top 91 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 53 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Why do people like this guy? Tell him to fuck off already.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    Because he has a massive public presence. Why do people like mcdonald and not burgermeister? Because they have never hear of the latest. The proper way to give this guy the middle finger is to stop giving him any exposure if not for serious stuff that show he's scum.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I can't wait for my 401k to lose a significant chunk of its value within the next 5 years because some chud at Fidelity needed to ride Elon to the moon. And also the AI crash.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    The S&P 500 rejected adding SpaceX though. So no worries from them but when AI crashes and burns so will your 401k.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    They didn't reject adding SpaceX, they simply said they would not change the rules to add it early, like the other indexes are. Those rules include a minimum time listed as a public company, a certain percentage of shares being floated to the public, and some profitability. I doubt SpaceX ever gets there.

    Some of those other AI companies might make it through the gauntlet, though, and be listed eventually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    No idea how US pensions work..... But can't you change the funds?

    I sold the default fund and moved it into non US stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Many employers offer to match the employee's contribution to their retirement fund up to a certain amount, but the employer gets to pick which funds are available. Anyone can open their own IRA (retirement fund) but they won't get that employer match.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Why would the employer care which funds are available though?

    Here, the employer picks the provider and default fund, but you can change it to anything the provider offers. (Although most don't)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    So I thought I had that setup, but it so happens that I ended up with two 401ks at the exact same provider via two different companies, and there are different options between the employers.

    I don't see a particular pattern as to why one would be different from the other, but they are...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Sorry, it's the same as you're describing. The employer doesn't decide which funds are available, the bank does. I'm thinking back to my last job and there were only about 10 funds to choose from, but I couldn't tell you who was responsible for limiting the options. The bank might have offered a "retirement benefits package" to the employer to simplify things. Not sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    That’s 59% growth annually, every year, for 10 years straight.

    Any miss or early miss throws the schedule off significantly.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    This is nuts. Can someone explain this cos I just don't get it. Why would you invest in a company if its well established that its unlikely you'll ever make a profit or even get that money back??

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)
    1. Buy stock when it's valued at $1.75 trillion
    2. Elon says on twitter he thinks it will be worth $3 trillion soon
    3. Some idiots buy stock, price goes up
    4. You sell
    5. Profit

    You can keep doing this as long as there's a bigger idiot down the line. If you're still holding the stock when it collapses you're the biggest idiot and you lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    SpaceXs initial valuation is so large it will distort the market, and they changed the rules so the index funds will all buy shares automatically to balance their portfolios, which will shoot the price up and balloon the valuation even further, then Elon and the investors that helped him buy twitter can sell at ludicrous prices at the expense of American 401ks and and passive managed pension funds.

    It's a trillion dollar rug pull in broad daylight.

    Edit- Nasdaq changed their rule, S&P has not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    The thing is, the bigger the amounts of money involved the more idiots you need to actually push the price up and keep the fleecing going.

    Mind you, the 5% float of SpaceX's IPO means you only need enough idiot money per cycle to move the price of $87 billion worth of stocks rather than the full $1.75 trillion, which is probably why they're rigging Indices to force Retirement Funds to be the idiots as it would be a lot harder to source enough idiot money out of Retail Investors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    they are forcing us to invest by stealing from our 401k.
    because nasdaw and russel rigged inclusion rules

    check your 401k people, you might need to move into other ETF to avoid AI companies and bubble

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    check your 401k people, you might need to move into other ETF to avoid AI companies and bubble

    But if (when) the bubble bursts it will tank the market. There's so much riding on this that there will be no hiding. Unless you do a Ron Swanson and bury gold in your garden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    You can't eliminate the risk, but you can ameliorate it. Yes, sectors like retail, construction, and even healthcare will take a hit during the AI bust. After a crash, there's much less money floating around. People are out of work. Asset prices are down. People spend less. So every sector gets hit.

    But there is a difference between a hit and a collapse. If you're invested in OpenAI, and the bubble bursts? Your investment is going to zero. The company is going to go bankrupt. Shareholders will be completely wiped out. If you're invested in say...Home Depot, well yes, in a crash, the stock will go down. With millions laid off, people will have less money to spend on home renovations, so demand for the Depot's products will decline. Their stock price will take a large hit.

    But, if you're smart, this won't hurt you. Eventually things will recover, the bubble will clear out, and demand for building products will return. At that point the Home Depot stock price will recover. As long as you don't sell during the crash, you won't see any losses.

