190
I buy a house, I set it on fire with my foolish ways, I then put it back on the market with a cartoon drawn facia placed in front, to make it look whole, priced at quadruple.
He rolled all his debt into it and now 401k holder are going to pay for it all.
Fraud. Right in front of our eyes.
The whole company is basically a place to hide debt. One giant ponzi scheme.
analysts believe SpaceX is “significantly overvalued”
So a perfectly normal US tech company, operating in a stock market that totally decoupled from economic reality quite some time ago.
No, no, no. You see, it all makes perfect sense because economics is built on the nobility of the rational thinking person. SpaceX is worth $1,500,000,000,000 because they have VTVL rockets! It's the future! Wait, what's that you said? Honda also has VTVL rockets and their market cap is only $35,000,000,000? Also, NASA has VTVL rockets in the 90s but keeps getting their budget cut? Ok, but the xAI has got to be making [searching] negative several billion dollars a quarter. Nevermind- what about Starlink? They're making money. Haha, check and mate. Adding in all the money Starlink has made puts SpaceX at [searching] just over negative one Honda in revenue. That... could be worse. Also, I mean, sure, satellite internet providers have been around for 30 years and each one had a period where the future looked bright before upkeep costs or technical issues hammered them into oblivion, but... mhhh....
Look, it's a very real, very serious, very professional system that is very grounded in reality. This is definitely not a huge scam with several giant red flags of unethical and possibly illegal rule changes to weasel into the NASDAQ-100 to fleece index funds.
I agree with your overall point, but have one quibble:
Also, I mean, sure, satellite internet providers have been around for 30 years and each one had a period where the future looked bright before upkeep costs or technical issues hammered them into oblivion, but… mhhh…
Pre-Starlink satellite internet's future never looked bright because the latency and upload speeds always sucked. Having a swarm of satellites in a low orbit constantly handing off the connections is genuinely a huge improvement compared to having a few satellites all the way out at geostationary. It's just a shame that it's got the deal-breaker of being run by a nazi.
It has a shitty LLM company attached, so that magically makes it one of the most valuable companies in the world!
And they’re going to launch those LLMs into spaaaaaaaace!
I understand that one major relevant issue that's been discussed is the impact of very large IPOs coupled with passive index funds and some changes to how indexing works.
A lot of people have money in index funds
these are funds that track a given index.
Traditionally, indexes tend to exclude very newly-listed companies, even if they are large, from being included in indexes. This gives the market time to place a value on the company.
Companies also not-infrequently drop in market capitalization from their IPO.
Recently, the NASDAQ-100 changed its rules so that companies are included much more quickly in the index, and are given a substantial amount of weight even if only a small portion of the shares are actually available for trading.
What this means is that SpaceX will IPO. SpaceX has a very large valuation. This will cause it to be included in the NASDAQ-100 index after 15 days, unlike the way that things had worked in the past. At that point, index funds that track the NASDAQ-100 index (e.g. QQQ or QQQM) will sell shares in companies like Apple and buy shares in companies like SpaceX. If its value drops after that, as is likely, then index fund investors will eat that loss. A lot of shares that are locked up and held by insiders will then unlock (I understand that 90 days and 180 days are significant), and so if those people then want to sell their shares, that will be likely to drive SpaceX shares down. Holders of index funds will lose some money, and pre-IPO holders of SpaceX equity will have made money.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/01/how-the-spacex-could-affect-these-popular-nasdaq/
The S&P 500 (SPY and VOO are major index funds that track the S&P 500 index) and Russell 1000/2000 index inclusion rules also changed, though I understand that the impact on index funds that track these indices is not as substantial as for the NASDAQ-100 index.
https://spotgamma.com/spacex-ipo-index-changes-spotgamma/
One concern I've seen is that if sufficient companies can be blown up to very large valuations and then IPO, operating under more-permissive index inclusion rules may degrade the returns on of index funds, since those index funds will keep buying into large IPOs and likely losing money on doing so. If this sort of thing becomes a major thing over time, it might cause investors to shift out of index funds and into active funds that merely use similar strategies (but avoid buying into IPOs).
SpaceX isn't the only company that this would affect; some large AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI, with very large valuations, will likely similarly be affected.
Some folks on Reddit were referencing a video Ben Felix did talking about the phenomenon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOyFja87uyw
EDIT: The basic misincentive here would be that NASDAQ controls the NASDAQ-100 index, but their interest is in getting more companies to list on the NASDAQ; they aren't interested in trying to maximize returns for index fund investors. Random company who might list on NASDAQ would actively like index fund investors to buy their IPO at a high price, since that transfers wealth from holders of index funds to pre-IPO equity holders. Operators of passive index funds (for QQQ/QQQM, Invesco) would like their passive fund to make solid returns, but they don't get to set the rules for index inclusion; NASDAQ does.
If you are invested, get your money out of these funds now. Buy small cap, mid cap and international funds. Don't let them hand you the bag in the first place.
This is very interesting. Would that not create demand for more passive funds / indices that actually keep avoiding this? What about all world indices like MSCI and FTSE? Are they vulnerable to this as well now or in the future?
Indices that don't include spacex can still be effected. As the major indices have to make liquidity available to purchase SPCX, that will suppress the value of everything else in their baskets to some extent. So the indices not including SPCX may be immune to direct SPCX volatility, but they won't be immune to all the effects of rapid inclusion.
I'm not the best person to ask about this; I read about this mostly because of the recent rule changes. I have seen a number of financial publications writing articles about it, though.
MSCI
I did read one article commenting that MSCI has not changed their rules and has less-permissive inclusion rules. If you have a lot of money on the line, though, I would not take my own understanding as being authoritative (I mean, even aside from the general principle of taking statements from random unknown names on the Internet with a grain of salt; I'm explicitly not claiming to have a lot of domain expertise here).
I think that the question is why some of the indices decided to change their rules, and whether the same logic might apply to other index operators, and I don't know the answer to that. I've certainly seen many outraged people on Reddit saying that the driving factor is clearly some form of corrupt influence from company that might list on the index operator. An index operator might simply be concerned about keeping their index a useful metric that reflects market behavior
huge IPOs are market behavior. shrugs I don't have the knowledge to say what's a reasonable conclusion there, though I think that concern about misincentives is fair.
I do think that it might be worth looking into if it's something that affects you, though. There are financial publications that have people writing about this, if you want to go digging up articles on it.
So, not even a pump-and-dump. Just a straight dump. Here's a magic trick that turns $100 into $10 virtually overnight!
And thanks to Banksters all standard people will pay the bill. Through the ETF „we pay IPO price“ scam
Can you explain what you mean? Sorry I’m not familiar with how ETF relates to this news. I’m learning a lot in this thread..
Sooooo, short the ever-loving piss out of the launch?
Serious question, what's the best way to get rich of this? My understanding is you can't buy options until few weeks after the IPO.
End game for Twitter/X and xAI; SpaceX took on significant debt to give Elon billions for them, now they are dragging SpaceX value down before they are foisted onto the shareholders. How long after the IPO will xAI get dissolved?
Musk is running out of companies to merge so it may actually tank SpaceX, here's hoping I the shockwaves ruin Tesla as well. Would be funny watching Musk shit himself when the banks start trying to collect loans where he used stock as collateral.
almost every ipo in the millenia has been overvalued. All the value of stocks even actively is based on some actual future theoretcial value but once its on the books it just becomes the value. P/E and P/B be damed.
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
190 points (99.5% liked)
News
37833 readers
1601 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS