miohtama5 hours ago
This investment has never been secret.
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.
matwood5 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.
dgellow4 hours 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
georgeburdell4 hours 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?
jdross4 hours 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.
janderson2153 hours ago
I agree many buy because of the governance structure and founders retaining control, but there is a lot of dumb money out there.
From Claude via stockanalysis.com: META — institutions 67.51%, insiders 13.49%, float 2.19B of 2.54B shares outstanding. That leaves roughly 19% as retail/other.
SPCX — institutions 5.95%, insiders 46.47%, float only 638.65M of 13.17B shares. Residual is ~47.6%, but that is not retail.
dgellow2 hours ago
In the case of Spacex that's literally not the case, when private investors bought shares the company was already a decade old and had a single class of shares. It's only since the IPO that the company switched to a dual structure, multiple years after private investors bought in. And class-B shares have only been given to Elon and a few of his friends.
miohtama2 hours ago
The private investors were free to sue or arbitrage, as it is a private matter.
There were disputes around SpaceX secondary market/special purpose vehicle shares before the listing, but they were all settled out of court, AFAIK.
NuclearPM3 hours ago
> Any shareholder is buying in fully aware of the governance structure.
This is laughable. Many shareholders don’t even know they own stock in these companies.
andsoitis3 hours ago
That’s an indictment on them. You should know where you’re putting your money and why. If you delegate this to a professional or influencer, you do not get to blame them. After all, you could just buy something you think you understand better like real estate or keep it in cash.
StilesCrisisan hour ago
You don't get much of a say in how your retirement fund is invested.
CamperBob22 hours ago
Exactly. If nothing else, you should know who you're supporting.
Many people wouldn't support SpaceX and Tesla if they knew more about Musk. Conversely, some other people who don't know much about him might want to support his companies.
dragontamer3 hours ago
The typical "investor" is an ETF these days.
Your standard SPY or VTI investor doesn't know jack diddly squat about shareholder rights, nor do they ever plan to invoke them.
DaedalusII3 hours ago
you should have a look at proxy firms. you would be surprised
panarky4 hours 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.
Polizeiposaune4 hours 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.
panarkyan hour ago
You are correct.
Interestingly, the 10x shares held by Brin and Page constitute only 11% of the economic value of Alphabet, but 51% of the voting control.
And the 10x shares automatically convert to 1x shares upon transfer or inheritance, so if the founders cash out or die, the 10x supervoting power disappears.
pyuser58321 minutes ago
Oh wow so that lets them honestly say they have the same value as other shares?
chii4 hours 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.
trimbo3 hours ago
I don't think companies expanding their business should be the only reason to sell. Apple was a desktop and laptop computer company when they released the iPod. Nokia was a company making rubber products when they started making cellular equipment in the 1970s. Amazon was a ecomm company when they released AWS. Etc.
Sure, I'm cherrypicking the success stories but I don't think it's the only signal people should use.
paulryanrogers3 hours ago
Companies laundering their CEO's other failing companies is certainly a reason to sell.
elif2 hours ago
$8.7B in losses over the last 5 quarters sounds bad, but that is also with $20.4B capital expenditure in the period and double digit percent increases per quarter in user metrics.
By traditional business metrics it looks toxic but compared to a typical tech unicorn it's not really outstanding.
Considering it's a tech unicorn with strategic and financial leverage like no other (their own global Internet infrastructure, access to arbitrary billions in capital, ability to build the biggest chip fab in the world), it's certainly fair to call it a gamble, but to call it failing is a stretch imo.
cinntailean hour ago
Did I miss something? When did Spacex get into the fab business?
stevenjgarneran hour ago
The project was first teased by Musk in early 2026 and officially announced on March 21, 2026 during a special event at the defunct Seaholm Power Plant in Austin, Texas [1][2]
mindslight32 minutes ago
So part of the extended cinematic universe then.
(man, I wish I could get people to throw money at me for all of my outstanding projects that I buy some parts for and would be nice to do "some time")
miohtama3 hours ago
Nvidia was a company making PC gamer hardware, not high-performance computing.
wildzzzan hour ago
The iPod was a peripheral to use alongside your MacBook, it was meant to drive Apple computer sales initially and it's not like it was Apple's first attempt at a portable device (Newton). Nokia was building telecom equipment (stemming from their telephone cable experience, the insulation being a product of their original rubber business) and military equipment along with a bunch of other consumer electronics before they got into mobile phones. Amazon released AWS because that was their infrastructure they had built for themselves to handle their massive e-commerce business.