    That is the key difference. An investment in any sector right now risks a decline and then recovery a few years down the road. An investment in the AI sector risks a complete collapse to zero.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    I dunno man. Whatever way it goes it doesnt look good for capitalism.

    Say its a huge success and they manage to achieve AGI - then comes mass unemployment, mortgage defaults, slow down in spending...

    There's also a lot of disgruntlement left over from the 2008 crash, and economies never really recovered from that. Climbing out of whatever comes next is going to be a much bigger challenge. It might be easier to start over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Frankly, for investing, AGI shouldn't even be on your radar. AGI can only result in three outcomes - extinction, complete totalitarianism, or some sort of communist system. Most likely any AGI would just kill us, probably by accident. But even if they manage to control it, then what? You quickly end up with one or a handful of AI companies owning literally the entire economy, producing everything. At that point capitalism is done. Either we allow the new oligarchy to exist indefinitely (totalitarianism) or we nationalize the companies and go full Star Trek.

    What these AI companies miss is that true AGI is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalism doesn't work when only 1-3 companies make all the goods and services in the economy.

    Your point on 2008 is valid though. There's a lot we just swept under the rug instead of dealing with properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Because Elon said so, and a lot of these people are playing with other people's money, so it's worth a shot.

    Elon says:

    • SpaceX is really about xAI, and look how well regarded Anthropic is, we'll be even better than Anthropic because, welll I'm Elon and I said so!
    • All this AI stuff has to go to space because some company that makes a part for natural gas generators is backordered a few years, so we'll start having hundreds of Starship launches a month.

    Yes, he claimed that hundreds of Starship launches a month is a more realistic thing to pull off than making some parts of natural gas turbines...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 112 points 5 months ago (45 children)

    Never understood the business model for SpaceX and Starlink. Huge capital and operational costs without a clear understanding of who is paying for it.

  • source
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 5 months ago* (16 children)

    For Starlink and SpaceX, I can probably understand the business model, considering the race to getting more satellites to orbit be it for surveying or in case of Starlink stable Internet anywhere. But anything beyond that, like data centers in space I just ridiculous. No way that their valuation is anywhere near what it is realistically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    I look at Starlink where currently about 6 spacecraft deorbit a week and need replacement as a huge operational cost. Many SpaceX launches are Starlink launches, it raises the question of whether this is a circular or self fulfilling industry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    As far as I understood, I always thought that they just used other people’s rockets to piggyback their own satellites to space basically for free

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Unless you want to separate starlink from spacex it’s kinda the other way around.

    I think spacex was adding starlink deployment to all their rockets and their “plan” was to launch other satellites and nasa projects, then get the starlink stuff up there for less.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    An analysis from early 2025 showed that the median life expectancy of a 1st generation Starlink satellite was 5.3 years, though expected to improve in v2 and v3.

    Beyond that, the solar lifecycle means that every 11 years the earth's orbit expands increasing drag on low-orbit satellites (which brings them down) as well as bombarding them with more radiation (increasing the likelihood of failures).

    Other sources I've found in searching for it give their median life-expectancy as being 5-7 years.

    Land-based telecom operators don't have to replace pretty much all of their transmission infrastructure - worse, in a costly to access location - more than once a decade.

    Space-based tele-communications is more than proven as a viable business model, what's nowhere near proven (or anywhere close to being mathematically demonstrable) is one single operator of those being worth more than many major land-based telecom operators each with many times the number of customers of that space-based telecoms business and providing much faster network access (somebody else gave Deutsche Telecomm as an example) put together.

    (How exactly in terms of actual PHYSICS will Starlink deliver via radio waves to for example all 245 million European households - necessary to justify such valuations - a reliable 1Gbps connection for €10/month needed to to beat the land operators?)

    SpaceX's IPO valuation which itself is mostly anchored on Starlink, is totally unjustified and unjustifiable by fundamentals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Its actually a great business model as they need to do actual test flights to build better rockets and instead of that being pure R&D expenses, its supplemented by launching Starlink satellites which generate their own revenue for the company.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Great theory, but the Falcon 9 is already a proven design and most of SpaceX’s R&D is going to the starship, which uses completely different engines and which has blown up or disintegrated just as much as its successfully gotten above the atmosphere. It’s also never actually completed an orbit or delivered a gram of anything to orbit.

