Google (now under parent company Alphabet) invested roughly $900 million as the majority of a ~$1 billion funding round alongside Fidelity Investments. This gave Google an initial equity stake of about 7–7.5% in SpaceX at a valuation of roughly $10–12 billion.
matwood 1 hours ago [-]
Remember this was also when SpaceX was actually about space, instead of mostly AI and Twitter. Long-term shareholders that were sold on the space, have to be thinking about how to get out once their lockups expire.
dgellow 51 minutes ago [-]
Not just that, but private investors were sold shares that all had the same voting rights. Since just before the IPO SpaceX now has dual class shares, Elon and a few insiders have class-B shares with 10x the voting power, while everybody else (including private investors) have class-A shares with 1x the voting power
georgeburdell 44 minutes ago [-]
With the serious lapses in governance being made by founders with these special shares, such as Musk and Zuckerberg, I wonder if the shares without these special rights will be substantially discounted. What rights do these other shareholders retain that would keep them valuable? Rights to compensation in the case of bankruptcy?
jdross 29 minutes ago [-]
These have become some of the most valuable companies on Earth. The idea that there are lapses in governance in these companies is insane. Any shareholder is buying in fully aware of the governance structure. Many because of it! Shareholders’ rights are clearly enumerated.
panarky 25 minutes ago [-]
Generally the 10x shares aren't traded so it's impossible to see if they trade at a premium.
One exception is GOOG / GOOGL which both trade actively, and there's not much difference in price.
The mechanism for a price divergence could be accumulation of the 10x shares to seize control, but even if you could buy the entire float, it wouldn't be enough to take control, so that mechanism never happens.
Polizeiposaune 8 minutes ago [-]
There are three classes of Google stock.
By voting rights, they have 10x (founder stock), 1x (trading as GOOGL), and 0x (trading as GOOG). The class with 10x voting rights does not trade publicly. The class with 1x voting rights does not have enough voting power to control the direction of the company so there is no real difference in perceived value between GOOG and GOOGL.
Employee stock awards are IIRC all in restricted shares of GOOG (0x voting rights) so they don't dilute the power of the founders.
chii 19 minutes ago [-]
> I wonder if the shares without these special rights will be substantially discounted
it should be, but the market might be a bit irrational.
onlyrealcuzzo 33 minutes ago [-]
SpaceX is WAY more about space than Twitter.
Twitter by itself is lucky to be worth $15B anymore.
The space portion of SpaceX is easily worth 10x that.
xAI is theoretically the hype machine that makes up the remainder of the value.
cowboy_henk 21 minutes ago [-]
Twitter is the “hype machine”. It’s basically the advertising arm disguised as a social media company.
At SpaceX’s valuation, even a 1-2% increase in share price due to some astroturfing on the platform they themselves own basically pays back the cost of acquiring twitter.
mrits 12 minutes ago [-]
Where did you get $15 billion from?
Fire-Dragon-DoL 37 minutes ago [-]
Well X is at the end of the name, so first is about Space, then about X, right?
/s
miohtama 1 hours ago [-]
SpaceX, like Tesla, has always been about Elon Musk.
Investors are buying Musk, like they were buying Warren Buffett with Berkshire Hathaway. Long-term shareholders are not buying space; they are buying Musk. This has been clear to everyone since the beginning; it has been well communicated (look at SpaceX governance rules in Texas), and there is nothing mystical about it.
It's very likely Musk will roll everything up into a single Musk conglomerate.
SecretDreams 55 minutes ago [-]
Investors are buying into the fallacy that musk can continue to work as a hype man, rather than some visionary or innovator. They like that he can make stock numbers go up, seemingly against all odds and reason.
Whether this trend continues or not indefinitely will largely determine if incestors start looking for the door.
wongarsu 21 minutes ago [-]
Unlike Tesla, SpaceX is still a visionary and innovative company. Their current cash problems are precisely because they are so heavily invested in so many innovations that have yet to pan out
mhitza 23 minutes ago [-]
Love the typo.
