequence of these very tax policies, the purpose of which is "easily feed, clothe, house everyone".
Totalitarian dictatorship comes later, as the problem transform to "we can easily feed, clothe, house everyone, but they don't want to, so we should force them"
The fact it became an all-inclusive all-year-round vacation reward is an anomaly which is getting corrected. Too bad for us we're the generations holding the bag.
Caring for grandchildren, running clubs and societies, giving their experience to local politics.
At 60, women who had daughters at 30, whose daughters just had children would be well placed to help with childrearing.
These sorts of things got lost in UK with equality and the pensions crisis.
I suppose when we look at things like the 4-day week, we imagine more time and energy available for social cohesion. Or I do at least.
Current system: Work until you die.
New system collapses: Work until you die.
New system lucks out: Probably get returns (pension).
Current system isnt great but works. Just fear uncertainity doubt here.
"back of the napkin" logic:
~2M FAANG employees (source: Gemini & this includes all types of employees...is your avg Amazon delivery driver regularly reading HN?)
~10M HN users (source: Gemini (via HN post :)) )
Data from 2022, so if we multiply it by 2 I would say 26k real hacker news users.
Wasnt the stat that for 1 creator there are 10 commenters and 1000 viewers?
Unless I'm misunderstanding this, buying at the sale price is the least risky way of purchasing the stock, which is what index funds should do. They should pursue the least risky way of indexing the market
More importantly, it allowed organic price discovery to occur. This eschews that process because the indexes are _forced_ to participate essentially at _any_ price, so rather than the market writ large having the opportunity to reward or punish the underwriter pricing of the IPO and determine any true idea of price, they're forced to buy the banker's narrative, which will intrinsically prop up the stock to some degree, but at what cost, and based on what underlying?
While I like the dreams Musk sells of self-driving cars so good they don't need steering wheels, of space colonisation and useful robot workers cheap enough that I could personally afford them, at this point I don't trust him in particular to actually deliver any of those things.
(And no, you can't convince me with some variant of "look at ${current version} of FSD" or "look at progress with Starship", etc., that's like responding to someone who doubts you can build a house by pointing to a pile of bricks: they're a necessary step, but aren't sufficient).
If you disagree with him, he might brand you a paedophile.
Then the rules were changed.
They don't, while timing certainly benefits, and potentially was triggered by them and OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs, these rules are not specific to only apply to SpaceX.
FTSE Russell (Russell 1000/2000 etc.) Adopted "fast entry" for large IPOs. Eligible companies (investable market cap above Russell Top 500 cutoff) can join after 5 trading days (previously quarterly rebalances). Also eased float rules with carve-outs.
https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-rus...
Nasdaq (Nasdaq-100): Effective May 1, 2026, top ~40 market-cap companies can enter after 15 trading days (previously 3+ months). Adjusted low-float handling.
https://spotgamma.com/spacex-ipo-index-changes-spotgamma/
S&P Dow Jones (S&P 500): Reducing seasoning from 12 months to 6 months for megacaps and waiving the 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement for large issuers.
https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/stock-indexes-are-contort...
So the question remains, why do they warrant a rule change?
The links above provide specifics as to the what's and the why.
It does not, of course, but when oligarch corruption runs supreme, it is whatever they want.
It's basically a money transfer from the average person to the poor richest person on the planet.
The true Great Filter is mental illness, apparently.
I wonder how much better Anthropic is doing.
I wouldn't bet on either Anthropic or OpenAI being profitable, we'll find out soon enough what this house of cards has inside, as they both want to IPO.
Though with the current US administration, as proven by the SpaceX IPO, laws are mere recommendations.
> While I wouldn’t say this is cooking the books, it’s definitely a shiatsu-grade massaging of the numbers. Anthropic has deliberately leaked a quarterly “profit” where it knows it can suppress its costs
https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle...
It turns out, there are many ways to skin a financial cat.
Are they breaking laws?
Instead blame the bankers and market who are putting buying in at 1.5T valuation.
If people really don't want SpaceX in their S&P 500 tracking ETF, we should see a S&P-ex SpaceX in short order.
It is absurd to blame "market" that did not had enough time to settle. "Bankers" are to blame for making this rules change happen.
It is entirely valit to blame people who changed the rules to allow this to happen.
"People" don't know much about finance to put it mildly. ETFs are created by market demand. Even "factors" ETFs are often based on completely irrational things like dividends, P/E ratios and other meaningless metrics. This happens because people are easily seduced by narratives ("solid dividend paying stocks", "low P/E ratio - good returns") which are plainly wrong but tempting to an average person.
Most people realized they don't know anything about finance and would like to pay someone (their fund manager) to make responsible decisions and expose them to wide market while avoiding blatant manipulations. Unfortunately the incentives are misaligned here. The managers' incentives are somewhere else. They are not paid by long term performance of their fund and they are disproportionally penalized for taking contrarian decisions.
People being force feed those mega IPOs losing money on them is bad for others as well - there will be less wealth for productive investments and more in hands of "players" (or scammers if you want to call it out). There might be a crash. Trust in financial market will plummet and hostile regulation might arise which other market participants will pay for even though they are not to blame.
I will not have exposure to those mega IPOs but I am in privileged position because:
-My understanding of financial markets is much better than that of an average person.
-I have quite a bit of time to follow all of it and react in time
-I pay 0% capital gain tax and use a broker with nearly 0 fees which allows me to rotate for free (almost)
-I know where and how to move my money so I don't lose advantages of wide market exposure
It took me a lot of effort to set it all up like that. An average person falls short on all of the above and is not in position to avoid donating part of their pension fund to Musk and Altman though. It is still bad for me for reasons mentioned above.
How so?
I wonder if Musk chose rocketry solely because of the ability to use it to drain money from government?
I'd argue that it certainly isn't.
Only for people that get their news from reddit.
Initial public offerings whose market capitalizations rank within the Nasdaq 100’s top members will normally be eligible to be included after 15 days of trading, Nasdaq said in a statement. The timeline is shortened from at least three months currently.
“Industry professionals, including asset managers and institutional passive portfolio managers, were mostly supportive of the Fast Entry proposal and proposed timing,” Nasdaq said in the statement.[0]
15 days vs 90 days isn't some huge shift nor is it inherently some "flaw." These changes have been asked for long before Elon entered the White House.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-30/nasdaq-cl...
This is why non partisan financial institutes like the FED and consumer protection groups like the CPB are important and we should have them as non corrupt and robust as possible.
Because it just doesn’t seem wise to trust asset managers with these kinds of things without a lot of evidence and transparency. The 2008 crisis should have taught all of us that much.
The suckers who have their retirement savings in some kind of index fund because all the experts have been saying, "Buy index ETFs and forget about it" for decades are gonna get fleeced, and the wealthiest get wealthier.
But, that philosophy came about in an era when there were protections for small investors that prevented the richest man on earth from dipping into your retirement fund to make himself even richer. I don't know how to be a smart investor when the game is rigged for a handful of billionaires.
I don't really have advice. If I were directly holding an index that tracks the Nasdaq 100, I would get out of it, and take the tax hit. But, I suspect the impact and risk will cascade outward. Nvidia has exploded in price based on actual revenue (though I suspect it will be temporary, and have to come back to earth in time). SpaceX is entirely fantasy land. It doesn't have revenue to justify anything like the price they're launching the IPO, and when indexes are forced to buy it, everyone holding those indexes provides exit liquidity for the same scammers who've been hyping it.
The threat is to end up with the bag, not that the bag explodes this month or the next.
I get your logic, but why all the handwringing over the short time frame for inclusion in these funds (days instead of a year)? None of that should be relevant if it's going to take so long to play out.
> unless you want to end up with 5%+ of your portfolio being invested in hopium by the end of 2028.
OK so, going back to the original question: the play is what? Move into bonds around IPO time and move back in when everything craters?
It matters at what price the forced buying starts.
>>OK so, going back to the original question: the play is what? Move into bonds around IPO time and move back in when everything craters?
It's hard to say what's the play is because:
1)For many people making any kind of "play" triggers a tax event
2)It's not clear what ETFs to choose as currently there aren't many good options.
Imo one decent choice out of available ones are ETFs based on MSCI World Quality Factor index. It's not ideal because it still excludes companies like Berkshire Hathaway (because of accounting rules) but it avoids many suspicious companies (like MSTR) as well as mega IPOs. Unfortunately those are more costly (0.3% instead of like 0.05%). If you are in EU you and want world wide exposure you still need something for emerging markets (EU based ETFs based on that methodology exclude emerging markets).
You can also become an active investor but that's a job and I don't think many people want to take on it.
The main problem with going with bonds is that you are giving up equity premium and you still need to time the market for a comeback and that's very difficult.
Can't they just be printed and massive funds borrowing money to buy shares?
S&P has not finalized a rule change yet.
S&P has historically been more conservative. My personal guess is they won't adopt all of the proposals.
> at the expense of large funds
I sincerely hope S&P and Nasdaq rollback the SpaceX-targeted changes, but unfortunately I seriously doubt it.
Yes. And I see the argument for it. It’s hard to claim you represent the market if trillions of dollars are outside it for no reason other than newness or capital-structure weirdness. (I agree with excluding unprofitable companies.)
These indices have lots of competition. NASDAQ 100 lost basically zero money when they made these changes. If S&P makes them, I'm doubtful anyone will react either.
When S&P was still taking public comment, I put the link on HN. It got like two upvotes. This isn't something materially care about as much as like to get angry about on the internet.
Perhaps you got unlucky with the timing of your post, or title didn't grab attention in the /new feed compared to this post's. For all we know, whether or not they saw your HN submission, every critical commenter here may have also submitted a public comment to S&P.
The minimum marketcap for S&P 500 is ~23 Billion
The highest current marketcap of cannibas companiy is $3 Billion
> S&P has not finalized a rule change yet.
If you were responding to someone saying the benchmark indexes were changing their own rules?
Like the actual intent of the comment and not just observing reality like someone saying the sky is blue.
Not particularly. When I posted the request for comment to HN it got crickets [1].
Not enough people care about this. And the "safe" option has kind of shifted with the other index providers having moved first. That said, there were a lot of proposals and I'm not expecting all of them to be adopted.
B: but what about your emotions
Very glad to see HN stereotype being upended :)
That's a request for an opinion, not an emotion.
And more importantly forces them to sell the rest of the market.
Who will be on the other side of these trades? I suspect the stock market is not sufficiently liquid for all of that to happen in a single day without the rest of the market seeing a significantly depressed price, and index holders effectively gifting value to everyone else by effectively pre-announcing their large trades.
90 days or 5 days, it doesn't really matter because the float will be tiny due to the 6 month lockup. What kind of price discovery are we expecting that would happen in the other 85 days?
Not really: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/spacex-allow-early-...
S&P hasn’t changed any rules yet.
The tiny float and just a few days before the index funds buy means they have to buy without any more revenue / earnings info than was already published pre-IPO. 90 days is a quarter, so there WILL be more price discovery before a 0 day index fund seasoning period.
You can’t imagine a scenario where he goes lunatic and does something wild (again)?
> The only major cliff will be Elons shares
Buy MSCI World, enjoy the 0.04% p.a. fees and minimal idiosyncratic risk, and relax.
Index rebalance traders will reduce your annual returns by less (probably much less) than 0.1%, but there is no better alternative for you at this moment in time.
Remember also: index funds are some of the participants most keen to lend out their shares to short sellers. It's one of the rare ways they can boost returns above the raw index they follow.
I know very little about markets, but: aren't the short-sellers just going to provide liquidity for the big index funds? Like, if the funds HAVE to buy SpaceX, and the funds are enormous, wont every single stock sold short be immediately gobbled up, as well as pretty much anyone else wanting to sell? Even if everyone else is selling like mad, it wont affect price much at all?
Maybe this is naive, but if these enormous funds are more or less forced to buy SpaceX, it seems impossible that "actual price discovery" is going to happen in any reasonable amount of time, and the short-sellers will be screwed.
1. Exchange your market-cap funds for S&P 500. Afaict, even with their own rules changing, they will wait up to 6 months (as opposed to 12) to let SpaceX in. This is the simplest solution that buys you time without losing other gains in the market, assuming your existing funds were broad market-cap funds. The idea here is to wait for ~5 months and see if you still want/need to exit S&P before they let SpaceX in, or pick another option.
2. Exchange your market-cap funds for RSP, an equal-weight fund. This is also simple and reduces your risk, as SpaceX's allocation of the fund would only be 0.2%.
3. Exchange your market-cap funds for a selection of different funds in order to replicate the previous allocation. Buy small-cap and mid-cap funds, and buy ETFs that cover the market without including tech. This is more complicated, but not really that complicated once you learn how to exchange funds. Still mostly passive, you're just actively managing your allocation into different indexes. Downside is you lose the gains from tech.
4. Exchange all your index funds - temporarily - for a money market fund or other low-risk, low-return investment vehicle, until SpaceX price settles down. This is the absolute simplest option, least risk, least reward. You lose all the gains from the market during this time, but a percentage of your fund doesn't disappear overnight. If you're nervous, it's safe to do this by June 11th and sit on it until July 5th and see what you'd like to do then.
You probably DO NOT want to do this for non-retirement funds, as you will get hit with capital gains taxes. You would have to estimate how much you think your portfolio would drop due to SpaceX's overinflated price falling, and compare that to your potential tax bill from rebalancing. It's almost certain that your tax hit would be higher.
No, it depends on the index in question.
But the point is that we have notable index funds which are marketed to customers as having the intention to own segments of the market according to certain rules, and they are changing those rules with relatively short notice and for reasons that seem suspicious to many customers.
In the US, you would likely also have to pay capital gains taxes for such a trade. (I think.)
In Singapore, in contrast, swapping between funds like this would not have any tax implications.
I personally have moved my retirement accounts to bonds while being more aggressive with my personal investments.
and remember the best way to make a small fortune is to start with a large fortune.
https://etfdb.com/etfs/size/large-cap/
You could switch to one that focuses on stocks which pay dividends, for example. That should provide a bit of protection against an AI market crash:
https://etfdb.com/etf/VIG/#etf-ticker-profile
So-called "smart beta" ETFs are also interesting. https://etfdb.com/themes/smart-beta-etfs/
Here are some factors I would expect to rule out the frothiest stocks:
"Quality Factor ETFs are made up of securities deemed to exhibit strong fundamental characteristics. These ETFs screen for stocks that have healthy balance sheets, encouraging growth prospects, and consistent improvements in their earnings."
https://etfdb.com/themes/quality-factor-etfs/
"Value-centric ETFs invest in securities deemed to possess value characteristics, including those operating in stable industries with relatively low price-to-earnings ratios."
https://etfdb.com/etfs/style/value/
"Low Volatility ETFs invest in securities with low volatility characteristics. These funds tend to have relatively stable share prices, and higher than average yields."
https://etfdb.com/etfs/investment-style/low-volatility/
Be sure to check the expense ratios on smart beta ETFs. Generally, the more sophisticated the stock screening, the more they will charge you in management fees.
As long as you're thinking about your portfolio, you may wish to consider international diversification in case the US economy implodes somehow: https://etfdb.com/themes/international-equity-etfs/
Personally, I keep my portfolio extremely conservative. My bet is that if the singularity arrives, we will all either die, or get UBI. I don't particularly care about having more moons than the other guy: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-have-only-x-years-to-es...
Most popular passive indexes are S&P 500 and some total markets. Total index, like the one used by VTI, is likely the best spot in this case. They have not changed any rules, as far as I know.
> Although Nasdaq has already shortened the “seasoning” period before index inclusion to 15 trading days and FTSE Russell has slashed its waiting time to five days (and S&P Dow Jones is reportedly considering something similar), most share indices weight firms in proportion to the value only of shares they have released for public trading (the “free float”). For SpaceX, this means just the $75bn or so of stock it intends to issue in June—so its initial weight in the S&P 500 will be around 0.1%. The NASDAQ 100 is an exception, and has changed its rules to weight companies at up to three times their free float, in an apparent effort to woo Mr Musk. Even so, SpaceX’s probable initial weight in this $40trn index will still only be around 0.5%.
So people who hold ETFs that track the S&P 500 probably don't have too much to worry about. People invested in the NASDAQ 100 probably have more to be outraged about - but then again I suppose if you're invested in the NASDAQ 100, you may be consider more exposure to SpaceX to be a good thing.
At .1% they'll have the same weight as something like DoorDash.
im not a finance guy, can someone explain to me why the nasdaq would want to "woo" someone specifically? what benefit would nasdaq get? or, alternatively, what harm would befall nasdaq for not woo-ing musk?
They are not saying these 500 companies are going to be the most successful in 6 months or 10 years. At one point Enron was 0.6% of S&P500 because it was a large company, not because the directors at S&P500 thought the management were honest people.
If you don't like that, fine, don't buy S&P500 and buy stocks or other funds that do have companies you like.
And why do people want to buy the entire market in the first place? They want to diversify and insulate themselves from a single company crashing their portfolio value.
What are people afraid of right now? They're afraid of a single company crashing their portfolio value.
Why are people afraid of their portfolio value crashing? Because these 3 companies will fundamentally increase the overall risk and volatility of the index.
Do you see the problem?
There are indexes that invest equal amounts of money into all companies, so Nvidia doesn't dominate. Or you can pick low growth high dividend indexes to insulate against AI. Or just grab Vanguard LifeStrategy if you don't want to think.
The current situation is unusual. No index can handle all situations. Either adapt or use a fund that does the thinking for you, right?
If the US does something to destabilize the dollar, will economists be running around saying “the dollar was never intended to be used for that purpose!”? No.
It doesn’t really matter if the index “wasn’t supposed” to be something it became. The problem is the same. The only difference is who you blame.
I want to believe the world is full of good people but I read stuff like this and realize otherwise.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/garthfriesen/2026/04/25/spacex-...
There is nowhere near enough burning rage for this absurd fleecing of the public.
Similarly Space-X’s IPO valuation is about “data centers in space” vaporware hopium and “timeshare all the GPU time that Grok isn’t using”.
There’s a trend with Musk’s companies.
Waymo is actual FSD.
Jack Barker’s rather blunt monologue in SV about how the stock is the product is more true than ever. It felt very heavy handed at the time but it’s only proven to be more the case than I thought.
Plus as others have said, usually all of the decision makers have a bunch of stock exposure and will prioritize their own financial gains over pretty much anything else.
These are often both weak signals, though. They'll govern very high level decisions, but all the day to day is inside the company. Just as I want a return on the money in my bank account (as I was promised) investors want a return on their money too, and as you say, the executives and board should care about making sure the people who put money into the company are getting a decent deal out of the arrangement.
EDIT: guys, it's sarcastic... since the parent was talking about latency, cooling is something that is even worse in space than latency
They are planning to capture 100.7% of it?
To quote a message I wrote on a finance channel on telegram:
The TAM for "enterprise applications" at 28 T sounds both too much and too little: by the time the tech (and/or overall economy) allows it to reach that number, that number itself will look unimpressive, and this kind of scale seems to be reachable with ground-based more easily than with space based (at current energy prices, even that TAM is only about 2% of being Kardeshev 1).
Feels like Musk did vibe-economics for "how big is the global digital economy?", much like the claims about factories on the moon making data center satellites looks like he prompted grok with "if I tile the moon with solar powered factories and mass drivers to launch them, how many TW can it launch per year?"The world's GDP is about 100T. That would mean more than 1/4 of every expenditure in the entire world would go into buying AI or by AI providers into their consumables.
That number is just bullshit.
AI today can't do all desk jobs, I don't know how far we even are from that given the spiky nature of ML, but it smells like this IPO is using that as the justification for the claim.
Actively managed funds is $18T. And, for example, the S&P500 alone is $69T.
[0] https://www.ici.org/research/stats/combined_active_index_042...
The 12 largest companies in the USA together have that market cap, so probably not.
Index funds in total had about5 $7 trillion in 2021 [1].
It just takes a narrative shift to tumble it - ex: quantum to break crypto security.
Probably not this reasoning.
> S&P 500 Shariah Industry Exclusions. The index universe consists of all the constituents in the S&P 500 Shariah, excluding companies classified as part of GICS sub-industries 20101010 (Aerospace & Defense), 40203040 (Financial Exchanges & Data), 40201060 (Transaction & Payment Processing Services).
it probably makes it easier to ship in europe where some private banks and pensions (eg denmark gov) ban defence investment
> the opinion adopted when formulating this index
> S&P Shariah indices ... are overseen by an independent Shariah Supervisory Board consisting of a panel of internationally renowned Islamic scholars. This board is facilitated by Ratings Intelligence Partners, a London and Kuwait-based Islamic finance advisory firm.
I can't picture any scenario where this ends well.
SpaceX will be ~0.125% of the index. The actual amount of buying is in the low tens of billions, and given these are $30 trillion+ markets, this is hardly anything to fret about.
Still criminal, and also, anyone buying this individually is a fool.
They are buying it at IPO pricing
If SpaceX tanks and 401ks are left holding the bag, this could result in the biggest class action lawsuit ever.
[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spa...
When money is lost in the order of billions, someone is getting sued.
but that doesnt mean any money gets recovered at all. Musk sure as hell aint giving anything back.
The fix is to simply not buy it - those 401k aren't completely passive, you can choose a different investment (instead of NASDAQ index).
Would either published indexes or investment funds exist, if suing them for poor performance was anything resembling that easy?
I'm thinking "no".
It's quite sad that the pillar of American life that is the 401k is given to shady fund managers. The law should be that if you manage a 401k you must be a fiduciary. If that were the case then no one would be bag holding these fake valuations because they'd be liable for negligence. Right now they're just in on the scam.
Away from large cap stocks to what?
I'm not sure you'll come out ahead. (Personally I don't get the outcry, except for nasdaq which has fairly stupid rules, delaying the inclusion of megacaps won't make the problem go away, but probably increase since the float will be massively larger). It's inherent to being a passive index.
Regular people want to invest so they can make money and companies want people to invest so that they can raise money. So pretty much everybody wants the 401k money to be invested in the stock market.
But the issue is that investing in the stock market is very technical, so some smart asses invented the index funds to make it easy for daddy and mummy to put their retirement accounts to work.
The index has safeguards in place to try and reduce its volatilty. So people are happy, cause they are investing in stock without having to look closely at what it is they bought.
But if suddenly some people change the safeguard rule, so that their buddy can dump their overvalued stock over people who think they are investing relatively safely, then it can be argued that there is foul play.
People are not finance specialists and they are heavily incentivized to buy index funds, so they need to trust that the people who are telling them to invest are not hiding things from them. If that trust is broken, lawsuits will follow.
It’s like: imagine you own a Toyota and have a maintenance contract with Toyota, and one day you have your car serviced and they tell you they changed the brakes. They tell you the brand of the new brakes and they tell you it’s fine while in fact, they put some cheap garbage that fail after 100 km of driving.
When the brakes fail and your car falls off a cliff, you go and see them and they tell you: “yeah those brakes were bad, but we told you we put them in, you could have looked up that these were bad, it’s all over the internet, so that’s on you”.
A "lawsuit" isn't a concern for the likes of Musk.
He's got the money to pay lawyers, politicians, and influencers. He's spread this risk around to the right people; if he goes down, they're going down with him, too.
At a certain point you have to start jailing people for long periods of time. I don't mean the Milken, Belfort, or Skilling treatment. I mean being placed away for 30+ years in medium-security facilities at the least.
Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison, if that counts. But then he had committed a crime, which is the usual "certain point" we wait for.
https://api.substack.com/feed/podcast/260347/s/233172.rss
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conversations-with-col...
https://open.spotify.com/show/0Cj2lIpGxkrw1RFVIPTa6a?si=f41c...