    Starlink is a useful tool to boost launch numbers precisely so investors think things are better than they actually are. Originally SpaceX burned through government and private investor money. Now that they’ve blown through the entire Artemis budget the interim director of nasa gave them through blatant corruption, and launched even more billion dollar fireworks using private investor money, they are desperately trying to convince the public for more fireworks funds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Starlink is basically a military tech that is too expensive even for the US military, so it was sold to gullible investors as a great deal... It won't ever be profitable, at least not near the level that was promised. But it might turn out to be essential during a few wars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    While you’re probably right, I wonder if we would’ve said the same thing about GPS

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    GPS was planned out and deployed over 20 years (from proposal to operational).

    It was also designed and worked for its intended purpose with only 24 satellites.

    Block III gps satellites are designed to last 15 years and there are 10 of them.

    Starlink is disposable chains of 1,000s of satellites that will be constantly burning up in the atmosphere and replaced at huge costs, including co2 from the launches.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think it's the same, we already have the infrastructure for the network in most places with a dense population. Existing infrastructure is of the similar quality to Starlink, and the maintenance cost for the existing infrastructure is lower.

    In case of GPS, the infrastructure existing before was much worse.

    The only cases I can think of, where Starlink outperforms the existing infrastructure are:

    1. Areas with low population density - the problem, in those areas, by definition, there aren't many customers

    2. Situation when someone is actively trying to sabotage the existing infrastructure, like those ships, that are breaking underwater internet cables, or the active jamming near the front lines - what happens in the Ukraine shows that Starlink is great for that case. It is enough to treat it as strategically important, but it doesn't justify the starlink valuation. I really hope this market won't grow much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
    1. Countries that refuse to guarantee fiber to every home so you're not getting it unless the gods (Telia in the case of Estonia) decide you should get it.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I don't like the expression "guarantee fiber to every home", I don't think intervention like that is needed, It's enough if the country guarantees fair competition. But I agree that Starlink lets you bypass local obstacles like local incompetence/corruption or censorship*

    * unless it's the kind of censorship that Elon supports, then I am pretty sure Starlink will soon block it as well

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 42 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    It’s a FOMO play for morons.

    The entire valuation is that they say that they can find $28T of businesses on mars and the moon, that that creating these business ideas is something they can do repeatably.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    To be fair, you're only a moron if you are considering it a "hold forever" stock. If you get out in time, or even if you miss-time it, that's just gambling, which only makes you a moron if you can't afford the loss.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    No single stock should be a hold forever play (unless you count ETFs as a single stock)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    A steady dividend stock might be a hold forever stock. Especially if you don't want to realize the capital gains of the stock's appreciation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    It's one single stock for one company, there is still high risk of extreme losses over a very long time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    The water utility for my country's capital is a publicly traded company for some reason. The only way they're going out of business is if people stop using water or water stops existing in the area.

    That can honestly be considered a forever stock as far as I can tell. Dividends aren't super high but that's because they're constantly saving up half the profit for future infra work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    Stsrlink is about the only thing in the company pulling in solid revenue. There's a good analysis on https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2026/05/30/what-is-starlinks-financial-performance

    But basically it's a subscription service which they can sell around most of the planet and compete with infrastructure heavy services (as in expensive to replace them). They also have a lot of enterprise customer usecases (like agriculture and construction) as well as cashcow government (army).

    Their growth is actually massive compared to last year, and starlink itself is already profitable. Their economy gets better with the investment in the rocket tech. Starship will be able to lift 20x the amount of starlink than falcon 9, apparently also cheaper, while the next gen starlink sats will also be able to serve a lot more customers. That'll drive their operating cost down, while allowing selling more.

    (Just to be clear, spacex as a company is still hot garbage because of the bundling of x and xai and also probably the control structure giving musk all the power while not even holding majority stake, the above is just about starlink and the rocket tech.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 5 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    It gets even worse.

    From this article from early 2025, we get a median life for Starlink satellites of 5.3 years, though expected to improve with newer versions of the satellites.

    From other more broad analysis of the life expectancy of low orbit satellites we get that the solar cycle - which is 11 years - means that at its peak many more such satellites die due to the Earth's athmosphere expanding (so the satellites are more impacted by athmospheric drag hence are less likely to manage to remain in orbit, which they do using engines which have limited propellant). This is in addition to normal hazards of space, such as failures due to solar activity.

