• ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 days ago

    For everyone blaming his politics for the decline, you clearly weren’t paying attention when 75% of Tesla shareholders voted to pay him a $1T bonus last November.

    The people dealing with stocks don’t care about his politics.

    • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      They love his politics, I wonder how many he helped out cutting up regulatory agencies that may have been looking into their own companies they’re CEOs to.

    • shirasho@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 days ago

      Their valuation was made based on the potential for every company to be using the product. No other companies outside of Musk-owned ones are valued that way. Many are valued on the average of a few years of revenue multiplied by 10.

      It is blatant corruption and market manipulation. Anybody investing in such a company should expect to be holding bags within 24 hours.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        Indeed, someone with a deep fanaticism for Musk posted exactly that scenario as inevitable. This was to stand by his man when Musk asserted that SpaceX should be worth more than everything else on earth combined (he was pissed that spcx had fallen).

        The dude claimed that by 2038 the 20 biggest companies would all be entirely space based exclusively, and that globally SpaceX would be the sole provider of space technology and the other 19 companies would be tenants of SpaceX. It all made sense to him because space is bigger than earth, right?

        I can’t find it, but among the usual suspects (space mining, space datacenters, terra forming), I was especially amused that his hypothetical “space banking company”, because for some reason the financials of space companies needed to be managed by a company that could get stuff launched into space?

      • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        Which is amazing because it’s somewhere between 4th and 15th place in the LLM race. Let’s say you really believe in a winner-takes-all scenario for AI where the winner gets to monetize harder than Google… Why would you invest in SpaceX? I don’t understand the scenario in which SpaceX makes loads of money off of AI. Maybe with space datacenters, assuming that’s even possible? But if that’s the plan, why spend lots of money training their own model rather than renting out racks of GPUs?

        • ToiletFlushShowerScream@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Makes sense, but didn’t DOGE steal/transfer social security admin and other US government databases on every American for their AI training. Maybe that access was their implied/wink wink advantage over others?

  • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    9 days ago

    Love it. Hope Tesla’s next and his house of cards collapses as all the debt leveraged on his Tesla shares comes calling.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    9 days ago

    All the analysts at the beginning were shouting that the IPO was overvalued.

    Making outrageous promises and failing to deliver is Elon Musk’s brand.

    If you have money to invest, and you lost it in SpaceX without doing your due research, I have no sympathy for you.

    (I have no money to invest. I was just following SpaceX and Musk’s dubious trillionaire status. He’s still, way, way too rich.)

  • AeronMelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    The stock market is gambling.

    “SpaceX gamblers in meltdown over not having a winning bet.”

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        Yeah, they WISH it were like gambling…but it is fraud, insider trading and stock manipulation.

    • protist@retrofed.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      I gotta disagree that the stock market is inherently gambling. If an investor does their due diligence, looks at the fundamentals of a company, and makes an informed decision to invest, they are very likely to see some sort of return on that investment.

      Unfortunately, we’re deep into “vibe investing” territory now, where stats like P/E ratios no longer seem to matter to either institutional investors or many casual investors. Where people are dumping their money is now disconnected from where it’s wise to dump money

      • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 days ago

        So, not unlike sport gambling. You study the teams, their forces and weaknesses, their history, and make the informed decision to gamble. It’s still gambling.

        • protist@retrofed.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          It’s totally different though. Sports betting is an all or nothing affair, you put money on an outcome, you either win or lose, then it’s over.

          Day trading (and now vibe trading/meme stocks) may be similar, however investing in a company with good fundamentals long-term carries significantly less risk.

          Many companies offer dividends, so you can make money even without the stock price itself increasing. And in holding a diversified portfolio of quality stocks long-term, meaning you ignore market fluctuations, the risk of losing everything is basically zero, and the likelihood of your portfolio increasing in value approaches 100%

          • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            Yes, but you can’t say that you made money before the sum of the dividends and the reselling price is superior to the buying price. If you invest 100€, the probability to loose 100€ is small; but to loose some of these 100€ not so much. If you invest well, the probability to lose money at all may be small, but if you gamble intelligently on sports it is too.