* Valuation of the sp500, the hyperscalers and Nvidia is (mostly) reasonable based on earnings
* Build out of infrastructure is demand-driven, hyperscalers are not building just for future demand that would not materialize
* OpenAI, anthropic & co can be overvalued but that does not mean there's a systemic bubble
I think this underestimates contagion effects and the fact that demand appears to be subsidized and may disappear quickly, but it's just MHO.
That is a hell of a statement to make (their earnings are mostly negative, after all, except nvidia). Would require exceptional evidence, which doesn't seem to be there.
> * Build out of infrastructure is demand-driven, hyperscalers are not building just for future demand that would not materialize
This does not reconcile with the large amount of empty datacenters and GPUs which have not been installed: https://www.wheresyoured.at/ais-economics-dont-make-sense-ad...
> * OpenAI, anthropic & co can be overvalued but that does not mean there's a systemic bubble
OK? It could also mean there is.
> I think this underestimates contagion effects and the fact that demand appears to be subsidized and may disappear quickly, but it's just MHO.
Even with subsidized demand Microsoft still ended up cancelling over a gigawatt(!) of planned datacenters already back in 2024. But yeah, their arguments are missing a lot.
Hyperscalers are in big trouble if the build out suddenly stalls. Even Nvidia and Micron are going to see their value significantly trimmed if it looks like growth is stalling. With such concentration at the top of the S&P among tech companies and with SpaceX, Anthropic, and Open AI, three companies that probably burn a combined 50+ billion a year. The whole stock market will be a tinderbox.
The whole thing is so private capital can get their exit. Default rates of private capital are already at 6%. Banks are exposed so they are on board with the fraud.
How would you define stalled? Hardly anything has been built in the last 2 years (and most of those juicy new GPUs must be sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be installed, together with all of our RAM and HDDs).
OpenAI and Anthropic's can go bust, but ads, windows and cloud hosting would still make a ton of money without them.
Funny how this different framing of the exact same person provides a completely opposite expectation of their incentives behind commenting on whether AI valuations are a bubble.
Print money. Push most of it into cheap credit for giant corporations and asset owners. Let a little trickle into the real economy so ordinary people feel temporary relief. Then let inflation quietly do the dirty work.
The public pays through higher prices, weaker savings, and future debt.
The powerful collect the upside.
That is the game: privatize the profits, socialize the losses, and call it capitalism.
And all of this is legal under the disguise of "protecting the economy for regular folks", and they can keep doing it repeatedly.
Also very bold of you to assume voting does much.
(coming from a 22 year old who votes at every federal, state and local election).
Logically, it seems insane that people who live on other people's taxes have the right to vote. Officials, public sector employees, and anyone else who receives money from the government rather than contributes to it shouldn't vote.
Why? It could be sudden. It could be slow and gradual. I've seen no reason it needs to be one versus the other.
> "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
More: https://www.gurufocus.com/news/220058/seven-quotes-from-warr...
Just investing less in risky things on the run up means you personally perform worse so even in known bubbles you don't see reasonable slow downs instead of disastrous pops.
What? Source? Plenty of investment bubbles pop before the bag is passed.
This thread involves a lot of people looking at something they don't like and presuming karmic forces will give them what they deserve. There is no reason these companies, even if massively overvalued, have to "pop."
That's fundamentally different from e.g. the financial crisis, or the 2023 bank collapses, or even the dot-com bubble. Those did not have the ability to self correct. There was no slow deflation other than through a bailout.
This is a wild thing say without any qualification.
It’s really not. Bubbles are notable because most elevated asset prices slowly go down. And they have common characteristics that force the reckoning. Usually debt. Sometimes operational leverage.
As I see it, this is the exact same situation - wildly overvalued companies based on investor exuberance, the underlying business is not capable of supporting this kind of valuation. IPO tends to be the crunch point at which this overvaluation is exposed. Once exposed, the valuation correction spreads to other similar businesses quickly and the bubble pops.
What's the self-correction ability that AI companies have?
A lot more revenue. Dot coms were going public pre revenue. And Anthropic is profitable. Both it and SpaceX wouldn’t be dependent on further stock sales to stay alive—that lets them weather a downturn.
As with the dot-com bubble, there is a lot of voodoo accountancy (and flat-out lies) about the actual situation here.
As I understand it, the basic problem is that the big three can't charge enough per token to cover costs because they're in competition with each other (and one of those is Google that can afford to buy market share using its other operating revenues), and the OSS/cheap Chinese models.
And this situation is unlikely to get better in the short term because building cheaper per-token capacity is very expensive and time-consuming.
[0] https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle...
They don’t need to fix it in the short term.
Look, this could be total nonsense. But what won’t happen is Anthropic or SpaceX disappearing inside a year. That was true in the 90s because the only cash flow going into those companies came from investors.
Agree, some of these are valid businesses. But they are also massively overvalued on that underlying valid business, because of investor enthusiasm. When the bubble pops they are going to have real problems because of that overvaluation. Hopefully they survive, as a lot of the dotcom businesses did.
I think the real bloodbath will be the second-tier businesses that are mostly reselling cheap tokens to a market niche with custom prompts, and also massively overvalued as "AI businesses". And that kinda mirrors what happened in the dotcom bust - all the overvalued "webscale" businesses that hadn't really worked out a solid model yet went to the wall immediately
OpenAI seems to have made debt-like commitments to spending on infrastructure. If those are indeed binding, they may have less flexibility than the others. (If Anthropic’s revenue growth stalls and its valuation halves, it should still be a going concern.)
The point is that nobody wants to be the first out of a hot market nor the last so that bubbles everyone knows are bubbles first hang on despite it being broadly believed to be so and then crash as people head for the exits.
Broadly people are taking on debt to realize profits that may not exist. Retrospectively widely acknowledged bubbles like every crash in the last century all popped im not aware of any big enough to cause a recession that petered out slowly. Since we don't need to look up 100 years of crashes together can you name some similarly large issues that were resolved slowly over time?
It's the same scenario of a ponzi scheme. Everything looks fresh and fine until everyone realizes there is nothing in there.
Robber Barrons existed from like 1860 through 1915 and extracted the wealth of many people, including Native American tribe lands.
Like this shit can keep going until we decide enough is enough and actually change our society.
There is no consistent definition of a bubble. We have no fundamental reason current valuations have to collapse suddenly.
> We have no fundamental reason current valuations have to collapse suddenly.
I would agree, but i think that is just saying that the current situation is potentially not a bubble. Which may be true. We will only find out after the fact.
I’ve seen it commonly used to refer to any period of high multiples.
If everyone is in the bubble and it pops, everyone is in the same boat, so you’re not really going to be poorer than your peers by comparison.
If it’s not a bubble and you are wrong, you will fall way behind everyone else and just watch people get richer and richer doing the exact same thing you should have done.
Also, just because something is a bubble doesn’t mean it has to end in a devastating pop. Sometimes bubbles expand and then just get diffused. The exponential rise stops and prices plateau, but it just becomes a new normal and things stagnate for a while before resuming normal upward growth.
Chamath says Warren Buffett outperformed the $SPX by 2 times pre-2000’s because he used "insider info".
Berkshire Hathaway completely exited its investment in Paytm (One97 Communications) in November 2023. This divestment occurred just two months prior to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) initiating its strict regulatory and KYC-related crackdowns on Paytm Payments Bank in early 2024.
I think Warren has been doing insider trading.
> If it’s not a bubble and you are wrong, you will fall way behind everyone else and just watch people get richer and richer doing the exact same thing you should have done.
I don't get? First scenario, you get richer vs. the average and in the second you gt poorer. So in total you average out? I don't see how not participating makes you poorer in average.
> Sometimes bubbles expand and then just get diffused.
That's not what a bubble is. A financial bubble is defined by the "burst" at the end.
Think about it: you have hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence that the hyper-wealthy may have trafficked minors across state and international borders. Only one person is in prison over it, and her cell gets upgrades.
35 years ago this would have been a slam dunk for the opposition party of any republic. Instead of standing ten toes down on it, opposition leaders are doing... what exactly? Going on with business-as-usual, for the most part. They should be attempting to add language to every single bill that comes across the floor to see more done. They aren't.
I think stock trading shenanigans are far lower on the list of moral outrages, particularly given Congress' predilection for insider trading.
The guy called 401(k)s a Ponzi scheme. Now, he's coming after them to loot.
SpaceX used its massive IPO and listing fees (and the prestige of being the largest IPO ever) as leverage. Index providers and exchanges saw financial incentives: listing fees, trading volume, data sales, and long-term revenue from asset managers. Reuters reported that SpaceX advisers contacted major index providers (including Nasdaq) to discuss early index entry, and that SpaceX was leaning toward listing on Nasdaq only if it got early inclusion in the Nasdaq 100.
The rules built to protect passive investors were waived:
- S&P 500’s 12-month seasoning and 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement → waived
- Nasdaq’s seasoning window (90 trading days) → cut to 15
- FTSE Russell’s seasoning window → cut to 5 days
Meanwhile, Danish pension fund excludes SpaceX citing governance and valuation (Musk holds approximately 42.5% of the equity, but commands roughly 83-85% of total voting control): https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/danish-pension-f...
S&P hasn’t announced a final rule change yet.
Yes. Literally right.
There is no second guessing because no decision has been made. A consultation was put out. I’m expecting it will be adopted in parts. Like, the market hasn’t priced in a full rebalancing.
Why not just say SpaceX is being added to the SP500?
You can complain about the discretion to add it to the SP500. But that's irrelevant in terms of whether or not its "forcing" people to invest in it. Arent you upset people are forced to invest in Apple, Bank of America, etc.?
In terms of AI, we've seen even here on HN everything from mathematical problems that remaind unsolved, being solved, mathematical proofs being used to disprove theories, heck we even learned more about alzheimers, new antibiotics, precision targeting in oncology, using AI to flag healthcare anomalies in imaging. The benefits are easy to miss, but they're snowballing into place, there's definitely an explosion of useless crap, but you have to look for the real things and you will come to find, that AI is giving us things we otherwise either might not have discovered or wouldn't have within our lifetimes.
Don't get me wrong. I love LLMs and use them myself. But the biggest gain for me is easier context switch and text manipulation. It's not the: replace X with a bunch of LLMs every CEO is dreaming of. So yes, you have higher productivity, but is the eval of those companies legit? x doubt.
By the time you see the applications, the market will have moved on to value the next set of future cash flows.
If the market only valued the obvious, investors would jump in to buy the price up, until it met the average expectations.
The market might be wrong, but the question is not: "Have you yet to see?", but rather, "What do you see in the next three to five years?"
Otherwise, how could investors ever invest in a startup?
Startups never have revenues to justify their initial valuations.
It's a bet on the future.
Investors are future looking.
Consumers are present looking.
We didn't see LLM harnesses coming even two years ago. Now they generate billions per month.
Investors can't wait until reality materializes to make their estimations of the future.
That's why investing is hard.
You have to try to predict the future.
I find it interesting that using lines of code as a metric is making a comeback.
How many millions of emails do you think are composed using ChatGPT? How many legal briefs were reviewed by AI? How many businesses use AI generated art? How many kids do their homework using ChatGPT?
The GP is arguing that AI has struggled to replace humans, but in so many roles AI is doing the heavy lifting and humans are copying its output.
The homework "help" industry (i.e. paying for answers) is dead. Chegg stock fell 99% because of ChatGPT.
Stock photography is rapidly dying, nobody will pay for shutterstock when ChatGPT can generate a passable image for free.
ChatGPT is killing studio photography, it can generate great looking studio photos for free.
Same with basic graphic design / custom art commissions.
SEO / copywriting has been almost fully replaced by AI. Companies no longer pay writers to churn out SEO slop, and now the web is full of AI generated SEO spam.
Customer service as a job is dying and is rapidly being replaced by AI chatbots.
I can go on, but these are the major ones.
On top of that, you are showing another stark bias in considering the US experience as the global experience. It is not, and education in particular works way differently, aka, it's not a business wild west.
Cognitive surrender in writing emails is another shaky ground: do you honestly think that AI's worth the tens of trillion the tech bros are claiming it'll be worth as a glorified email-maker?
