A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

https://futuresearch.ai/spacex-ipo-valuation/

A $1.75 Trillion IPO Would Be Overpaying 30% for SpaceX

A sum-of-the-parts forecast of SpaceX's fair market value across seven business segments. The $1.75 trillion IPO target is approximately 29% above the median fair value of $1.25 trillion.

FutureSearch

An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules to favor Elon and his band of misfits.

No longer will there be a year of price discovery for index funds, 15 days. Meaning index funds have to buy it at the peak of the hype cycle. Will be a huge wealth transfer from mom and pop retirement accounts to the ultra wealthy.

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules.

They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

Who's "they"? Billionaires? Wall st? SpaceX insiders and investors?
By now, questioning "who are they" is naive or plain weak.
Someone who can't articulate who the villains are out of a pre-selected list and has to fall back to personal attacks is pretty "weak" as well.

If you were to apply the principle of charity[0] to the person you originally asked the question to, who do you think that they would mean by the word 'they' in this context?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Principle of charity - Wikipedia

>who do you think that they would mean by the word 'they' in this context?

It's really not clear, which is why I listed 3 plausible options. I'm also not going to bother attacking an imaginary position and be accused of "strawman" or whatever.

Open your eyes? Everyone on the top 1000 Forbes and at trumps inauguration?

The unknown subject is a valid construction in language. It is not necessary to be able to answer "who's they?". It is semantically equivalent to saying "I knew the rules would be changed."

There are also perfectly ordinary situations in which this pattern is used to imply the influence of an unknown party. "They built a bridge over the river." Clearly the speaker does not believe that bridges over rivers construct themselves. She doesn't need to know who built the bridge.

>There are also perfectly ordinary situations in which this construction is used to infer the influence of an unknown party. "They built a bridge over the river." Clearly the speaker does not believe that bridges over rivers construct themselves. She doesn't need to know who built the bridge.

This excuse only works if who built the bridge isn't central to the discussion. Otherwise this is just generic conspiratorial thinking that we're being oppressed by The Elites™.

Aren't we, though? Like it's hard not to argue that there's one or more groups of people that get together at lunches and dinners and galas and have ongoing projects to do things like institute rule changes at NASDAQ that effectively require index funds to take on outsize risk from a known-overvalued IPO just in time for that IPO to happen.

To understand why this isn't a conspiracy of a sort by some "elite" group of people to take money from 401ks and IRAs, you'd have to argue that there's a good reason to shorten the window that outweighs the reason the window exists. The fact remains that many many IPOs crater within a few months. The rule change seems to exist to leave small low-effort investors holding the bag.

Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get us.

>Like it's hard not to argue that there's one or more groups of people that get together at lunches and dinners and galas and have ongoing projects to do things like institute rule changes at NASDAQ that effectively require index funds to take on outsize risk from a known-overvalued IPO just in time for that IPO to happen.

It's also not hard to think of half a dozen other groups that could possibly benefit and plausibly have enough clout to steer things in their favor, hence why the need to make a specific claim rather than beating around the bush a vague "they" that can't be refuted.