I think Musk's luck is running out, he's been too political this past year and he seems to also have run out of geek "street cred". Remember youtubers visiting (whatever the Tesla trade show was called) were more perplexed than impressed with what has been shown. Similar sentiment seen across trade shows (like CES) where everything was AI and no one seemed to ask themselves "why are we putting AI in this?". The answer, of course, for startups and stock listed companies, to make themselves more valuable on paper.
Investors would probably be aware of that if they run any kind of sentiment analysis on online social media content. And at the same time there's some pull-out from tech stock. So maybe some are starting to realise that things are too shaky for their risk profile?
mrits 10 minutes ago [-]
It’s so weird to see people actively try to criticize arguably the most successful person in the history of Earth.
miohtama 45 minutes ago [-]
It's a valid point. But the markets are a harsh mistress. If you don't like fallacies, you don't buy. And if you think the number is not going to go up, you can always short the stock.
In defence of Mr Musk, despite his character flaws, Tesla is the only Western electric car company in the top 20, and this includes Korea and Japan. Also, SpaceX is ~90% of the world's commercial rocket launch capacity.
But this does not mean SpaceX would be correctly priced at the moment. It may be expensive, but SpaceX is going to have many years to come to reap the benefits of their hard work building the business.
3form 10 minutes ago [-]
In fact it was often mentioned as a recommended way to try to invest in SpaceX via proxy, before IPO. I don't think that advice had much merit, but it was there nevertheless.
throwaw12 2 hours ago [-]
100x return, I would sell immediately after this kind of gain, maybe that's why I am not a Google
rsynnott 2 hours ago [-]
Per the article, they can’t, yet.
rf15 2 hours ago [-]
I'm sure at an $80 valuation they will tell everyone how it's time to buy as it slides down further
knodi 1 hours ago [-]
Average pre-ipo sale price is $6.xx
hiddencost 2 hours ago [-]
(1) there's a lock out, they can't legally
(2) Moving that kind of volume at market price is extremely difficult
(3) This disclosure was required by law as part of their earnings. They would rather have said nothing and quietly offloaded it.
One consequence of booking the revenue is that they're going to have to report a loss when they sell it.
It's possible there's some tax shenanigans at play (idk): report the profit, mark it against their massive AI capex, sell later when they can book a loss. (I'm not sure if it works that way, it wouldn't for an individual, but maybe they can find a way to trigger a stepped up basis.)
sidcool 2 hours ago [-]
There would be some laws in place. And it would also stress the relationship with Elon.
ajross 2 hours ago [-]
This is a micro/macro mistake. You obviously can't dump a 6% stake at strike price on Robinhood.
"The Market", at this scale, means "You find the buyer(s) yourself and work up the deal with a hundred lawyers and PR staff and hope the contract negotiation stays secret".
TheAtomic 1 hours ago [-]
Actually, that's the service provided by GS, etc. They have those buyers on the other side of their Rolodex.
imagent 24 minutes ago [-]
What is GS?
smnscu 20 minutes ago [-]
Presumably Goldman Sachs (or any investment bank worth its salt)
thaumasiotes 16 minutes ago [-]
Well, to be really accurate, I assume GS is Goldman Sachs alone and "any investment bank worth its salt" is referred to by the "etc".
Mtinie 17 minutes ago [-]
Goldman Sachs
ajross 36 minutes ago [-]
Well, yes. They're the ones who actually employ the hundred lawyers and PR staff. But that's what it takes, and it's not about clicking some buttons on a Web 2.0 Day Trading UI.
kingleopold 25 minutes ago [-]
tell me how you dont know anything about dark markets and dark pools. I loveeeee how you average people dont know how they operate at top
embedding-shape 2 hours ago [-]
Feeling sated and not constant greed is no way to build billionaires, nope.
lotsofpulp 59 minutes ago [-]
Your comment is difficult to parse. Is Alphabet greedy for spending $900M on SpaceX equity many years ago before the business was built and there was a risk it would not be built?