    So expect that even for the lastest generation, half-life of these satellites is between 5 to at best 11 years.

    Deutsche Telekom does not have the capital costs of replacing half its network every 5 - 11 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I don't disagree that even starlink is overvalued, my point was that it's the only thing in spacex bringing in profit and why.

    FWIW, their v3 satellite model is apparently a 10x bandwidth increase over v2 (although weights about 5x as much). At the moment they are so oversubscribed that they can charge a $1000 surcharge for people to just sign up in some areas, so there's definitely demand. So given they're already around 10 mill subscribers there is some growth to be had (although I agree it won't be 100s of millions, maybe a few 10s - far from the 50+ multiplier on the valuation, even ignoring the other 2 money pits bundled in)

    That being said, you're entirely correct that fixing the on-ground infrastructure is a much better investment if the goal is good internet service and would deliver a better quality service for cheaper, but that is happening extremely slowly in most of the developed countries (e.g. UK has terrible internet infra as well), especially in rural areas. So for the next 10 years starlink doss have a large market because the ground infrastructure sucks, and it's not "hype" to spend money on it for investors where's space stuff is.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    Yeah yeah, idc. I'm not gonna invest in a fucking Nazi company.

    At the end of the day, Elon will ask his Trumpy Wumpy to pump and dump and the corruption will enrich them even more.

    I'll invest in Starlink when:

    A) the multimillionnaires and billionnaires are all dead or eliminated
    B) Starlink is owned for and by the worldwide community, not by a private individual in a state

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 23 points 5 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    Starlink is the only part of SpaceX operations that turns a profit.

    Rocket launches do not, and xAi is a bottomless money pit just like every other AI venture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    The best numbers I can find are from 2024, when Starlink made a total of $72 million in profit.

    Not great numbers though, as the article explains. It only talks about the cost of the end user hardware and providing the service, so the profit is against those expenses. It doesn't factor in the cost of launches and satellites.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    Starlink is the part of spaceX making money. Selling a low latency global communications capability is a sound business model. The rocketry part is close to break even. I suspect it could do with a few more launches that weren't starlink.

    It's xAI that's tanking the whole thing. Without that SpaceX would be profitable. With it, it's a trash stock.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Reusable vehicles meant something like 1/20 the per-launch costs of the pre-existing competition? No matter what you want to pay to have put in space, the supplier who reuses equipment will have a huge advantage.

    And starlink? Satellite internet access for remote properties used to have all the latency of a return trip to geostationary orbit. Starlink is a massive advantage compared to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The business model is armament. Future warfare uses land and air drones and they require network access, which Starlink provides and they're much more difficult to jam than ground-based network facilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago*

    Yeah. Are they really expecting me to believe we can‘t have wide spread fiber that has fairly little maintenance costs but we can totally afford weekly space rocket launches to maintain Starlink? And Starlink is supposed to be an affordable option while still being profitable? Yeah, sure buddy. Totally doesn‘t sound like a hyperloop-esque pipe dream. /s

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    You're not wrong, they were kinda burning money to create a business model. I'm a space fanboy though so I'm glad someone is doing it.

    Pretty sad that musk is involved at all, but he started it. More sad that it now has the ai cancer stuck to it.

    Still I want humans to go beyond earth and I guess I'm willing to let th devil do it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    why people invest in this? they will just lose their money

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    As long as there is a sucker willing to pay more they will gain money. And unfortunately there are millions of suckers on the planet. Fundamentals don’t mean anything with this IPO. It’s basically all hype based like Pokemon cards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    One of the big problems with investing is that the average investor thinks they're smarter than the average investor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    It’s inevitable, anyone wise enough to doubt their ability to outplay the market chooses not to try, the remainder all think they can

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Don't be so smug. The intended victims of this IPO are passive investors who aren't trying to time the market and are just long-term holding index funds for retirement. That's exactly who Musk is planning to rob. If you're taking the typical low-cost index fund strategy, you will be giving approximately 1% of your life savings to Elon Musk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago

    Right, but hear me out: I know that SpaceX is impossibly overvalued and that makes me smart. So what if I bought some SpaceX stock, waited for some rubes to buy the stock from me at higher price and then I cashed out? Since I'm so smart, I'm sure I could get in and get out before the whole thing falls apart. /s

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›