Companies generally don't just jump into a totally new market unless they've already got some experience.
The SpaceX acquisitions of xAI and X have absolutely nothing to do with space. While I'm sure SpaceX software engineers benefit greatly from cheap access to Grok, it and X have no relevance to the core business of SpaceX. It's the same level as "huh?" if Boeing decided to buy up an AI company and social media platform. The only reason xAI and X are even part of SpaceX is because Musk fucked himself with being forced to buy Twitter and he decided to bundle them with an actually profitable company.
browningstreet2 hours ago
SpaceX had adult leadership for a long time. I suspect there was a tacit agreement with Musk about a bit of separation.
He broke through that professional firewall when he merged xAI with SpaceX and then pushed it to go public as he did. I also posit that Gwynne Shotwell is weirdly undervalued for what she's accomplished and what she's put up with, and I think that will show up some time in the future.
There was enough technical analysis to show that even Musk's cult feed can't overcome the significant financial hardships he laid on SpaceX. I personally think it was his jump the shark move. He can't really go up again after this. He no longer has any untainted assets for mega-exploits.
AustinDev2 hours ago
>'Gwynne Shotwell is weirdly undervalued for what she's accomplished and what she's put up with, and I think that will show up some time in the future.'
Gwynne is fiercely loyal to Elon. I don't expect to see significant strife between them.
Mountain_Skiesan hour ago
There are a small single digit number of 'new space' company president opportunities in the world and one of them requires dealing with Musk. Makes sense to be loyal when there's so few other equal opportunities. No doubt many companies would love to have her at the helm but very few offer the ability to build reusable rockets.
sdenton42 hours ago
"succeeding despite Elon musk" is, however, a skill set applicable at only a (strike)small number of companies (/strike) single company.
ambicapter2 hours ago
I'm sure her skill here translates to other difficult CEO personalities.
consensus1an hour ago
Have you got any evidence for these claims?
infinitewars3 hours ago
[dead]
onlyrealcuzzo4 hours 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_henk4 hours 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.
mrits4 hours ago
Where did you get $15 billion from?
dopa423653 hours ago
Or $150 billion SpaceX? Internet constellations may be mildly profitable, but beyond that, most things are an endless money pit without clear path towards profit anytime soon. Like, no one is going to spend a trillion on a moon base (or exponentially more for mars) without plans to somehow recover all that money.
elif2 hours ago
The US government is the one who routinely spends trillions with no plans to recover money.
And SpaceX has become their favorite place to put money over the last 5 years.
cineticdaffodil2 hours ago
Moon is taxfree zone?
hn_throwaway_992 hours ago
It also seems to me to be a very odd conflict of interest given that they must see themselves as primary competitors in the AI space.
Seems similar to me as when Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board many years back because their products started to overlap, especially mobile.
nairboonan hour ago
I think those long-term holders who 10x their investment are quite happy with that investment so far.
bpodgurskyan hour ago
Yes I'm sure they are just desperate to get out of their 100x investment.
A huge mistake, I'm sure the relevant parties have been punished appropriately.
[deleted]3 hours agocollapsed
Fire-Dragon-DoL4 hours ago
Well X is at the end of the name, so first is about Space, then about X, right?
/s
miohtama5 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.
SecretDreams4 hours 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.
miohtama4 hours 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.
wongarsu4 hours 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
dmix2 hours ago
Tesla is making two big R&D plays into humanoid robotics and cyber taxi. That’s just as bold and requiring innovation as the SpaceX AI and starship stuff. That plus Tesla/SpaceX/Intel are together putting big money into Terafab to make semiconductors in Texas for those platforms.
bdangubic2 hours ago
> Tesla is making two big R&D plays…
The funniest thing you can write… Can’t believe people still write “Robotaxi” after 12+ years of failed promises… wild wild stuff
mhitza4 hours 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?
mrits4 hours ago
It’s so weird to see people actively try to criticize arguably the most successful person in the history of Earth.
wasfgwp39 minutes ago
That’s some weirdly perverse attitude to have. Regardless if it’s Musk or anyone else, in general the actions of highly successful people have a disproportionally high impact on the society. So they need to be criticized as harshly as is reasonable for any misstep they take.
mhitza2 hours ago
Are you young and raised with the cult of personality, like so many gen Z and alpha?
Because I find your words surprising since critique is what I was raised with in the late 90s early 2000s. Offline and in the media.