Or is Alphabet greedy for holding onto the equity instead of selling it for cash? Or is throwaw12 greedy for wanting to sell something after a 100x return?
tonyhart7 1 hours ago [-]
if you are big company like google, another 100 billion is not gonna make you feel better since cold cash is liability at that scale
100 billion is nothing if that money can put you in better spot at technology landscape
teddyX 3 minutes ago [-]
Bad decisions like this explain a lot
grim_io 1 hours ago [-]
6% is more than all of the issued IPO shares. They were 5%, right?
fancyfredbot 40 minutes ago [-]
Correct
bombcar 1 hours ago [-]
What’s that in data centers?
rubyfan 2 hours ago [-]
Didn’t they just raise $85B “for AI”?
brainwad 2 hours ago [-]
It's not like they can sell the SPCX stock. It's still locked up.
outside1234 2 hours ago [-]
Hopefully they made this investment pre-IPO at some vastly lower valuation because otherwise… …this is a not going to end well for them.
jddj 2 hours ago [-]
They got in at a ~12B valuation. They'll be fine
forrestthewoods 2 minutes ago [-]
They’ll be fine? Dang I wanna be “fine”!
Aboutplants 2 hours ago [-]
If true then they paid under $800 Million for their 6%, now valued at $94 Billion.
dagaci 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, google they paid $900 millions in 2015 for about 7% stake, 100X. % Number probably fell because of all the "merging".
carlosjobim 2 hours ago [-]
Why? They will still have their same stake no matter what happens with the stock price.
I am short both Google and SpaceX RN; SpaceX's IPO smells foul. Google is an AI-bubble short; Anthropic and OpenAI haven't IPOed yet.
matwood 1 hours ago [-]
Not sure why you'd short Google. Their business was doing great pre-AI, and will likely do great regardless of what happens to AI. The rumors of their demise when AI hit the scene were clearly greatly exaggerated.
pier25 55 minutes ago [-]
Excluding all the capex from AI this last quarter has been one of their best.
hansmayer 37 minutes ago [-]
> Excluding
But you don´t get to to that. Would be like "Excluding my business costs, my company profits are the same as my revenue".
delecti 6 minutes ago [-]
I think the point is more: as soon as they stop with the AI silliness they'll return to being a quite strong business.
aoeusnth1 16 minutes ago [-]
The return on capital is also phenomenal. To be a bear, you have to assume that will crater.
next_xibalba 1 hours ago [-]
There is quite a bit of information out there as to how Google is achieving short term growth in their core search business. And boy, it is ugly. It does not signal long term continued growth.
adabyron 28 minutes ago [-]
Please explain more. I haven't seen anything of quality. Best I can observe is they've increased ads on videos and pages.
boelboel 36 seconds ago [-]
They're going to keep increasing ads until their product is totally unusable, they have to as nothing else can meaningfully raise their revenue. There's certainly a point where they will cause more harm than good to revenue. Who knows when this will happen.
hansmayer 39 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
throwaw12 2 hours ago [-]
from your list, I think only Google has moat and something I would short least.
Google has hardware, software ecosystem, mobile ecosystem, controls browser, has access to 2B+ users, has talent to come up with ideas - perfect spot for AI
conartist6 2 hours ago [-]
Now Microsoft, them I'd short. In a way I have by starting my own company to undermine their various competitive advantages comprehensively
jeremyjh 1 hours ago [-]
Microsoft has many of the same advantages but is incapable of judging the quality of the products it makes.
matwood 1 hours ago [-]
The number of companies that default to using Teams shows why MSFT isn't going anywhere.
adabyron 26 minutes ago [-]
I will be very concerned for MSFT if small companies start outperforming larger companies. That's when Microsoft's advantage disappears. If AI truly encourages smaller, flatter organizations. IMO large enterprise adoption is their moat.
etempleton 36 minutes ago [-]
Microsoft bundles enough things at a low enough price that it seems silly not to use Microsoft if you are a corporation, because the alternative is to buy a number of different SAAS products (which are generally superior) at a higher price and have to deal with half a dozen to a dozen vendors.
conartist6 1 hours ago [-]
The only strategy that can work against Microsoft is a full broadside. You can't try beat them in just one niche, you have to go after the whole tech stack they offer. That's what I'm willing to try doing.