            It’s the same equation: more risk=more potential profit, less risk=less potential profit. I fail to see the difference with gambling.

      • Otter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        I think it comes down to

        • on paper it isn’t gambling
        • in practice it has become gambling

        ETFs are generally better, especially if you don’t touch them for a long time.

        • tormeh@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          To elaborate: The stock market is a “Keynesian beauty contest” where - at least in the short and medium term - what investors think other investors think* about a stock is more important than what it’s actually worth. Reality asserts itself eventually, but “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent”, so here we are.

          • ad infinitum
      • 1984@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Its because they make money buying whatever goes up, instead of holding selected companies for a long time.

        Think about it. You could have made 150% by holding micron for three months. Big tech companies take five years to make that much. So that’s why these investors have to jump on the bandwagon no matter what the fundamentals are.

        They also sell as soon as it starts to show weakness, which is why micron dropped 30% in like 3 days.

      • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        9 days ago

        I had a family member talk about space data centers. I tried to explain how the issue in space is more about getting rid of heat, but they couldn’t comprehend it cause space=cold.

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          9 days ago

          I would think dealing with radiaton would be the most difficult thing about massive amounts of electronics in space. That’s why a chip on a satellite is much more expensive than an equivalent chip that stays on Earth.

            • orclev@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              9 days ago

              Don’t forget power it as well. Watched a video where someone did the math and to generate the power required of a typical data center you’d need a solar array something like 40 times the size of the one on the ISS. It would be an absolute behemoth of a satellite and that’s without taking into account the cooling which would likely double the size again. Of course once you get that big then you have to worry about keeping the thing in orbit because moving that much mass isn’t exactly easy. No matter how you slice it it’s a stupid ass idea that doesn’t work.

              • Womble@piefed.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 days ago

                Power is pretty much the only part of space data centres that does make sense. You can put them in an orbit to get 24hr solar power and its stronger than on the ground as there’s no atmosphere in the way. Large foldable solar panels are available, and unlike radiators you don’t have to pump liquids through them.

                Other than hype (which is by far the major driving force behind companies talking about them) access to that power without regulation is the reason you would want to put them in space.

                • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  This makes sense to me.

                  Also, with all that surface area on panels, I feel like there’s a way of having them double as heat radiators - one side captures energy, the other radiates it out…

                • orclev@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  It still doesn’t make sense because of the power density. The size of the solar array you would need is completely impractical. Even a “large foldable solar panel” isn’t going to cut it. Most satellites are relatively low power and even then the size of the solar arrays they have relative to the volume of the satellite is massive. Something as energy hungry as a data center pretty much demands a “small” nuclear generator to power it and the practicality of getting that into orbit nevermind the issues when it eventually de-orbits makes that a nonstarter.

            • bus_factor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 days ago

              Those two things aren’t incompatible if you shield it with a massive heatsink.

              Still harder than just doing it on earth, though.

        • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 days ago

          they were even talking about ocean datacenter a while ago, people dont comprehend how expensive you have to deal with oceanwater, granted it may dissipate heat faster. but dealing with corrosions, logistics would be expensive too.

      • saltesc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        It would be the most depressing job. You’d get bored so fast.

        Heeere am I floating 'round a DC
        Faaar above the world
        Replace a GPU
        Maybe have a wank or two

    • stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 days ago

      Because too many people gamble (sorry “invest”) based on vibes and memes these days rather than fundamentals of the business and maintaining a properly diversified stock portfolio with a realistic time horizon.

      They don’t understand the concept of a pump and dump, and only see the people bragging about their quick wins rather than the majority that lose.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Participating in and profiting from a pump and dump scheme is the new American dream.

    • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think the assumption was that the shortened window to list it in the NASDAQ 100 in 15 days meant that it would be bouyed by 401k money. I don’t think early investors planned to be able to pump and dump so effectively that US retirement savings as a whole weren’t enough to keep it up.