At the same time your definition of criticizing is very lax, when I'm stating banal opinions and a broad observation.
ajmurmann3 hours ago
It's because his companies have insane P/E and constantly overpromise
Applejinx3 hours ago
If you framed it as 'the biggest criminal' it'd still be impressive but would read mighty different. Acquiring money and power is no way to go through life. Not at that cost.
SecretDreamsan hour ago
Some of the richest people the world has ever seen seem to tick all the same boxes as the least likeable and most devoid of love and empathy.
If only some billionaires (trillionaires?) could strike a better balance between successful and human. Especially since most wealth is actually wealth transfer from the poor and from taxpayer coffers to the rich.
gritspantsan hour ago
It is only a single counterpoint in a sea of depressing examples but you may enjoy the story of Yvon Chouinard, owner of Patagonia, who gave it all away to trusts for protecting the environment.
consensus1an hour ago
Envy is a hell of a drug
dgellow2 hours ago
It's really sad to see that we just accept that Elon Musk, one of the most influential and maybe-still-the richest person in the world is constantly lying to shareholders for his own benefit. And gets zero punishment for it.
alberth2 hours ago
Original HN thread, 11-years ago (220 comments):
miohtama2 hours ago
What a find in the archives!
"It's quite amazing how this values SpaceX at 10bn, less than 50% of WhatsApp."
Somebody was wise a decade ago.
justinhjan hour ago
At the time Starlink was announced as was rocket reusability. Both were widely mocked and considered infeasible.
Since then Starlink has succeeded, reusable rockets are a reality, ISS crewed spaceflight restored to US.
I expect all that had an impact on the valuation. Personally I wouldn't invest in Elon because his stock is a wild ride but space x has achieved a lot.
3form4 hours 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.
SwellJoe4 minutes ago
It seems obvious that the deal Google signed to rent compute from xAI just before the IPO was specifically to goose the IPO, giving xAI nice looking growth. They could have paid a lot more for that deal and still made it all back on the IPO. I don't believe for a second Google needs the compute. They've got their own AI inference hardware, the biggest data centers in the world, and they don't make any of the most popular AI products. They're not desperate for compute.
wenbin3 hours ago
Alphabet is the modern day berkshire hathaway.
Alphabet’s investment holdings (eg, spacex, anthropic..) are worth in the same order of magnitude of BRK’s (~$300B)
The track record of google’s M&A is pretty good.
Except for search and cloud, many of Google’s important products were from M&A - Maps, Docs, android, doubleclick, youtube , deep mind, etc.
glimshe3 hours ago
The companies you listed have great synergy with Google's core business. What's Google's play with SpaceX? Data centers in space?
theptip3 hours ago
Google X was building Loon at least a decade ago to solve internet connectivity with laser-networked high-altitude balloons. They clearly benefit structurally from expanding access to the internet to the unconnected population.
So on that front, while I didn’t guess this, it does sound like a good investment.
Furthermore, while I am skeptical about the “DC in space” thing in the short term, and Musk’s timelines are, generously, something like P99.9 outcomes, it seems plausible that in 10 years it might make sense. And at that point Google will want to put their TPUs in orbit, too.
TJSomethingan hour ago
It's telecom infrastructure to increase the number of people who have internet in order to increase the number of people using Google. They might have been considering having satellite internet in Android phones.
benoau3 hours ago
Presumably Starlink for routing throughout space. Google does under-sea cables and domestic internet access too.
adastra223 hours ago
They invested in SpaceX long before Starlink was a thibgy
lkbma minute ago
Starlink wasn't working yet, but had been announced as a thing they intended to do.
teravor2 hours ago
> Data centers in space?
infecto2 hours ago
Low cost payloads to space can unlock lots.
adastra223 hours ago
They had a big early investment back when Google was doing more crazy out of scope things.
DaedalusII3 hours ago
starlink cellular connection for android in future
melenaboija3 hours ago
Similar of SpaceX and Twitter I guess
cromka2 hours ago
Google Cloud, low latency cross-continental links, etc.
jeffbee2 hours ago
I don't think gcp customers were hoping for higher latency, 5% packet loss, and modem speeds.
cromka2 minutes ago
lower latency. You forget about cross-satelite laser links that shorten the latency for cross-continental traffic.
Everything else you said draws from some regular consumer experiences. That's not what I am talking about here.
colechristensen3 hours ago
One would presume connectivity and services in space as industry and services spread there. Asteroid mining, on orbit manufacturing, space colonies/tourism, data centers in space, centers for working outside traditional government jurisdiction.