I will add that my point still stands. If you say this:
>>ChatGPT is killing studio photography, it can generate great looking studio photos for free. Same with basic graphic design / custom art commissions.
the only point you're proving is that you don't understand shit about photography as a business, nor about design as a business. AI is being rapidly integrated, for sure, but it has not upended those industries, and the average mediocrity it produces (because of its very nature) is not even close to replacing what you claim it is.
Otherwise Github wouldn't have 14% down time in the last 3 months.
What is _the proof_ if all the proofs are not _proofs_?
I don't babysit my LLM based services which are used by coaches and clients around the world. One of my LLM based solution get 30-4k daily hits and I have users coming back on the regular to use it. without babysitting, doing things that would take them hours of manual work and research.
I don't babysit the developers I work with and our clients, which both use LLM's themselves and at scale with their clients, serving all kinds of LLM powered services to millions of users worldwide.
You are not "seeing" the large adoption because:
- The technology is "a few years old" in its usable state - The corporate adoption cycle is slow - You have to understand the technology to use it in a good way, which most corporate devs and PM's do not
So it will take a bit for the "obvious" adaptation on large scale.
But you won't "know" when the large adoption happens.
Silent inference is growing every day, and that is what real adoption looks like - not an LLM being in your face chatbox, but running in the background, sorting, finding, fixing things, aligning data, figuring out analytics, tuning the ads, cleaning the datasets.
What a story this is
I am a radiologist and researcher predominately focused on AI.
You could also look at the market, one of the biggest players, Paige, was acquired for about 30% of the money they raised.
Do you think this will result in more routine/boring/tedious tests? Is the bottleneck on these things the human time to analyse them?
For some things, like 3D volume segmentation of structure or disease (e.g. CVA/stroke volume, cardiac muscle mass, iron quantification) the bottleneck is the time it takes so we currently use approximations like single longest dimension, circular regions of interest, etc. AI will dramatically increase accuracy allowing for more accurate treatment and easier large scale research with quantitative endpoints.
Other things people think of like detection of aneurysms, fracture, lung nodules are not “hard” but AI has already added and will continue to add the second-reader benefit which will reduce detection errors. For this category the clinical benefit is as of yet unclear and we know that increased detection does not necessarily translate into improved patient outcomes and can in fact make them worse from over-diagnosis which means investigation related harms and over-treatment.
We were already in a phase of “over detection” in much of radiology with advances in imaging technology so the incremental benefit of current AI remains to be seen and I personally think is going to be much more limited. I had a case recently where a 2 mm brain aneurysm was missed on 3 CT scans over 10 years but was picked up by AI so now is being followed annually. This is too small to treat considering the risks and a serious argument could be made that 10 years of stability is proof enough that this is almost certainly clinically irrelevant for this patient.
Far more interesting areas of AI in imaging are in acquisition of acceleration (i.e. the medical equivalent of upscaling) which can dramatically decrease costs and increase accessibility as well as analyzing imperceptible features.
It may not be a popular take here but in my opinion the future of radiology is like what we see in software engineering today - a skilled human equipped with AI will outperform humans without AI and AI without humans, the latter of which we are still several years away from prototyping due to various technical hurdles.
> in my opinion the future of radiology is like what we see in software engineering today - a skilled human equipped with AI will outperform humans without AI and AI without humans
I suspect this will be the case across the board. It's a useful tool, but it's just a tool. It's not a replacement.
They will never beat the human instinct tho, but they can be great tools sometimes. Unfortunately, LLMs mostly produce garbage.
In real life pathology is a spectrum not a binary and physicians are not trained to be 100% accurate instead optimizing sensitivity and specificity considering pretest probability as well as the harms of overdiagnosis and under diagnosis for a given scenario.
For something like melanoma which is relatively easy to diagnose with a superficial, extremely low risk skin biopsy and where early staging dramatically improves outcomes you would want to design around overcalling (high sensitivity) rather than maximize accuracy given the significant harms with false negatives and minimal harms with false positives.
An AI may be more accurate at classifying melanoma/not melanoma but if it does not meaningfully improve on the clinical threshold of biopsy/no biopsy or result in less biopsies that accuracy is wasted and may even be detrimental.
Note: I am just using this as an example to illustrate the considerations.
Essentially the cutting edge reaches up to 99% of human performance on the task it is trained, which is good enough for triage but not for a final diagnosis. However, magic sometimes happens when you train a model to detect something, which you already know is there, on an examination that is cheaper, faster or less invasive than the human"gold standard". Conveniently, this dataset exists since it's common to first do a cheap examination like an X-ray, and then escalate if nothing is found (or if something is found that you want to see better, or a number of other possibilities).
Examples of AI outperforming humans like this includes AI detecting sacral fractures on x-rays better than radiologists (who normally take a CT to conclusively exclude it), detecting potential precursors to pancreatic cancer on non-contrast CTs (where contrast or an MRI is usually required) and detecting an occluded coronary artery on an ECG without the archetypical "ST-elevation changes".
See the link below for references: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9478257/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02640-w https://rebelem.com/a-winning-hand-in-cardiology/
So AI, as a general rule, doesn't usually match or exceed the upper bound of the "gold standard" medical performance. But it tends to carry the quality of the upper bound downwards towards the faster, less expensive and invasive methods. In some cases, like in the case of EKGs, that's huge. In some cases it saves time, in some cases it decreases miss rates from tired radiologists or triages their review feed. And in some cases it's not very useful.
LLMs doesn't come close to specialized radiology models at the moment, because LLMs are more about applying knowledge than creating new correlations. Of course that's also hugely useful, but that's a bit of a different topic to unpack.
A self driving car doing better than a drunk on the freeway doesn't reassure me that it'll do better than sober me in a snowstorm.
I also question if the kind of person who actually drives while drunk - knowing perfectly by thousand of society inputs and peer pressure that it is wrong - will care enough to buy a self-driving car.
A whole lot of doctors, if not most, didn’t pick their profession out of an interest in medicine…
This can't be treated as meaningful, given other projections and goals (Mars colony, etc.).
Although realistically this will be built from lunar materials, you still need to lift a lot of mass to build the necessary industrial processing and mass drivers to launch it from the Moon to some Lagrange point.
And there are many other useful space megastructures that can be built in space from common materials, like giant solar arrays beaming power down via microwaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
Most of these proposals date from even 1980s.
Also, keep in mind that a stock price discounts expected future cash flows. Is it likely that SpaceX will have a near-peer competitor within a few years? No, it's not, and that market share is being priced-in.
If there exists sufficient demand for the product of space launches then it's probably reasonable to expect their to be a near-peer competitor soon, but that's only if SpaceX were to be profitable, which it isn't, even with the subsidization by Starlink on the order of many billions.
Space is not that easy. Even with unlimited money, it'll probably take 10 years to build a rocket like starship. Going from nothing to orbit needs a lot of money but more money doesn't make that faster.
But other than that, yeah - outside of China, progress has been horrendously slow & Blue Origin, the only other US company that demonstrated a partially reusable rocket just had a devastating pad explosion, destroying one of their 2 rockets and their only launchpad.
Were we struggling to do this before? Was the overall percentage reduction in costs? Was some other achievement held back because we couldn't accomplish this? What is now enabled?
> to get any payload into space.
A limited set of payloads into space. No vehicle can get "any payload" to space at a fixed price.
> The benefits are easy to miss,
You've listed a bunch of reasons to publish papers. What is the actual ground level change that's occurred? Are those antibiotics produced? Do they actually work just as predicted? Why is that first world problems are exclusively listed but basic problems like world hunger are never even approached?
> or wouldn't have within our lifetimes.
And your life, your actual life, benefits, how?
We literally couldn't.
> Was the overall percentage reduction in costs?
Starship will bill NASA 1/20th what SLS does.
> What is now enabled?
LEO. Artemis. Out of all of these companies, being confused about SpaceX is super weird.
Is that before or after the program achieves profitability?
But now he's also trying to get the indexes to pay for the giant cash fire called X.ai and the far right huddle Twitter too.
I have zero interest in owning anything of either of those companies.
Yes. The thing that’s going public is almost entirely an AI play.
Starlink has made connectivity cheaper and more available. Earth imaging has made various food production processes more efficient. Weather forecasts have become more accurate.
If you’ve genuinely missed the massive economy that LEO has become, it will be a fun thing to catch up on.
Yeah that's working out great for the average American isn't it (https://natlawreview.com/press-releases/2026-consumer-trust-...)
> Earth imaging has made various food production processes more efficient.
I'm not even going to bother sourcing the fact that food prices have only massively gone up negating any gains in productivity. The average American struggling to buy basics like eggs and meat aren't feasting on more efficient food production.
> Weather forecasts have become more accurate.
I'm sure the growing homeless population is happy to know they can better predict the weather they'll be sleeping in.
This is all totally worth supporting a nazi billionaire
Yeah. It did. My neighbour’s rates went up. He switched to Starlink.
> not even going to bother sourcing the fact that food prices have only massively gone up negating
This is like arguing fertilisers are useless because prices went up.
> homeless population
Not super relevant!
> all totally worth supporting a nazi billionaire
Nobody said that. But it doesn’t mean the benefits go away.
SpaceX’s main customer is Starlink. With that in mind: if Starlink takes over all the ISPs in the world its market value should be comparable to Comcast - $89 Billion.
It has massively improved both. The cost, resolution and frequency of imaging has decreased alongside launch cost.
> if Starlink takes over all the ISPs in the world its market value should be comparable to Comcast - $89 Billion
Why? Comcast isn't "all the ISPs in the world." (And Comcast doesn't get defence contracts to build and maintain military networks.)
Reusing rockets reliably rather than "throwing them away" is a great achievement and I'm surprised people have to justify it on HN
You can milk a cow only a set number of times!
What probability you assign to arrive at that expected value and how you adjust for risk is on you.
I haven't found anything out of LLM's that has improved my life. It was a fun little toy but could never find a use case. But clearly, your mileage varies greatly from mine. That's cool.
I just personally don't the use in more when what I think many need is less. But that comes from essentially this point of view - “Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace.” ― Buddha
I wouldn't say it "significantly improved my life" however. Everything AI has done for me right now is a "Nice to have" but it doesn't fulfill my needs.
What’s the long term plan? Make it up on margin? 100% tariffs on Chinese open weight models?
I don’t plan on pulling from my 401k for decades, so the long term plan is the part I care about.
- Significantly increased my productivity as a software engineer.
- Using it daily for Chinese-English translation. Significantly better than pre-LLM translation software. Also, great at teaching grammar, nuances, etc.
- General Q&A. Like "Googling" but much faster. This is probably the most common use case for me.
This is exactly the point that keeps coming up that folks are struggling to grasp, myself included. How are you measuring this? It certainly makes me feel productive, but I'm not sure I can confidently say it has actually made me more productive. It's made the easy stuff a no-brainer (e.g. boilerplate, simple logic) and the moderate stuff really hard. Never mind the hard stuff. Vetting the code has become a whole other job on its own. The only folks I've found who confidently claim it increases productivity appear to be online (and without evidence), because no one in person is willing to claim that and show it.
- a VST audio plugin
- a wedding website with RSVP functionality
- a relaxing game for my wife
At work, I've been able to build much more than I would have been capable of in the past. I'm a backend eng, and it allows me to build much much nicer frontends than I've ever been able to do in the past.
And before you tell me that the code is crap - it doesn't matter! It may or may not be good code, but it works and serves it's purpose very well. Anyways, I'm I'm not launching a rocket, or putting software into cars.
For me, the killer use case is debugging. I hate wasting time debugging something that should work except for mistakes, and now I do that probably 75% less than I used to because AI does it for me.
I don't know if it makes me that much more productive, but I certainly enjoy my work more not having to do as much tedious debugging, and it feels like I waste a lot less time doing it.
Not everyone has the same requirements, skills, usage patterns, and outcomes. It's that simple.