AznHisoka 1 hours ago [-]
Yes, exactly, would I bet that Microsoft’s products are inferior in quality to others. Yes.
Would I bet that other humans would believe that? Nope.
legulere 54 minutes ago [-]
Microsoft is in the same situation as IBM decades ago. „ nobody ever got fired for buying IBM“ used to be a common saying. If at all you’ll see a slow decline.
the__alchemist 1 hours ago [-]
Concur; I am shorting them as well. Your approach is more clever!
onlypostonce 1 hours ago [-]
Wow why has nobody thought of this /s
gizajob 16 minutes ago [-]
Google makes money hand over fist and they don’t have enough things to spend it on. AI is a natural fit for them to burn all their profits into. Gemini’s integration is, I think, absolutely awesome - it’s completely changing the way I interact with the concept of googling and finding answers, and is free of sign ups or purposeful interactions with the likes of ChatGPT or Claude where you know you’re AI-ing. So your short could work, but it’s not going to work for google’s involvement in an AI-bubble, it’s predicated on the entire market tanking, which should have been occurring for the past two years already if fundamentals and capex translating into profit were what the market cared about. But it seems like the market isn’t caring right now so you could be holding that short for quite a while before it turns into a major return.
SpaceX I actually bought at the IPO price because I think the company will be around in 30 years time, so as fraudulent and mispriced as it is, having a small holding over that kind of horizon I believe will be profitable. And I want to be that kind of old-timer who can chuckle at buying it at the IPO and holding through the crash and still holding when they are on Mars and beyond and SPCX is worth multiples of what it is today.
the__alchemist 3 minutes ago [-]
Nailed it. I didn't state this explicitly, but:
> So your short could work, but it’s not going to work for google’s involvement in an AI-bubble, it’s predicated on the entire market tanking
Is indeed a required assumption. Major return is not going to happen with this, Not losing a big chunk of my money is the goal!
> SpaceX I actually bought at the IPO price because I think the company will be around in 30 years time, so as fraudulent and mispriced as it is, having a small holding over that kind of horizon I believe will be profitable. And I want to be that kind of old-timer who can chuckle at buying it at the IPO and holding through the crash and still holding when they are on Mars and beyond and SPCX is worth multiples of what it is today.
I think that's a fine play as well. The short is more of an "This IPO price doesn't make sense; sell within a year after it settle"
chasd00 1 hours ago [-]
Maybe you’re right but, man, there’s easier money to be made than betting against those two companies.
zulux 1 hours ago [-]
Agreed, and in my opinion he's 100% right. But I'm still invested in both.
The market hasn't been working on fundamentals for a long time. I have a fair amount of value stocks and a bunch of cash lying around, so I'll be ok.
I really feel for anybody trying to invest to grow right now; there's no obvious safer play.
nubg 1 hours ago [-]
Like?
chasd00 37 minutes ago [-]
> Like?
Vanguard’s total market fund (VTSAX). Just setup a monthly purchase and forget about it. Turn wealth building into a time problem instead of a skill/luck/cash problem. (Assuming time is on your side)
the__alchemist 1 hours ago [-]
All of the quantum computing companies (Especially QUBT, which is outright fraud), although the window may have passed on that.
DanHulton 32 minutes ago [-]
That’s brave, and I don’t mean that shittily, but more cautiously. Like, I’m thinking of the Simpsons shirt-tugging meme when I read this.
I’ve always been hesitant to short stocks because of the old adage “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” and the market has a REAL vested interest in seeing these companies not explode.
Good luck on this one, genuinely, because you may need it.
(That said, if you DO win big on this one, I think we’re all fucked, so maybe I shouldn’t be wishing you TOO much luck. =) )
the__alchemist 27 minutes ago [-]
Sage advice!. In shorts like these, there's no outcome that "wins big" unfortunately, unless you do it with large amounts of money. (Unlike a long position on an individual stock that 10xs, or options which are much riskier). But... it will ideally make the landing softer after the Fall.
hahahaa 2 hours ago [-]
Short Google? Early is wrong you know?