[deleted]3 hours agocollapsed
nonethewiser3 hours ago
How is Alphabet the modern Berkshire Hathaway?
andxor2 hours ago
Google's return of invested capital has averaged 32% since IPO.
This may be a narrative violation on HN, but the quality of Google's management is exceptional.
SwellJoe7 minutes ago
Because Google, the business, is run so well, Google, the product, can be kinda shit for quite a long time before anyone who is only watching the business notices anything is wrong. Microsoft had the same situation, inspiring Bill Gates' famous email: https://techcrunch.com/2008/06/25/gates-sends-angry-e-mail-s...
I don't think anybody at Google has sent that email, yet. Maybe Sergey and Sundar don't use Google products, anymore. Maybe they have a special Google just for billionaires that doesn't suck.
seatac76an hour ago
That is true. It’s a big corporate so I understand why purists dislike it but as a business it has done well.
throwaw126 hours ago
100x return, I would sell immediately after this kind of gain, maybe that's why I am not a Google
rsynnott5 hours ago
Per the article, they can’t, yet.
rf155 hours ago
I'm sure at an $80 valuation they will tell everyone how it's time to buy as it slides down further
230581abv43 minutes ago
Pichai will talk about data centers in space again, like he did before the IPO. Then he'll sell SPCX.
knodi5 hours ago
Average pre-ipo sale price is $6.xx
ajross5 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".
dgellow23 minutes ago
Isn't that literally what institutional trading desks are for? One of the reason to use one is that they can execute a large order without impacting the market price
TheAtomic5 hours ago
Actually, that's the service provided by GS, etc. They have those buyers on the other side of their Rolodex.
imagent4 hours ago
What is GS?
smnscu4 hours ago
Presumably Goldman Sachs (or any investment bank worth its salt)
thaumasiotes4 hours 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".
Mtinie4 hours ago
Goldman Sachs
ajross4 hours 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.
dgellow21 minutes ago
It's really not far from it. You don't need to do a private off-exchange sale (though you can), they do incremental execution (where you break the trade in small batches)
kingleopold4 hours 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
sidcool5 hours ago
There would be some laws in place. And it would also stress the relationship with Elon.
hiddencost5 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.)
WarmWash3 hours ago
Retail doesn't really move stocks like Google too much, and institutions might understand Google and it's finances better than Google...i.e. there are no accounting tricks or mysterious losses that can shake institutional analysts much (besides illegally hidden stuff). They will perfectly understand why Google is taking a "loss" on the sale.
embedding-shape5 hours ago
Feeling sated and not constant greed is no way to build billionaires, nope.
lotsofpulp4 hours 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?
tonyhart75 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
grim_io5 hours ago
6% is more than all of the issued IPO shares. They were 5%, right?
fancyfredbot4 hours ago
Correct
fco356pal3 hours ago
One of the best corporate investments in recent history. >100x returns in 10 years
nonethewiser3 hours ago
Maybe hacker news is wrong and SpaceX is actually valuable.
throwaway274483 hours ago
I don't think anyone is arguing SpaceX is actually valuable, just overvalued and the repeated recipient of obvious corruption.
dmix2 hours ago
Which corruption exactly? NASDAQ giving them fast entry so the biggest IPO in history is done on NASDAQ and not on NYSE who was also competing for it? Both are fighting for OpenAI and Anthropic listings as well which likely influenced their choice to get in early with SpaceX
throwaway274482 hours ago
I was primarily referring to the acquisition of musk's ai company. But the more general (and unfortunately widely accepted practice of) government contracting culture certainly applies to OpenAI and Anthropic as well.
EDIT: cleaned up my comment; removed a more inflammatory claim about corruption in the private sector.
consensus1an hour ago
Who has delivered better value for money on government contracts than SpaceX?
yieldcrvan hour ago
fortunately the passive investor bagholding didn’t work, the price sliced straight through their forced buying pressure and only created more shortable shares, as people without share lending sold to passive funds that do
Corruption that stands out to me would be regarding starlink, Elon got the FCC to change power emission rules to hamper competitors with better satellites, but the competitors were able to comply and offer a better service still, while starlink’s existing fleet cannot. meaning elon still would actually have to compete and make a new starlink fleet, which he is doing now. (Basically competitors dont need a base station, and future starlink wont meed a base station either, direct to device ubiquity high speed service is coming) but before that path, he then tried to get an exception from the fcc regulation he promulgated, which was extremely grimy. The fcc didn’t go along.
piloto_ciego2 hours ago
Yeah, I have put my money where my mouth is, but I think it is. Extraordinarily so, and I think the Musk hate has clouded people’s judgement.