I've never been a developer. Dabbled in frontend web for a bit (HTML/CSS/JS, no large frameworks) and felt like if I really dedicated some time to learning how to code, I'd be pretty decent at it. It's always intrigued me, and I've always had an itch to build things, but just never found the time. I'm in marketing now - I own an agency.
Over the last 6 months since the coding models really began to step up and get good, I've built several dedicated apps to support my business:
-Profitability optimizer and forecaster based on unit economics and current ad efficiency.
-Creative strategy tool that ingests brand and product data and helps explore primary and secondary personas and emotional motivators.
-Reporting tool that processes natural language queries and connects to multiple data sources to fetch results. Can schedule reports to post directly to Slack or email.
All robust and hosted on Railway. Team members can use them. Clients can use them. OAuth via Google.
Would any of this have been possible for me before the rise of frontier LLMs? Absolutely not. Learning the frameworks alone would have taken me longer than it's taken to just... build. Rapidly build and deploy. Total game changer for me.
Oh - and I'm building a game on the side. LLMs know Godot.
I attempt a programming task with and without LLM assistance. The attempt with LLM assistance is pretty much always completed faster and cleaner.
Another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43991777
You’re going to have to define productivity as it applies to software engineering. With LLMs we’ve primarily seen the number of PRs over time being discussed as a proxy for LoC, as well as the speed of bootstrapping a small project. None of these have a known correlation with economic output. They just feel good, to the programmer, their manager, or both.
> Using it daily for Chinese-English translation. Significantly better than pre-LLM translation software. Also, great at teaching grammar, nuances, etc.
Yes dealing with language is the one area LLMs are actually designed for. But what’s the TAM for machine translation?
> General Q&A. Like "Googling" but much faster. This is probably the most common use case for me.
And now you’re missing any kind of traceability for the information that you “learn,” since it all gets spaghettified and then recombined into a pile of plausible slop with no attribution. Where before you had to do slightly more work to find the information you needed, now it’s available faster but you’re at complete mercy of literally 3 American companies plus the CCP for the accuracy of that information. Most people somehow seem happy with this arrangement.
I meant it in a colloquial way. I just get more done, faster.
> And now you’re missing any kind of traceability for the information
Modern LLM assistants provide sources and references. While it can sometimes be just "slightly faster", it can genuinely save hours of research on complex ones. Also the "slightly faster" can add up to hours saved with frequent use.
An LLM correctly diagnosed it, and figure out that we could treat them with Nutri-drench Sheep Supplement, since Tractor Supply was sold out of the chicken version, and they are very similar.
Of course it then immediately recommended we use hemp bedding that would kill them a different way, but the saleswoman sanity checked all of the above,
100% survival rate.
Everyone’s thriving. Chickens would follow the medical advice again, I guess.
Gemini also told me about some obscure procedures to fix my wedding paperwork after it’d been submitted with typos.
I don't understand this. It increased productivity of every developer in the western world, so it didn't really give you an advantage. Your output is more valuable, but your colleagues' output is more valuable too, and your competitors' output too, and so on. So you're doing more things at the same salary and it's not like your company or your employer is making more money than usual or awarding you more eoy bonus. If your "life-change" is "I'm writing more code" without any other advantage (and with the possible disadvantage of your role changing, or being at risk), why is it desirable?
Interpreting reports, avoiding drug interactions, or knowing when to seek medical care. And before people object- I can literally use the same LLM my doctor does to check these things, without waiting 2 weeks for an appointment.
I helped my parents work through bacterial culture results when my dad was hospitalized with sepsis, and had them ask their doctor for specific follow up tests.
I rebuilt my gas furnace and fixed my dishwasher with AI as an assistant.
Those aren't the fun parts tho. My favorite is touring art museums ancient historical sites with an LLM guide. It can give me a short academic essay about every artist, painting, or artifact. It can pull out details quirky stories about the history that I specifically would find interesting.
I cant recommend this enough. Its like visiting with a 10 PhD docents in art history.
How do you trust the placards under a piece of art?
The short answer is you accept that it isn't perfect and move on with life. I have found multiple errors in all of those things. Human tour guides are especially the worst at making things up.
Part of navigating life is dealing with imperfect information and uncertainty.
Just like with a friend, coworker, or spouse, you use your judgment and track records to decide when to trust what is being said based on subject matter and stakes.
Domain matters. I have found it good at history, but less trustworthy in others. For examle, the llm gave me a bunch of bogus advice as I repaired my dishwasher based on weather models that weren't accurate. There is also a lot of bad information on Reddit and Appliance blogs. Repairman are almost as bad as the tour guides, willing to lie straight to your face. I deal with it the same way.
does "das man" know they are part of the crowd?
Literally saved his dog's life.
Let me rephrase that to you: The vast, vast majority of people, even in the western world, even the white-collar part of the population, are not whales or power users of AI models.
I use ChatGPT daily. And I never spend more than $25/month. If I lost it, it would suck, but it would not affect my life significantly. I then see people spending $100 / day on Claude Code tokens, programmers in startups / tech companies rack up thousands a month in bills. These people are literally spending 100x more than me, a casual user.
Yeah, I suspect they follow some sort of whale economics - where a relatively small userbase (in the big picture) and providing them with a huge chunk of their revenue.
But still these companies are being valued as if they're some omnipresent companies which humanity simply can't live without.
No body who has a choice is using Grok
> Is Grok solving Erdos problems?
Mēh! At a slower rate than models a fraction of the price
The Grok app had over 100 million downloads in 2025, over 60 million active users, and generated $350 million in revenue. That’s a lot of people being forced to use it.
Eventually your employer benefitted too, from more & happier paying customers.
Finally you indirectly befitted as well - through continued employment, salary and bonuses and stock (if you own any).
Clients - I don't see anyone delighted that apps are better, or cheaper, or more secure. If anything, I see more enshittification, more half-baked ideas and more fear that security is worse now that we let AIs write almost all code.
Employers - They didn't really sell more or expanded their customer base. They would have, if they had the exclusive advantage, but now everyone has AI. They can cram more features in their software quicker, but so can their competitors, and AI is not magically opening any untapped market. If anything, everyone is now doing the same thing - trying to get their software on the AI train, with mediocre results so far.
You - did you benefit really? The job market is shit due to the death of ZIRP, the nature of the job itself is changing and there's a lot of uncertainty around. If anything, employees are now laid off more, not less, and salary and bonuses are not increased in any measurable way.
It looks like to me that we have to dance this particular dance because if we don't do we're left behind. That's fine, it happens every now and then. It might even be that in the future we will have tangible advantages from LLMs - better automated health care, better learning opportunities come to mind. That has to be demonstrated. But now, in year 2026, what's one advantage of AI? Having less and pricier RAM? Being able (and expected) to write more code in less time?
And when pushed all we get is another teaser of "Significantly increased my productivity"
Final sad note about Starlink: It is helping Ukraine to win the war. It makes their mid- and long-range drones almost impossible to jam. (Most short-range drones use fibre optics these days to avoid jamming.)
The more dollars there are, the more deeply in debt we are. If these were interpersonal debts where we all owe the dollars to each other such that they go away when whatever promise is eventually kept, that would be a tight knit society. But instead we're all indebted to the banks, so instead we have a lot of collateral at risk, and a lot of uncertainty about whether it's a stable arrangement.
If there isn't enough money to satisfy the asking prices set by the owners of these abstractions, then we can always go deeper into debt until there is. Or we could have a debt jubilee and let the prices re-settle to something more in tune with reality.
2. There's a potential to optimize a lot of economic activity in there.
I think these IPOs are going to mint tens of thousands of new millionaires or something. That, in turn, will generate massive tax windfalls for all levels of government.
> other than the ability to produce more crap?
This is a big "other than." (And to be clear, the jury is still out on whether AI will let us produce more in the long run.)
I think it’s very likely AI is a technical improvement. But there is still a chance it’s a small improvement being massively overbuilt.
There is going to be a well-deserved shitshow when these IPO proceeds start hitting real estate markets.
The only answer is to make it unacceptable socially, more costly economically (taxes, etc), or the third option which involves pitchforks (perhaps that also falls under "unacceptable socially") that I hope we can avoid at all costs. (is this the show you mention?)
Feels like folks used to understand the balance a bit better - but I think I made that up. This next governance cycle is going to be a trust-busting, wealth-confiscating one I think.
I think there will be a tremendous political opportunity in the next 6 months to capitalize on rage in cities against new tech wealth driving up housing costs.
Where? Rents and home prices are increasing in most American markets.
Starlink and Claude are both awesome and huge QoL improvements for me!
If you are upset about people spending their extra productivity and labor hours on poision and mental laxitives, i would mostly agree. This is a failure of culture to adapt to distratcions and shiny objects
And what's more crap exactly? it feels like your grasping at straws to take one set of things and associate them with others. yeah, lots of terrible products out there, lots of enshittification, lots of topics of discussion there. But AI and GPUs are being used in such a diverse way it is impossible to have one opinion on it all like how you're trying to.
I'm not even disagreeing (or agreeing with you), I'm just saying that's a lazy comment to make. if these companies making profits without paying taxes, that's a voter problem (not even politics, just people being shitty voters, self not excluded).
For everyone else who might think they have a better formed opinion on this topic, I only ask that you apply the same level of passion to how the US national debt is now 120% of the GDP. The government is fighting wars and printing money, devaluing your wealth, and indebting your country to previously unseen levels. At least the banks and VCs are using their money (unless they get a bail out again), not your actual tax money, and the tax money and wealth of generations of Americans. You have a president literally stealing billions of dollars in broad day light from literally you.
What you thought your life would improve? Didn't you hear, wages are only increasing, why don't you invest some of that sweet cash into @JumpCrissCross' fund, it'll be alright. What were you going to do with healthcare anyway?
A society should be judged by how it treats those at the bottom and by that metric our current society is pretty awful.
The vast majority of people I've known who have worked for minimum wage were much harder workers and frankly just much better humans (who happened to have less privileged starts in life) than the vast majority of people I've known who are financially secure.
But even if you don't believe they deserve more inherently, it would still be dumb for us to continue to let income inequality grow at the ridiculous rates it has been over the last 40 years. This pattern never turns out well for society.
1. The federal minimum wage is not the solution to any of your complaints.
A good portion of that[1] is what alot of people might call fake money--valuation inflation, etc. And global wealth, even just financial wealth, isn't quite as mobile across borders as one might assume. So marshalling a trillion dollars stateside is gonna make at least some moderate waves. Still, in the grand, global scheme of things a trillion dollars is a rounding error. A trillion isn't what it used to be, and there's trillions to be had even without any realized productivity gains from AI.
[1] I'm no financial analyst, but judging by the last few recessions and the overall trajectory over the past 30 years, I'd ballpark at most about 1/3 of that to go up in smoke if we had a severe downturn tomorrow. It's not all fake money. The whole world has industrialized over the past 30 years on a scale that is still unfathomable for most people today.
- bubbles are notoriously unpredictable and generally don't happen when they are loudly and widely proclaimed to happen any minute now.
- large scale infrastructure spending tends to be really good for economies. These three companies are creating lots of jobs that are mostly related to construction, energy infrastructure, hardware spending, etc. That's a lot of money flowing to suppliers and regions where that spending happens.
- While overly pessimistic sentiments about AI and space companies are widespread they aren't much more rational than the overly optimistic ones. The realist scenario could actually be that, AI and especially Agentic AI is already quite useful and the total addressable market for that is obviously larger than it is today. The question is how large. Likewise, dropping the cost of launching stuff into orbit by one or two orders of magnitude, should create a much larger market for launching stuff there. Including possibly some AI relevant compute.
The valuations of these companies are probably on the high side and I'd expect post IPO share values to drop quite a bit and would not personally consider buying anything until after that happens. But that won't necessarily trigger a stock market crisis or a collapse of these well financed companies. All the spending these companies are doing is very real and the profits of their suppliers are going to be equally real. So some of those share value losses might be offset by gains for other stocks and economic growth. The stock market and economy aren't zero sum games.