IAmGraydon 1 hours ago [-]
That’s a pretty weird take considering they’re down 21% in the last 2 months. How, exactly, is this early?
Rover222 1 hours ago [-]
SpaceX near $100/share is a great long position now, IMO.
deadbabe 1 hours ago [-]
Google is not a good short. They are actually one of the companies that will likely come out on top when the AI-bubble has popped.
Anthropic and OpenAI though will likely be dead, killed by cheap open weight LLMs and local LLMs.
maipen 43 minutes ago [-]
Most sane comment.
Even in the last Elon Musk interview by The Economist, he admited that it's likely China will win at the end.
The gap is so close now. Opinions matter not, the Chinese will have their own GPUs, RAM and everything they need.
Giants like google and spacex are the few that can handle it because their business is not only about shipping the best models.
Fricken 13 minutes ago [-]
It isn't currently —for google— only about shipping the best models, but in the future however...
api 40 minutes ago [-]
I expect China to eventually develop or sidestep EUV lithography. When that happens it’s over.
It will also crash the price of chips globally. These high prices are kind of artificially buoyed by the fact that China can’t obtain ASML machines. This keeps China’s vast proven ability to scale manufacturing off the playing field.
This is so clearly the Chinese century. Doesn’t mean the US, EU, etc become backwaters. England was a huge influence on the 20th century. It does mean that China will drive tech and the global economy forward.
3 hours ago [-]
alfiedotwtf 3 hours ago [-]
FIFY: Google discloses $94B loss
minraws 2 hours ago [-]
They didn't invest 94B$
But yes the stock could go down much further and I hope they are willing to show the losses if they can show this as gains today.
Imagine the next call being about how their 95$B went to sub 30B$..
Will that be a negative line item. I don't see the point in disclosing this stake as earnings.
But I do get that accounting was made as a tool for companies to show off.
HFguy 1 hours ago [-]
Accounting goes back thousands of years. It was not made as a tool to show off. Lesson is more that tools can be abused for other purposes than intended.
consensus1 1 hours ago [-]
They don't have to be willing because hiding the losses would be a crime. And it still doesn't matter b/c anyone with a calculator can tell you exactly what the value of their position is on any given day. The $94 billion is 2.4% of Google's market cap, so even if SpaceX goes to zero it will be barely noticeable from the background noise of the stock price movement.
locallost 2 hours ago [-]
It will be difficult since they acquired it for less than a billion 10 years ago.
"The company’s marketable equity securities include $80 billion in shares subject to short-term restrictions and $14.1 billion subject to long-term restrictions"
Actually more like $14.1 and whatever value the other $80 is worth when they sell. Which is probably going to be worth well North of whatever is lost on the $14.1 B long-term... All part of the scam to inflate the value of the AI bubble
newsclues 2 hours ago [-]
hate makes people stupid.
formvoltron 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
kennywinker 2 hours ago [-]
Idk, but he sure did try to get invited to Epstein’s island to “party”.
It is extremely funny that Epstein is clearly all “oh, fuck, not this guy, gotta make an excuse”, here.
consensus1 1 hours ago [-]
I'm not seeing it.
> “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?” Musk states on 13 December 2013.
> “any day 1st - 8th . play it by ear if you want. always space for you,” Epstein replies.
> Musk then sends several emails relaying his schedule, and the two settle on 2 January as a date for the visit. The email exchange ends with Epstein telling Musk that he would need to remain in New York and sending his regrets that they could not meet.
> “Bad news- Unfortunately , my schedule will keep me in New York . I was really looking forward to finally spending some time together with just fun as the agenda. so i am very disappointed. Hopefully we can schedule another time in the near future,” Epstein wrote.
> In November 2012, Epstein sent Musk an email asking “how many people will you be for the heli to island”.
> “Probably just Talulah and me. What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk replied, in an apparent reference to his former wife Talulah Riley.
> Musk followed up with an email on 25 December in response to another Epstein message that encouraged him to visit and offered use of his helicopter.
> “Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I’m looking for,” Musk wrote.