For what it’s worth, I get it. I have found Musk insufferable for the last decade since he attached himself to the right and got into drugs, however I think SpaceX is undervalued right now.
1. They are literally the only company on earth with a reliable partially reusable launch system. There are a few people trying, but everyone else is way behind.
2. When they eventually (hopefully) get Starship right, we will see a price drop in the cost of transportation to orbit we have never seen. When I did the numbers a few years ago, the price for space mining to be comparable to terrestrial mining was around $20-60/kg to orbit. They’d effectively be the ONLY way to access that. That’s one of a gazillion things that becomes possible with cheap access to space. UPS becomes a competitor at those prices… it’s game changing.
3. They are basically dominating the satellite internet world. Nothing compares. Starlink is amazing, especially here in Alaska, I suspect they will eventually have a phone, which will be revolutionary.
4. A gazillion government contracts, Star shield, and arguably point to point QRF shuttle (after starship). The defense implications alone mean that they are going to be around indefinitely.
I don’t know, but I think people are sleeping on this.
stevefan19992 hours ago
5. A gazillion amount of telemetry data and social media data to sell on the data broker market. That alone is enough to attract another billion dollar of potential investment consistently, especially for training data and intelligence...you know, selling to the Mossad or CIA.
In a world of money, every bit you can earn, you have to earn, while I know it is immoral to sell the data for spying purposes, morality alone don't mean shit now, that I never see any capitalists and corpo dogs have any kind of morality anyway, except when massive backslash, congress hearings and boycotts, which is, ahem, Meta/Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. But given the unique position Musk used to have in Trump's government and his right leaning position he is safe to do so. At least for now, he is immune to holding congress hearing for a scandal I suppose.
And not to mention that Grok is literally trained over X/Twitter, and keep in mind Bluesky is federated and strangely, no one seems to be scraping it over ActivityPub. I believe Thread is also built on the same foundation but it's sure that Meta made good measures for antiscraping, I expected as a data oriented company.
Alas, keep in mind SpaceX merged with xAI and nonetheless don't forget their data side
piloto_ciegoan hour ago
You’re right! And then they’re an inference provider too.
All these come together with orbital data centers…
yieldcrv3 hours ago
$500bn marketcap is still valuable
Its how it declines to that point at another 70% loss from $1.5 trillion that people are worried about
m1012 hours ago
Given how much ai spending Google need to do, and that the are selling equity for the first time in a long time to do it, no doubt spacex shares are going to be dumped out they moment they can.
bombcar5 hours ago
What’s that in data centers?
rubyfan6 hours ago
Didn’t they just raise $85B “for AI”?
brainwad5 hours ago
It's not like they can sell the SPCX stock. It's still locked up.
lorreyfum2 hours ago
Everybody here an expert, but no trillionaires, billionaires, and I’m guessing millionaires
akerstenan hour ago
You don't think there are any millionaires on the world's preeminent VC forum?
bdangubic2 hours ago
pablo escobar was a billionaire too
andxoran hour ago
Much better business instinct that the average poster on HN
[deleted]2 hours agocollapsed
throwatdem123113 hours ago
Can’t wait for SpaceX to go even lower.
outside12346 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.
jddj6 hours ago
They got in at a ~12B valuation. They'll be fine
Aboutplants6 hours ago
If true then they paid under $800 Million for their 6%, now valued at $94 Billion.
dagaci5 hours ago
Yes, google they paid $900 millions in 2015 for about 7% stake, 100X. % Number probably fell because of all the "merging".
forrestthewoods3 hours ago
They’ll be fine? Dang I wanna be “fine”!
carlosjobim5 hours ago
Why? They will still have their same stake no matter what happens with the stock price.
ur-whale6 hours ago
jdsfijfdsifs4 hours ago
[dead]
dfasifsaf5 hours ago
[flagged]
the__alchemist5 hours ago
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.
matwood5 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.
pier254 hours ago
Excluding all the capex from AI this last quarter has been one of their best.
hansmayer4 hours 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".
delecti4 hours 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.
overfeed2 hours ago
The implication is if AI implodes, the AI-related expenses go away and what remains is a great business.
mr_toad3 hours ago
> But you don´t get to to that.
You can, and for tax purposes you must. The bean counters hate that you can’t deduct capex.
aoeusnth14 hours ago
The return on capital is also phenomenal. To be a bear, you have to assume that will crater.
jhpankow3 hours ago
EBITDAI
next_xibalba5 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.
adabyron4 hours ago
Please explain more. I haven't seen anything of quality. Best I can observe is they've increased ads on videos and pages.