However, there are worrying macroeconomic trends happening at the same time (Iran conflict, Ukraine war) that are disrupting global markets already. But you could argue that dumping tens or hundreds of billions into e.g. energy infrastructure and data centers isn't the worst way to counter those for a country like the US. The big picture might actually be pretty positive. Especially if we can dodge global economic misery via a prolonged Gulf conflict that at this point seems to serve no point whatsoever for anyone except perhaps Israel.
1) I would expect anyone close to retirement to have a fairly balanced portfolio.
2) if they don't include SpaceX and the stock does >10x in the next year, they'll end up doing terribly on the benchmarks. SpaceX is big, but if they invest early, it won't be a ridiculous % of the portfolio. Even if one overpays by 2x, since it's under .1% of the total portfolio. If it went to zero nobody would lose their shirts, they'd lose <.1% of their portfolio.
Is that true? It seemed to me that the most common opinion before the recent Chinese real estate crash was that it was a bubble; architect friends of mine who worked in China said the government had no doubt prices were unreasonably high; the thing they remained hopeful about is whether a soft landing was possible. Similarly it seems like it was by no means an uncommon opinion in the Japanese asset bubble, NFTs, beanie babies, and even the dotcom boom that this is (to use Greenspan’s phrase leading up to the dotcom bubble) “irrational exuberance”.
So many would say the saw it coming but the truth is only people with inside info really knew when it would happen for sure.
Same happens today. Capital is being heavily allocated towards AI inference and infra because of the promised productivity. Nobody knows if its early or late and also nobody knows how will the state react to a possible bubble exploding. Some people would say maybe AI is too big to fall already and its better if we save it when it falls. Some people would say its better to let it blow up but again nobody knows what will truly happen until we get there.
Thats not true. For the dotcom bubble people loudly and widely proclaimed them for a couple years until the narrative changed to "I guess this time is different?" ... and then it popped.
All infrastructure is not created equal. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to argue that datacenters are public good with net positive externalities.
Actually, you could argue that these are anti-infrastructure since they strain the electric grid for everyone and reportedly make the surrounding area unlivable with noise pollution.
With the right policy and legislation, this level of investment should be welcomed rather than opposed in most sensibly run places.
For example California and Germany have a lot in common when it comes to the locals blocking all forms of large scale infrastructure for mostly selfish reasons. Both places have broken energy infrastructure, high energy prices, high taxes, very bad roads, etc. Both have decades of backlog in terms of outdated infrastructure in need of major upgrading/fixing. Everybody is wringing their hands about fixing these issues because there is no money and tax pressure is already too high.
And here are some of the wealthiest companies in the world looking for places to spend their many billions. Surely, that's something that could be mutually beneficial. All states need to do is set some sensible terms and conditions for this. But instead you get people campaigning against this. I really don't get that negativity.
Non really, there are a lot of signs. What is hard to predict is "when it will happen", not "if it will happen".
EDIT: Btw, a bubble popping is not necessarily a bad thing, they are necessary for markets, kinda natural fires in big forests.
You can take small profit now or much larger profit later. Insisting that companies need to be profitable even when growing revenue rapidly is failing the marshmallow test.
If you give me $100, I will give you back $101, funded by equity raises.
Very high growth, very high revenue, huge customer satisfaction.
We hope to be profitable one day, already foresee a mechanism to double profitability per transaction and also double the number of transactions our customers perform.
Please let me know if you are keen to invest.
(not pointing the finger only at you, at least you identified that gross margins is the correct thing to look at rather than net profit!)
It's the lack of visibility that causes the judgement; Were the numbers good, it's quite unlikely that Anthropic would be so reluctant to share them.
Were it just Anthropic doing this, it's not much evidence. But it's EVERYONE that obfuscates their numbers, even the publicly traded companies.
Why would Amazon and Microsoft obfuscate the revenues and costs of their AI products? Even their cloud numbers are less clear than desired. And beyond those two, why would the datacenter companies obfuscate their numbers, when everyone desperately needs them to raise debt and investment to build more DCs?
Pretty much the only company showing clear numbers is Nvidia & GPU orders. But immediately beyond that, it's all obfuscated. How many GPUs are sitting in datacenters? They ain't telling.
But what they can (and do) do is structure (in the not financial jargon sense) the reports such that the given datapoint does not exist individually.
E.g. If you want to hide AI revenues or costs, the SEC won't let you just _not report them_, but you can just group the AI revenues with the SaaS/Cloud numbers under a new division, and report only the combined figure for that division.
This works especially well if the grouped components already fluctuate a bit, so one cannot simply substract known SaaS/Cloud numbers from the new total.
1. Continuing to grow their share of the market.
2. Margins staying high.
3. Inference costs coming down.
4. A need for Anthropic's models specifically.
I buy 3. But 1, 2, and 4 rely on models continuing to improve at the same rate, such that you need the latest version to stay competitive. At the cut below frontier models, there's already robust competition between open source models, cheaper providers like Deepseek, more local AI alternatives, etc.
I think the case for the unit economics being fine starts to fall apart if you can't charge a large premium for your best in class model.
If a system can perform or positively augment the work done by a human, especially knowledge workers, then it’s got value, it’s just quite hard to put a finger on what the extent of that value is even now, let alone next month.
Then why IPO? Isn't that even shorter term thinking?
* For now, when they don't have to compete much against companies like DeepSeek who supplies inference at 1/10th of the cost
There is no source for this. Amodei just pulled a hypothetical explicitly distanced from Anthropic out of his ass and kickstarted some citogenesis when people half-remembered that number and started quoting it as truth.
The only material claim of Anthropic is that they would "turn an operating profit of $559 million in the June quarter ... The company might not remain profitable for the full year as it plans spending increases due to its vast computing needs." with an explicit disclaimer that: "It is unclear what accounting methods Anthropic has used to book revenue and costs, as the company isn’t yet required to follow the financial-reporting requirements of a public company."
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mind-blowing-growth-is-about-to-...
This is the exact same quarter where xAI is giving them deeply discounted compute, as such the numbers cannot be projected out to the later quarters once Anthropic has to actually pay xAI for the compute they use.
Finally, there's the reality that were the revenue numbers any good, Anthropic would just publish them and leapfrog OpenAI. That they do not provide clear GAAP numbers suggests the numbers are bad.
SpaceX gave em discount for the pre IPO quarter so they can show profit
Anthropic signed a deal to lease compute that is the bulk of SpaceX revenue
he's trying to steal OpenAI's limelight and shit on their road show
I'm actually quite surprised how much money Anthropic pulls
Also surprised that OpenAI is not pulling as much as I thought
All in all it looks like OpenAI is in a bit of a vulnerable position.
That has worked in the past for tech infrastructure, so there is clearly a gamble that it does that again here.
I am skeptical that Anthropic and OpenAI can defend their dominance for long enough to make meaningful gaap accounted profits
Google seems to have a good B2B and internal leveraging AI to make $. OpenAI/Microsoft seems to have squandered an early product lead.
And then you have the Muskiverse, where we have an rocket ship company that buys surplus cyber trucks, operates a space ISP, an AI company that produces virtual fetish porn and makes money renting GPUs to Anthropic, a rando dying social network and a tunnel company to cock-block public transit.
I may be underestimating the market for AI anime porn, but I think Anthropic is probably the best in class product right now. Google and AWS are probably the best positioned sellers of AI. SpaceXAI is the dark horse because they are likely enriching the dear leader more. OpenAI is fucked.
Whatever Anthropic is paying is too much, since it means xAI will get to observe Anthropic's software, weights and operations in detail. It's probably contractually prohibited from doing so, but I doubt that would stop Musk, given what's at stake.
https://x.ai/news/anthropic-compute-partnership https://www.anthropic.com/news/higher-limits-spacex
https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2026/03/25/openai-a...
I don't think open weight models are likely to overtake or match frontier models in the next year or so when it comes to doing the most difficult tasks, but I do expect a lot of people who are currently funneling wheelbarrows of money to Anthropic to realize that they can achieve the vast majority of things they are doing with LLMs just as well with much cheaper open weight models.
Once they are in, they will catch most of the opportunities.
https://polymarket.com/event/anthropic-ipo-closing-market-ca...
the really interesting thing will be how much will other stocks go down because the passive dollars are chasing the new shares and have to sell to rebalance?
$ value of equity purchased in indices:
- total market cap of those 3: $3.6tn
- index inclusion weights is based on free float, not full market cap
- free floats ~5%
=> 5% * 3.6tn = 180bn of these stocks in MV weight in the index
$ value of index funds: $18tn
$ value of market cap that is tracked by these index funds: $57tn
=> index funds are 18/57 = 31.6% of the market value
=> 180bn * 31.6% = $57bn of stock included in the index funds
so $57bn in sales in other companies => 57bn/18tn = 0.32% of all other stocks sold
Now for the assymmetry here:
- 57bn in sales is about 7% of daily volume for all incumbants combined
- 57bn in purchase is about 15-30 days of volume for typical stocks (hence Elon's eagerness to get them included asap)
IPOing and getting a bunch of cash, even if your stock subsequently suffers in the crash, is a lot better than being unable to get that capital infusion before the house of cards collapses.
I think what is happening is that OpenAI is racing to IPO before Anthropic because their growth isn't as impressive. If you are the weaker company, you should IPO first to lock up the cash.
What's the evidence for Anthropic stagnating?
So we’ve got a combination of signs that they’ve been inflating their revenue growth, and signs that their customers are losing their appetite for contributing to that revenue growth. I suppose it’s not a slam dunk, but it feels to me like as strong an indicator as one could hope for a private blitzscaler startup like this.
Earlier this year they were telling a court their revenue was like 1/4 of what they had told the public.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...
Earlier this year they were telling a court their revenue was like 1/4 of what they had told the public.However, I do see a bit of reduced demand for hardware and datacenters which could reprice these companies to more sane multiples. There will be winners and losers.
Eventually, and likely in the lifetimes of most people living today, we would have to see something akin to universal basic income (UBI) that covers the necessities in order to stave off massive civil unrest.
If the white collar labor of human beings can’t compete with the output of AI, we either all become blue collar workers or we re-invent the concepts of work and play.
I’m not aware of any existing or proposed economy framework that adequately accounts for the automation that is nearly here at scale. We are not just automating away jobs - we are automating away the value that human beings have within a productive community. Before the mass starvation will come the mass suicide. Our culture teaches us that a feeling of self worth is derived from our perceived productivity. If we cannot feel successful, we may lose our wills to live.
Maybe, but history suggests there will be massive riots instead
They said exponential and you read unlimited.
To be clear, S&P hasn't announced a decision on this yet.
S&P don't get a choice around whether they announce their methodology or not.
That said, the rule change at the NASDAQ 100 doesn't seem to have impacted pricing or allocation. I can't imagine that many people are that concerned about this. (I posted the public-comment request from S&P to HN [1]. The response was crickets.)
Typically, you IPO when your private funding is drying up and/or some of your early lenders want to cash out.
It's worse for the new investors. (If it crashes.) It's great for the old investors. They got an opportunity to sell if they wanted. If they didn't, they still own their shares, except in a company that has that IPO cash sitting in its account.
Of course, some special souls are excluded from blackouts lol.
In the alternate timeline they would have held shares in a private company. They're still not really getting burned other than getting a tax bill.
In reality, corporations as a whole are seeing record profits continuing through 2026. Whether or not the average person is doing well is pretty irrelevant to the stock market: if companies are increasingly profitable, stocks go up.
Everything I hear about Anthropic points to a company that is actually closer to profitability and possibly already profitable, unlike many of its other peers.
We don't really look at YouTube as a failure and that product was unprofitable for many years. Nobody thinks the Uber bubble is going to burst even though it has never made back its investment money.
I think OpenAI is undisciplined and poorly run hence the insane burning of cash. Sam Altman is a terrible CEO and a conman. Anthropic is run by legit people.
Companies like Google, Microsoft, and Meta face essentially no negative consequence for burning cash. They have no urgent need to be efficient about their AI investments, even if they could be.
SpaceX is of course not profitable and has a lot of baggage but they still have a major asset, which is that Starlink prints utility company levels of money and is expanding both customer base and profit margins rapidly. Are they overvalued? Yeah, of course.