> “Understood , I will see you on st Barth, the ratio on my island might make Talilah uncomfortable,” Epstein responded.
> “Ratio is not a problem for Talulah,” Musk said.
> On 2 January 2013, Musk sent Epstein an email suggesting that the visit wouldn’t take place saying: “Logistics won’t work this time around.”
Google (now under parent company Alphabet) invested roughly $900 million as the majority of a ~$1 billion funding round alongside Fidelity Investments. This gave Google an initial equity stake of about 7–7.5% in SpaceX at a valuation of roughly $10–12 billion.
One exception is GOOG / GOOGL which both trade actively, and there's not much difference in price.
The mechanism for a price divergence could be accumulation of the 10x shares to seize control, but even if you could buy the entire float, it wouldn't be enough to take control, so that mechanism never happens.
By voting rights, they have 10x (founder stock), 1x (trading as GOOGL), and 0x (trading as GOOG). The class with 10x voting rights does not trade publicly. The class with 1x voting rights does not have enough voting power to control the direction of the company so there is no real difference in perceived value between GOOG and GOOGL.
Employee stock awards are IIRC all in restricted shares of GOOG (0x voting rights) so they don't dilute the power of the founders.
it should be, but the market might be a bit irrational.
Twitter by itself is lucky to be worth $15B anymore.
The space portion of SpaceX is easily worth 10x that.
xAI is theoretically the hype machine that makes up the remainder of the value.
At SpaceX’s valuation, even a 1-2% increase in share price due to some astroturfing on the platform they themselves own basically pays back the cost of acquiring twitter.
/s
Investors are buying Musk, like they were buying Warren Buffett with Berkshire Hathaway. Long-term shareholders are not buying space; they are buying Musk. This has been clear to everyone since the beginning; it has been well communicated (look at SpaceX governance rules in Texas), and there is nothing mystical about it.
It's very likely Musk will roll everything up into a single Musk conglomerate.
Whether this trend continues or not indefinitely will largely determine if incestors start looking for the door.
I think Musk's luck is running out, he's been too political this past year and he seems to also have run out of geek "street cred". Remember youtubers visiting (whatever the Tesla trade show was called) were more perplexed than impressed with what has been shown. Similar sentiment seen across trade shows (like CES) where everything was AI and no one seemed to ask themselves "why are we putting AI in this?". The answer, of course, for startups and stock listed companies, to make themselves more valuable on paper.
Investors would probably be aware of that if they run any kind of sentiment analysis on online social media content. And at the same time there's some pull-out from tech stock. So maybe some are starting to realise that things are too shaky for their risk profile?
In defence of Mr Musk, despite his character flaws, Tesla is the only Western electric car company in the top 20, and this includes Korea and Japan. Also, SpaceX is ~90% of the world's commercial rocket launch capacity.
But this does not mean SpaceX would be correctly priced at the moment. It may be expensive, but SpaceX is going to have many years to come to reap the benefits of their hard work building the business.
One consequence of booking the revenue is that they're going to have to report a loss when they sell it.
It's possible there's some tax shenanigans at play (idk): report the profit, mark it against their massive AI capex, sell later when they can book a loss. (I'm not sure if it works that way, it wouldn't for an individual, but maybe they can find a way to trigger a stepped up basis.)
"The Market", at this scale, means "You find the buyer(s) yourself and work up the deal with a hundred lawyers and PR staff and hope the contract negotiation stays secret".
Or is Alphabet greedy for holding onto the equity instead of selling it for cash? Or is throwaw12 greedy for wanting to sell something after a 100x return?
100 billion is nothing if that money can put you in better spot at technology landscape
But you don´t get to to that. Would be like "Excluding my business costs, my company profits are the same as my revenue".
Google has hardware, software ecosystem, mobile ecosystem, controls browser, has access to 2B+ users, has talent to come up with ideas - perfect spot for AI
Would I bet that other humans would believe that? Nope.