[deleted]3 hours agocollapsed
hansmayer4 hours ago
[dead]
throwaw125 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
conartist65 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
matwood5 hours ago
The number of companies that default to using Teams shows why MSFT isn't going anywhere.
etempleton4 hours 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.
adabyron4 hours 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.
mr_toad3 hours ago
Installed by default is their moat. Trying to arrange a video conference on other platforms means making sure that everyone has the client installed, which can be a real headache. Teams is the common denominator.
ariwilson2 hours ago
Google Meet doesn't require a client
conartist65 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.
AznHisoka5 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.
jeremyjh5 hours ago
Microsoft has many of the same advantages but is incapable of judging the quality of the products it makes.
infecto2 hours ago
Time will tell but that feels foolish. MSFT is a terrible product company (look at copilot) but what they sell is a safe decision which is one of the most important factors for enterprise software. Nobody is close to replacing that.
conartist6an hour ago
I'm content for that be the narrative. Nobody is close, and what's more it's not even possible, and even if it was possible nobody would want it, and even if anyone did want it would only be a few people. ; )
legulere4 hours 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__alchemist5 hours ago
Concur; I am shorting them as well. Your approach is more clever!
onlypostonce5 hours ago
Wow why has nobody thought of this /s
vkou3 hours ago
Microsoft is in a better position (as their b2b ecosystem can realistically be made LLM-agnostic), but Google will be fine.
chasd005 hours ago
Maybe you’re right but, man, there’s easier money to be made than betting against those two companies.
mr_toad3 hours ago
Have you seen Microsoft’s price over the last year. If AI doesn’t pan out they’re going to be the next IBM.
zulux4 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.
nubg4 hours ago
Like?
chasd004 hours 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__alchemist4 hours ago
All of the quantum computing companies (Especially QUBT, which is outright fraud), although the window may have passed on that.
gizajob4 hours 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.
toast02 hours ago
> Gemini’s integration is, I think, absolutely awesome - it’s completely changing the way I interact with the concept of googling and finding answers,
Oh, me too. The way it writes things that look like they address my question, and then links references that totally don't makes me dread Googling in a way I hadn't yet. For probably five years, I've been doing DDG first and Google when I DDG doesn't work well and usually Google doesn't either, so I already have dread for Google, but this makes it worse.
the__alchemist4 hours 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"
hahahaa5 hours ago
Short Google? Early is wrong you know?
IAmGraydon5 hours ago
That’s a pretty weird take considering they’re down 21% in the last 2 months. How, exactly, is this early?
jsnellan hour ago
Early in terms of there being no sign of actual signs of decay of their business. It's less than a week since Google reported literally the highest quarterly profits by any public company ever[0]. This is while growing at 25% YoY, which is just insanely fast for a company that size.
[0] By net income. By operating income, still like top 5 to top 10 depending on how you interpret the numbers.
DanHulton4 hours 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__alchemist4 hours 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.
Rover2225 hours ago
SpaceX near $100/share is a great long position now, IMO.
deadbabe5 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.
maipen4 hours 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.
api4 hours 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.
Fricken4 hours ago
It isn't currently —for google— only about shipping the best models, but in the future however...
simianwords3 hours ago
Why is this not seen as a circular deal? But other oracle debt is said to be circular
[deleted]6 hours agocollapsed
teddyX4 hours ago
Bad decisions like this explain a lot
alfiedotwtf6 hours ago
FIFY: Google discloses $94B loss
minraws6 hours ago
They didn't invest 94B$
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.
HFguy5 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.
minraws22 minutes ago
correction "modern business accounting".
consensus15 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.
locallost6 hours ago
It will be difficult since they acquired it for less than a billion 10 years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/20/spacex-fundi...
passwordoops6 hours 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
newsclues5 hours ago
hate makes people stupid.
formvoltron6 hours ago
[flagged]
kennywinker6 hours ago
Idk, but he sure did try to get invited to Epstein’s island to “party”.
minton5 hours ago
Terrible! Source?
TheOtherHobbes5 hours ago
rsynnott5 hours ago
It is extremely funny that Epstein is clearly all “oh, fuck, not this guy, gotta make an excuse”, here.
consensus15 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.”
DoctorOetker3 hours ago
what ratio? men vs women? or adults vs children?
shakna5 hours ago
Justice Department [0] seems a definitive source.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01762...
pavlov5 hours ago
Epstein emails. Google will find it for you.