I’m not necessarily expecting a crash any time soon. (But we average a major correction, what? every 8 years? So if you keep predicting one long enough you will eventually have been right all along.) But I do feel comfortable saying OpenAI and Anthropic are overpriced. For more or less the same reason Cisco was overpriced in the late ‘90s. It’s not that what they were making wasn’t valuable; it’s that we got out over our skis a bit over how much of it the world could actually manage to consume in the immediate future.
Groupon got to pretty much 100% penetration, still crashed and burned right after IPO. I think Zynga followed a similar trajectory.
> "There's no way you'll hurt yourself walking to the living room"
> "Read history: people always think everything is fine ... until it isn't."
History is also replete with people constantly predicting collapses that don't come. Timing the market is very hard with numbers, it's total nonsense if one is just going off vibes.
The good news is that these folks seem to be in possession of a vibe-rator.
Anthropic, SpaceX and OpenAI are not banks. (Also, we had the largest bank runs in American history three years ago. The ordinary American barely noticed.)
Yes. Equity investors. The ones who buy hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars of American stocks a quarter.
Cause if that's the case, I see no reason for a government bailout should things go south. Nobody's pension would be affected by some private investor losing money on a bad investment.
But if that's not the case, then someone somewhere along the chain is acting as a bank, subject to a vibe-driven run.
Yes [1].
> Nobody's pension would be affected by some private investor losing money on a bad investment
...pensions also invest in the stock market.
> if that's not the case, then someone somewhere along the chain is acting as a bank, subject to a vibe-driven run
You're confusing deeply unrelated concepts. Whether or not someone who loses money is politically sympathetic has nothing to do with whether they're at risk of a bank run.
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20260319/html/f22...
If pensions invest in the stock market, then they are de-facto acting as a bank. And last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so [please don't do this based on this post alone].
What does this mean? Who do you think benefits from a bailout?
> If pensions invest in the stock market
Pensions are private investors. And pensions invest in all kinds of things. Plenty are already shareholders in these companies.
> last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so
This is a non sequitur. Nobody disputed this. And 401(k)s are not pensions.
So just buy the dip if it actually crashes.
The bubble can't pop until after an IPO, and that doesn't mean "immediately after".
You can't have a run on a privately held company.
Is there some sort of way I can positively monetise this?
The answer is clearly to buy stocks and then short it.
(/s!!)
I sometimes try to get people to worry about the catastrophic state of American public finances by pointing out that the net national debt, including unfunded liabilities, is estimated to be $175T [0]. The government could appropriate all the equity from the top 3000 largest companies, and also the entire real estate market, and it still would not be able to pay its debt (RE market is $55T).
Also: All of those numbers you use to scare people are way, way off.
It's a liability because the U.S. has promised to pay it. We haven't committed to a level of military spending backed by our full faith and credit.
EDIT: Never mind! Apparently we can just cut social security payments.
In Flemming v. Nestor SCOTUS ruled that SS benefits are not guaranteed contractual rights but are instead statutory entitlements that Congress may modify or revoke.
The rest of your article is complete bogus and the economic equivalent of climate change denial.
The U.S. Treasury publishes a daily total of the national debt, which as of May 2026 was $39 trillion.
a little less than half of the total national debt is owed to the "Federal Reserve and intragovernmental holdings"
In December 2020, foreigners held 33% ($7 trillion out of $21.6 trillion) of publicly held U.S. debt
"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem."
High levels of debt only signals high demand for this product.
This is super-counterintuitive, but the debt has little to do with the deficit. We could run a surplus and still be in the same level of debt (in fact, this would be a tremendous place to be). We could run a deficit and have no debt (just print money, duh). The decisions that go into column A generally do not impact the decisions our leaders have to make in column B, though there are of course convenient relationships between the two.
Repayment to $0 isn't a reasonable goal but there are a lot of problems with your argument.
The biggest question is about sustainability. Is the debt-to-GDP ratio stable/manageable and is the interest rate on the debt below the economy's growth rate? If the answer is no, you have a problem.
> High levels of debt only signals high demand for this product.
This is backwards. The amount of debt is set mostly by government supply, which is driven by deficits. The demand signal is the price, which in this case is the yield. If the demand was high, yields would drop as the amount of debt grew. Instead, we have rising debt and rising yields, which means supply outstrips demand.
The US no longer has a AAA sovereign credit rating for a reason. When Moody's (the last agency to downgrade the US) stripped the US of its AAA rating, it cited "rising debt and interest costs 'that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns.'"
The biggest issue at this point isn't the principal, it's the interest. Interest is the fastest-growing line item in the federal budget. It's almost at $1 trillion/year now and expected to nearly double by 2035. You either have to cut from other spending or borrow more to pay the interest.
Your comment implies that this doesn't have a real cost, which is silly.
No sympathy for people and institutions who make deals with the devil and expect the government to forever enslave taxpayers to honour those deals and pay back with interest.
Second, its critical that treasury bonds are denominated in USD. The us gov controls the monetary policy and can choose to inflate away the debt over time. This is in contrast to EM debt where they get trapped with foreign denominated bonds. See also the tensions around EU debt, greece, etc.
Argentina is doing fine. The real constraint would be that defaulting on the debt would cause a credit crisis and bank collapses.
The powerful people holding the debt will seek to change the government to one that obeys them
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20260319/html/f22... line 16, 2023 to 2025
30% above the average. Households bought $1.6 trillion in Q3 of 2025, for example. (Foreigners bought a further $650 and $700 billion in Q3 and Q4, respectively.)
American capital markets are ridiculously deep.
American market valuation is more than twice the entire US GDP. So ridiculous is a good description of what's going on.
Stock versus flow.
There is even a name for marketcap/GDP, Buffett Indicator. And historically the current value is very high.
Where did you get spending? That's net buying of stocks by non-financial Americans. It's the new money that has, on average, gone into the U.S. stock market from that section of investors every year. A third of it going into these new issuances doesn't need to break anything.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Almost certainly, to some degree. But that doesn’t mean anything has to drop. Just not rise, or not rise as much as it would have. Or potentially some other company that would have gone public or sold shares doesn’t do it now.
Other than it not going somewhere more productive. Are you willing to just bury 1/3 of your income in the back yard?
Maybe getting more of these big private companies public will bring valuations down a bit.
(Just my impression. No math or financial studies behind it :)
Keep in mind that inflation ran over 7% annualized in April [1].
Everything else is up around 3% YoY. And if energy and transportation are up double digits, and producer prices are up double digits, other consumer prices will follow.
The faster your cash loses value, the stronger your incentive to trade it for something else. That something else can be financial assets.
> It's not got loads to do with large-scale, institutional investments
For investors, particularly retail investors, the consumer price index is most relevant. But for whatever it's worth, producer prices are up over 16% in April (7% excluding "foods, energy, and trade services," which jumped over 50% annualized) [1].
To be clear, I'm floating a hypothesis here. I have seen no evidence linking inflation to demand for these companies' shares. (If anything, it should be the inverse.)
It's frustrating people who parrot it think they're smart by saying it to others with no basis and finally when it does happen they're like SEE SEE!?
> Until then, history teaches that we'll just keep going up and up
And this is the more important part. As long as you're <40 you SHOULD always buy SPY or VOO, even at the very top.
People have been saying the crash has been coming since 2022. If you believed this and acted on it, you would've missed 3-4 +10%/yr returns.
As Buffet says: You can't time the market; be in it.
S&P has not announced a methodology change yet.
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announ...
Post 08 crash, all sorts of conspiracy websites like Zero Hedge were popular saying how the world economy would keep crashing.
Unfortunately, the US Government continued to run themselves into the ground spending-wise and may have a difficult time with another bailout, unless everyone pretty much agrees that we cannot have a USG failure, so they all pretend like nothing happened.
Eventually the merry-go-round stops, I'm just not sure what the catalyst will be, and it might be 100 years from now.
Edit: I should add the AI bubble can absolutely burst but there is no reason to believe these IPOs are the end of the ride. If I knew I would be…
There is a reason anthropic is still hiding those details:
> key details typically included in that form about a company’s operations — like potential risks to its business, executive compensation, and other financials — won’t become public until later on in the process
Source: https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/941016/a...
We'll see, maybe they trigger some new rule change to be allowed to keep it hidden. Wouldn't be surprised about that at all.
Even if all signs point to impending doom, at the end of the day if people are still buying, stocks will hold their value.
But why? The US population is set to dramatically shrink in the next 30 years. Where does all the money come from?
while going with the tried&true makes some sense, I think we have to open our eyes to a different reality of our stock market… and this market concentration into few companies is going to get a lot worse…
A small number of companies have always driven most stock-market gains. Betting on size isn't fundamentally a bad bet. But it is a bet against value and the historical tendency for small companies to be higher risk and higher reward.
Is this not just "It's different this time" thinking? I remember it being used all the time during the dotcom boom
You mean 0DTE babies?
Stock prices don't have to crash. They can just stagnate while profits catch up and multiples compress.
Debt binges, on the other hand, tend to go bust with a bang. But after the recent private-credit scare, the AI build-out has been predominantly financed with stock. (I think.)
I believe that's been concentrated at the hyperscaler layer, and subsided when the aforementioned private-credit scare reared its head. (I haven't heard a big datacenter debt deal announced in a while. Though of course that doesn't mean they aren't being done.)
Is there is historical evidence for that? As someone who used to follow Jeremy Grantham a lot (he considered himself a "bubble historian"), IIRC every bubble he studied always mean reverted, and it usually (maybe always, can't remember) overshot on the downside during the correction.
This really depends on how we're defining these things. Let's call a stock-market bubble a period of elevated multiples. That can mean revert by prices decreasing while earnings stay constant or by prices staying constant and earnings rising. (Alternatively, both earnings and multiples can rise and fall.)
This isn't true of AI companies...yet. But these are companies entering the market with pre-IPO userbase (including lots of B2B) numbers that Meta and YouTube would have dreamed of before their acquisition/IPO.
I think this whole situation is very sleazy and corrupt, but ultimately my prediction is that nothing serious will come of it. Even the exposure of index and passive investing is overstated.
> The index demand is not 100% of the stock available in the IPO, or 110%, or even 50%. But it’s plausibly more than 25%. It’s not a short squeeze, but it’s a lot. Add a reported 30% allocation to retail, and arguably a majority of the IPO is being sold to price-insensitive investors. That is one way to get a high IPO price.
Took almost 20 years for someone to find a way to scale up the basic Scam Mechanics and try again.
If you like SpaceX's launch business (the Grade A mortgage that you personally hold and pay), know that you can't get it without xAI (The dogshit that's already delinquent)
I think its a little insane to have the seasoning rule for an index be inside the lockup period
LLMs are getting better at a rapid pace and in a year or two, Chinese LLMs should easily catch up with the best of the models. Models have kind of reached a saturation point and that’s why OpenAI and Anthropic are doing an IPO now. Because a year down the line when their lead diminishes even more, they would be worth lesser money.
SpaceX has clients to put payloads into space, but those clients have always looked for good low cost alternatives. It is going to have competition in the future and will lose customers.
Secondly, terrestrial infrastructure keeps expanding into the rural areas that Starlink counts on for most of their TAM. Except for ships at sea and extremely remote places, the Starlink TAM is chronically shrinking.
1) The short lifespan is intentional. There is no reason to keep satellites beyond a few years because older satellites quickly become obsolete. The first generation Starlink sats are now 4 generations old, and are practically ancient at this point. SpaceX wants the old satellites to fall, so they can be replaced by updated ones.
2) SpaceX could easily increase the lifespan of Starlink satellites to 10-15+ years, but they don't want to, because of (1), and because they are waiting for Starship to launch larger satellites at 10x lower cost.
3) Despite continually replacing satellites every ~5 years, Starlink is operating at a very profitable 40%+ profit margin.