SpaceX I actually bought at the IPO price because I think the company will be around in 30 years time, so as fraudulent and mispriced as it is, having a small holding over that kind of horizon I believe will be profitable. And I want to be that kind of old-timer who can chuckle at buying it at the IPO and holding through the crash and still holding when they are on Mars and beyond and SPCX is worth multiples of what it is today.
> So your short could work, but it’s not going to work for google’s involvement in an AI-bubble, it’s predicated on the entire market tanking
Is indeed a required assumption. Major return is not going to happen with this, Not losing a big chunk of my money is the goal!
> SpaceX I actually bought at the IPO price because I think the company will be around in 30 years time, so as fraudulent and mispriced as it is, having a small holding over that kind of horizon I believe will be profitable. And I want to be that kind of old-timer who can chuckle at buying it at the IPO and holding through the crash and still holding when they are on Mars and beyond and SPCX is worth multiples of what it is today.
I think that's a fine play as well. The short is more of an "This IPO price doesn't make sense; sell within a year after it settle"
The market hasn't been working on fundamentals for a long time. I have a fair amount of value stocks and a bunch of cash lying around, so I'll be ok.
I really feel for anybody trying to invest to grow right now; there's no obvious safer play.
Vanguard’s total market fund (VTSAX). Just setup a monthly purchase and forget about it. Turn wealth building into a time problem instead of a skill/luck/cash problem. (Assuming time is on your side)
I’ve always been hesitant to short stocks because of the old adage “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” and the market has a REAL vested interest in seeing these companies not explode.
Good luck on this one, genuinely, because you may need it.
(That said, if you DO win big on this one, I think we’re all fucked, so maybe I shouldn’t be wishing you TOO much luck. =) )
Anthropic and OpenAI though will likely be dead, killed by cheap open weight LLMs and local LLMs.
Even in the last Elon Musk interview by The Economist, he admited that it's likely China will win at the end.
The gap is so close now. Opinions matter not, the Chinese will have their own GPUs, RAM and everything they need.
Giants like google and spacex are the few that can handle it because their business is not only about shipping the best models.
It will also crash the price of chips globally. These high prices are kind of artificially buoyed by the fact that China can’t obtain ASML machines. This keeps China’s vast proven ability to scale manufacturing off the playing field.
This is so clearly the Chinese century. Doesn’t mean the US, EU, etc become backwaters. England was a huge influence on the 20th century. It does mean that China will drive tech and the global economy forward.
But yes the stock could go down much further and I hope they are willing to show the losses if they can show this as gains today.
Imagine the next call being about how their 95$B went to sub 30B$..
Will that be a negative line item. I don't see the point in disclosing this stake as earnings.
But I do get that accounting was made as a tool for companies to show off.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/20/spacex-fundi...
Actually more like $14.1 and whatever value the other $80 is worth when they sell. Which is probably going to be worth well North of whatever is lost on the $14.1 B long-term... All part of the scam to inflate the value of the AI bubble
For example.
> “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?” Musk states on 13 December 2013.
> “any day 1st - 8th . play it by ear if you want. always space for you,” Epstein replies.
> Musk then sends several emails relaying his schedule, and the two settle on 2 January as a date for the visit. The email exchange ends with Epstein telling Musk that he would need to remain in New York and sending his regrets that they could not meet.
> “Bad news- Unfortunately , my schedule will keep me in New York . I was really looking forward to finally spending some time together with just fun as the agenda. so i am very disappointed. Hopefully we can schedule another time in the near future,” Epstein wrote.
> In November 2012, Epstein sent Musk an email asking “how many people will you be for the heli to island”.
> “Probably just Talulah and me. What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk replied, in an apparent reference to his former wife Talulah Riley.
> Musk followed up with an email on 25 December in response to another Epstein message that encouraged him to visit and offered use of his helicopter.
> “Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I’m looking for,” Musk wrote.
> “Understood , I will see you on st Barth, the ratio on my island might make Talilah uncomfortable,” Epstein responded.
> “Ratio is not a problem for Talulah,” Musk said.
> On 2 January 2013, Musk sent Epstein an email suggesting that the visit wouldn’t take place saying: “Logistics won’t work this time around.”
[0] https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01762...