Investing Thread

[jesmu84]

Pushback in what way?  Unless there is something else you're referring to or suggesting, its a byproduct of market bubbles that have existed for centuries.  If you have a fundamental problem with the stock market in general, which given what I know about you might be true, that's a different argument/discussion.

However, nobody is forcing the public/retail investors to buy wildly overpriced IPOs.  You can look back in this thread at some of the stuff that myself, and others, said about the SpaceX IPO or AI valuations.  I'm not a Musk hater, I've always thought SpaceX was a pretty incredible company (the best of anything Musk has been involved with, IMO) and have been bullish on the ways its changed space utilization and rockets...but I wouldn't have touched the IPO with a 6,200 mile pole.  Valuations and buzz were way over done and I couldn't see any reliable risk vs return at the IPO prices.  But I knew plenty of people, some otherwise smart and non-novice investors who were desperate to get into it.

Same can be said about AI companies and valuations.  People just think/assume "stocks always go up" and AI is constantly talked about as this huge potential frontier/goldmine, so who cares if the valuation is insane, its gonna keep going up cause its just the beginning, right?

But its really no different than the Dotcom bubble in the 90s.  People paid insane sums for silly companies that were drastically overvalued because they NEEDED to have that internet investment exposure.  But now its even more inexcusable, IMO, for retail investors and the general public because of how much information and research materials are out there in the public domain.

Back to my initial paragraph, there is also just a lot of inherent passing of risk from private investors/founders to the general public in any IPO, even those of great and profitable and robust companies.  They are a way to raise capital, of course, but also allow people to cash out on money that had been otherwise invested and locked up in companies for years.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I do feel bad for people bought SpaceX at 200 (or even 170) who are under water.  And I'll feel bad for people who eventually get run over by pullbacks in AI names that go public.  But unless its blatant Theranos level fraud or corporate malpractice, I still can't help but place blame on people who invest like lemmings.  You can say "oh there is shady accounting about XYZ in SpaceX" or "those revenue numbers for (insert AI company) were creatively crafted"...but most of these people getting rugpulled aren't pouring over 10-Ks or balance sheets, they are momentum/buzz chasing.

Pushback in what way?  Unless there is something else you're referring to or suggesting, its a byproduct of market bubbles that have existed for centuries.  If you have a fundamental problem with the stock market in general, which given what I know about you might be true, that's a different argument/discussion.

However, nobody is forcing the public/retail investors to buy wildly overpriced IPOs.  You can look back in this thread at some of the stuff that myself, and others, said about the SpaceX IPO or AI valuations.  I'm not a Musk hater, I've always thought SpaceX was a pretty incredible company (the best of anything Musk has been involved with, IMO) and have been bullish on the ways its changed space utilization and rockets...but I wouldn't have touched the IPO with a 6,200 mile pole.  Valuations and buzz were way over done and I couldn't see any reliable risk vs return at the IPO prices.  But I knew plenty of people, some otherwise smart and non-novice investors who were desperate to get into it.

Same can be said about AI companies and valuations.  People just think/assume "stocks always go up" and AI is constantly talked about as this huge potential frontier/goldmine, so who cares if the valuation is insane, its gonna keep going up cause its just the beginning, right?

But its really no different than the Dotcom bubble in the 90s.  People paid insane sums for silly companies that were drastically overvalued because they NEEDED to have that internet investment exposure.  But now its even more inexcusable, IMO, for retail investors and the general public because of how much information and research materials are out there in the public domain.

Back to my initial paragraph, there is also just a lot of inherent passing of risk from private investors/founders to the general public in any IPO, even those of great and profitable and robust companies.  They are a way to raise capital, of course, but also allow people to cash out on money that had been otherwise invested and locked up in companies for years.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I do feel bad for people bought SpaceX at 200 (or even 170) who are under water.  And I'll feel bad for people who eventually get run over by pullbacks in AI names that go public.  But unless its blatant Theranos level fraud or corporate malpractice, I still can't help but place blame on people who invest like lemmings.  You can say "oh there is shady accounting about XYZ in SpaceX" or "those revenue numbers for (insert AI company) were creatively crafted"...but most of these people getting rugpulled aren't pouring over 10-Ks or balance sheets, they are momentum/buzz chasing.

Wags,

Talking about these things being forced into pension funds, 401ks, etc once they're public.

[Uncle Rico]

Historically accurate, but I have the sense that it is different this time. (My innate Gen X cynicism is weirdly MIA right now).

The first step towards accountability happened last Tuesday. The administration and associated co-conspirators are absolutely terrified, with the tell being Blanche's hilariously impotent yappings that oversight itself is criminal.

I think the difference this time is going to be 1) the shear depth, breadth, and magnitude of the criminality, and 2) that the crimes are committed out in the open. It's not like we need Woodward and Berstein to break a hidden story, the Trump administration commits three Watergates per day and then brags about them.

It's pretty wild this story is like a wildfire because Rubio leaked it in a bid to get a head start on the presidential run in '28

[jesmu84]

Historically accurate, but I have the sense that it is different this time. (My innate Gen X cynicism is weirdly MIA right now).

The first step towards accountability happened last Tuesday. The administration and associated co-conspirators are absolutely terrified, with the tell being Blanche's hilariously impotent yappings that oversight itself is criminal.

I think the difference this time is going to be 1) the shear depth, breadth, and magnitude of the criminality, and 2) that the crimes are committed out in the open. It's not like we need Woodward and Berstein to break a hidden story, the Trump administration commits three Watergates per day and then brags about them.

We didn't hold anyone accountable after the secession/treason of the civil war.

We didn't hold Nixon or admin accountable.

We didn't hold Bush or admin accountable.

We haven't held any Epstein associates accountable.

I just don't see it happening.