4) Starlink is expanding to direct-to-cell 5G at speeds up to 150Mbps, which vastly expands the TAM from just broadband usage to all cellular data usage. Rural areas may never get a terrestrial cellular buildout, since it will be cheaper for companies to partner with SpaceX for coverage than to build their own towers. A cellular tower can cost upwards of >$250k.
Okay, well who will offer a lower cost-to-orbit than SpaceX?
> It is going to have competition in the future and will lose customers.
Is that not true for everything.
Like Mercedes, Anthropic is not a growth stock because it has already been foisted on everyone.
Remember they arent selling the entire floats of these companies. I cant read the article because Im not willing to pay for the Economist, but 400-500b in equity issuance is not a big deal to the global financial markets even though it sounds big.
Don't give your money to Elon Musk, he doesn't need more.
The money to participate in the IPO has to come from somewhere...
Is the text of the waiver and its reasoning anywhere? I guess I'll read tfa.
Investors in these companies are going to be looking for revenue and pathway to profitability. I'm not sure anyone needs to see an impact on GDP to invest.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364986 and marked it off topic.
I can’t find any because the admin is so horrendously corrupt.
These indices aim to replicate the market. They’re not trying to pick stocks.
There is a serious argument for saying they fail to replicate the market if they structurally exclude trillions of dollars of it.
The indices don't buy into the IPO, but a few days afterwards. That's obviously easier to bridge than 6 months. But IPO buyers are still taking a risk.
Which index are you thinking of?
Most of these indicies intend to match the largest companies on the market - going up when they do and going down when they do.
If someone doesnt want that, they can pick a different index or invest in a managed fund. Companies like vanguard also offer custom EFTs where you can exclude certian companies if you want - probably the simplest option.
But then you cant complain if they go up and you miss out.
PS: Yes, there are several cannabis ETFs if you are into that kinda thing. look into MJ, WEED, MSOS, and YOLO.
So why not just stick to the roles we agreed on when buying in?
In this age of AI marketing taking over the minds and imaginations of most of our businesses leaders in the name of greed and fear, I’ll hold to the more likely truth given the circumstances, regardless of this appeal to some invented tale of uncorruptable corporate governance. Have you never seen decisions being made?
I think that better matches the original spirit of this forum. The progenitors have become the people they once disrupted.
These wives were yoga teachers and socialites. And I say that as a man that is a feminist and upmost respect for the amazing women I have worked with that were absolutely world renowned professionals. The bankers wives were not in that category and were shells to eliminate the “conflict of interest”. The CEO of Goldman Sachs did this. You can find the records if you want to be on a government watch list.
It’s depressing as hell, and it’s going to go out with the proverbial whimper, but at least we’ve got to be close to rock bottom, right?
You need to vote for the next several years, no matter what, because you still have a chance.
Once corruption becomes the default, then you are REALLY screwed. Because it kills hope and the faith in the future in the most corrosive way possible.
The death of morale is a far worse and insidious fate that will make today look like a high point.
Of course I’ll vote, and be more active in protests and campaigns, but TBH the general vibe is that it’s already too late. It’s that bad.
What I find odd is that the comments are critical of how the police didn't caught thieves, but there is absolute silence towards thieves and the fact they have been engaged in thieving for ever.
Another comparison is people blaming the fire department for not inspecting sprinklers after an arsonist torched the place. It seems to me that the arsonist is the root cause, isn't it?
Police are only useful so long as they are effective as policing. It’s insanely difficult to put a price on a cost center which doesn’t add value, but only has a chance to reduce the loss of value if they do their job well.
The problem with the fire department analogy is that there’s a lens through which the fire department IS the arsonist here, or is at least pouring accelerant at the future site of the arson. If you don’t know why I would call the bankers at S&P, Nasdaq the arsonists in this case, you aren’t equipped with the background info about SpaceX’s fast track + goalpost moving to index funds.
I guess we should be thankful there aren’t more Luigi jokes in the comments.
This seems to be the problem. Thieves get a free pass but the very few guardrails that said thieves haven't dismantled yet suffer the blunt of the criticism, to the point people argue they don't need guardrails at all.
Don't you feel you are unwittingly aiding thieves to go unpunished?
Wouldn't it be more productive to place the blame on thieving? Police is a mitigation, and your complain boils down to complaining that police is influenced by thieves. Yet, I don't see people complaining about thieves.
The "bureaucracy and regulators" are at most engaged in passive corruption.
For passive corruption to exist, you need massive active corruption effort.
Why is everyone focusing on vilifying passive corruption while completely ignoring active corruption? I mean, I'm hearing lots of conspiratorial remarks directed at regulators but... Who stood to benefit? Aren't those responsible?
I mean, why was regulation required to begin with?
And then after all that, the public have to deal with their index funds, ETFs, mutual funds, pensions, 401ks, etc buying up these overpriced stocks. You have a space company that also acquired a failing social media platform and failing AI company with little revenue justification for the valuation, and a lot of other obligations that make it financially a disaster (like payments owed for spectrum). And two frontier labs with no real moats, each looking for regulatory capture based on safety or ethics or whatever.
To the everyday person, the stock market after the fast listing rule, these three IPOs, and AI job loss, will feel no more legitimate than prediction markets or crypto.
Only about a third of American stocks are held by passive capital [1]. Out of that, index funds are about 16%, and most of those in America reference the S&P 500, which has not yet announced whether it is changing its rules.
Do you have evidence to substantiate this claim? My brief research has shown the wealthier the investor, the likelier they are to use a passive strategy.
- Trailing P/E: 1929 peak was 32.6 vs. 32.67 today.
- Shiller PE (CAPE): 1929 peak was ~30 vs. 42.66 today (2nd highest in history).
- Buffett Indicator: Market cap was 124% of GNP in 1929 vs. 259.6% of GDP today.
- Margin Debt to GDP: 3.0% in 1929 vs. 4.1% ($1.304T) today.
- Systemic Risk: 1929 margin debt was 10-12% of total market cap vs. 1-2% today. Modern leverage has structurally shifted from retail to sovereign debt and shadow banking.
It will be in the history books.
What is reasonable value for all it does? Clearly it is not what it is now projected at.
How come? On the books or they're actually selling internet cheaper than they source it?
> xAI is a money burning furnace
So far in the AI business, it looks like only Anthropic might be profitable in the near future. On the other hand, a lot of nonprofitable companies have IPOd for billions with the hopes that one day they will become profitable.
- You can't blindly trust the US, or US businesses. Even less when it comes to critical infrastructure.
- You can't rely on underwater cables to be safe.
Starlink is a proven technology. They were the first major mover. But they will not be the last.
It'll be sort of like Tesla cars. For a long time they completely dominated the EV market, but now others are catching up. Yet Tesla is valued more than all other EV manufacturers combined. Some of this is of course from their vertical integration, but most of it is just hopium.
Same will happen with both Starlink, SpaceX, and other products under the Musk umbrella.
Yes. Even if this capital is just rotated out of the equity markets, it would be fine. The bond markets are orders of magnitude deeper.
The big story is that that is happening at all. It wasn’t that long ago when Facebook had to get special permission from the government to stay private until they got to $100 billion.
The issue here is that public investors are missing out on so much upside.
Not if anyone is cheating or scheming or being a rules lawyer, but is it good?
Do we finally see the mechanism?
As far as I can tell it is in machines they cannot make work, servicing markets that do not exist for a service that will not matter for 20-years.
That and a third rate AI company that no body wants, except to get rid of.
This will probably go swimmingly at the start - but as time goes by and they raise more capital, Musk snorts more K and the glory fades, what then?
And for starlink. There is some market. But if terrestrial options got their stuff together it is not that big either. Userbase is marginal. As they operate in areas that are not served by other options. And that market has real limit in size.
The market : As long as you sell for more than you buy, who cares what happens long term
Hence Tesla bubble
Finance bros look to their bonus for the year, not 5 years
The only company I'm confident will survive this hardware crunch and still be relatively successful in this space is Google.
OpenAI in particular is a bet that there will be an AI moat and that OpenAI will "win". I don't think there will be a moat and China is a big reason why (eg DeepSeek).
SpaceX is a little different. Yes, launching rockets is a business but it's not a trillion dollar business. 100 Falcon 9 launches doesn't even break $10 billion in revenue. Plus, Starship faces cost overruns, delays and significant headwinds.
But the real kicker is that SpaceX was used to bail out Elon from the Twitter purchase and the xAI investors from the first Twitter bailout. That's a problem because xAI is burning $1 billion a month in a company where that really matters and I don't think Grok will "win" here. Like, at all. SpaceX would be a significantly more attractive company without xAI.
The big potential growth area is Starlink. For that to justify this valuation I think you need handheld Starlink phones. That requires a lot of satellites at a relatively low orbit, which also means they have a relatively short life (because they burn up in the atmosphere). And for that Starship must succeed.
All the AI data center in space stuff is complete bullshit. It makes no sense. It'll never be viable. It's not going to happen.
EDIT: let me clarify because I was careless in my wording. So, Anthropic individually has not spent "trillions". That was more of a general statement on AI spending. Anthropic has raised ~$100B, the last round of which was $65B (at $965B post-money IIRC). This industry as a whole needs to recoup trillions.
Anthropic seems to be in a better position (as a business) than OpeNAI is but I do think the it's a race to cash out before depreciating assets, well, drepreciate and there's the real risk as compute becomes cheaper and the AI craze wears off, Claude just may not have the growth trajectory that is built into the price.
I think the aim would be to generate at least $900bn of cash flow from those assets.
Anthropic/OpenAI really need to train ever-bigger models to keep their moat. But that assumes there isn't a law of diminishing returns and also that a compressed model isn't sufficient for what many people need.
You mihgt say that the training is a barrier. And it is, kind of. Notice how it's Chinese companies coming out with open-source models like DeepSeek and Qwen? That's no accident. As soon as DeepSeek came out I knew what was going on: China is going to make sure no single Western company "owns" AI. It's in their national interest for that not to happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if the rush-to-IPO is motivated, at least in part, by getting ahead of Chinese AI commoditization.
If Ant, OAI, etc. aren't able to make 20-30% improvements on Opus 4.6 in 2026, does the music stop playing altogether? It seems like they'd lose their ability to charge >10% gross margin on inference in a span of 3-6 months.
The vast majority of the price rise is mainly due to AI companies sucking all the air out of the room and everyone investing in "AI" regardless.
If China gets their process down to match US/Korea/Taiwan and they decide to flood the market to drown out competitors then hardware is going to be an order of magnitude (or two) cheaper than it is today.
The rollout relies on Starlink V3 sats, which can only be launched Starship, but Starship progress is going well and is already able to deploy satellites from orbit. SpaceX is capable of launching Starlink V3 on the current iteration of Starship, but they want more testing. We'll probably see Starlink V3 launching late this year or early next year.
You really think they are going to hold off against selling for multi-millions for another year, especially SpaceX?
OpenAI (and especially) Anthropic are at risk from being undercut by the Chinese labs and their open-weight models and may cause their valuations to be questioned.
If that doesn't cause a correction, then SpaceX will do it for them. There is no lock up for the 5% of shares being available.
Turns out it was a scam and shares fell on the first day. Soon after the entire bubble burst.
That said, I don't even see "huge demand" for the AI triocorns right now. Unlike in 2000, most people are skeptical.
World Online IPO
Meanwhile, Anthropic is adding ~$10-$15b ARR every month.
That said, I don't even see "huge demand" for the AI triocorns right now. Unlike in 2000, most people are skeptical.
I'd like to see how creative their accountants are before thrusting any numbers like that.
The AI companies IMO are fucked. In the next few years computer hardware should advance to the point that local LLMs are good enough for everyday workloads. Not everyone needs top of the line flagship models in a cloud to see productivity gains. Companies will actually save money just buying employees top of the line laptops for AI enabled work than blowing that same amount on tokens every month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bypass_Paywalls_Clean
The project has been going on for years, it moved to gitflic after being banned from github and gitlab.
There will be chaos and potential stall for another 2 years following the elections and if the democrats win. There will be natural vested interest in showing economic decline or bad things to win next elections.
Both parties do it.
This is the best time to get to a safe place for all these companies.