u/JuanPabloElTres

With all the nonsense of the Trump administration, Democrats should win in the midterms. If that happens, market will likely discount Fannie Freddie release and share will tank. Which perspective do you have at that point - buy or bail?

On the bullish side, it would be a buying opportunity. That is, a lot of factors , even aside from specifically Trump, line up towards privatization. This includes, among other things, that assuming Fannie and Freddie remain profitable, they will accumulate enough capitalize that they will have to be repeivatized since the only other option is to liquidate and dissolve them, which borders on the ridiculous at that point; in general privatization should be favored since it reinstalls a layer of capital to absorbed losses if 2008 like events happened again; and privatization is the primary way the government could realize the full value of its stake - that is, the government can't monetize it's shares unless, by definition it has people to sell those shares too. Additionally, I personally find it hard to believe that Trump's ego would let him pass up an opportunity to claim he "fixed" Fannie and Freddie and released them from conservatosh. By definition, if Trump doesn't release them that means a subsequent president could, I find that very hard to believe Trump would leave it for any future president - particularly a potential Democrat - to claim success for releasing them. All this boils down to if shares tank after midterms, then would be a buying opportunity.

On the other hand, if you think the midterms close the door if the Democrats win, then you would be bailing since it implicates reprivatization would not occur.

Which side are you on?

Keep seeing comments about how the AI capex ex spend is being kept off balance sheet by the hyper scalers. Anyone care to explain how exactly this is working? Assuming its accounting tricks, which the implication then is does off balance sheet actually mean they don't have exposure. Unclear how this could work.

Could research this but am lazy right now and am hoping somebody out there is in the weeds enough they can simply answer it.

Thanks.

In the 6 months or so leading up to the SpaceX IPO there were various private funds selling access to SpaceX shares. Many had minimal transparency with no promises or ability to control how or what you would ultimately receive from the fund.

For example, some were multiple layer funds - where you're buying shares in an LLC that has an ownership in another LLC that allegedly owns or has economic rights to SpaceX shares; and there were generally no promises or deadlines as to how or when you would get paid out.

That is, the fund had full discretion as to when and what type of distributions it would make. So, for example, it could theoretically distribute actual SpaceX shares at some point in the future at the fund's determination, or the cash equivalent to the value of those SpaceX shares when the fund decided to liquidate.

Curious if people participated and what was the outcome?

The funds seemed credible enough that I don't think they were fraudulent. But, the lack of transparency and control makes me wonder how everything shook out with the IPO - i.e., are you still waiting on a decision on what the fund will do, receive cash from the fund and at what SpaceX price, etc.

In the 6 months or so leading up to the SpaceX IPO there were various private funds selling access to SpaceX shares. Many had minimal transparency with no promises or ability to control how or what you would ultimately receive from the fund.

For example, some were multiple layer funds - where you're buying shares in an LLC that has an ownership in another LLC that allegedly owns or has economic rights to SpaceX shares; and there were generally no promises or deadlines as to how or when you would get paid out.

That is, the fund had full discretion as to when and what type of distributions it would make. So, for example, it could theoretically distribute actual SpaceX shares at some point in the future at the fund's determination, or the cash equivalent to the value of those SpaceX shares when the fund decided to liquidate.

Curious if people participated and what was the outcome?

The funds seemed credible enough that I don't think they were fraudulent. But, the lack of transparency and control makes me wonder how everything shook out with the IPO - i.e., are you still waiting on a decision on what the fund will do, receive cash from the fund and at what SpaceX price, etc.

My main driving points for convictiom of the GSE trade.

1. I personally do think the GSEs should be privatized. A large part of this belief is transferring risk to the private sector. That is, if they stay in conservatorship the government is on the hook and fully exposed to any downtown or equity hits to the GSEs. The only way to take this risk off the govt/taxpayer skis you reinstall the layer of private equity - i.e., take it out of conservatorship/sell the shares back to the private sector. This makes sense to me for a lot of reasons I think politically it makes sense as well - except for a couple of high profile people against hit, I bet the majority of rational politicians on both sides would agree it's a good thing to transfer GSE risk, or at least part of it, back to the private sector. I think the only real political downside to this is risk that it would increase mortgage - but in general I think this is a non issue since there are various ways it can be done to not have this happen, such as leaving some form of govt preferred stock in place essentially as a lone of credit and representation the govt is backing it.

2. A major consideration is that the only way the govt can monetize the true value of its stake in the GSEs is to sell it back to the private sector. True, the GSEs had net income of $25 billion last year so there is value in them keeping it as the govt can realize a cash stream. Its really a net present value assessment of selling all or part of the GSEs, versus keeping them and realizing the cash flow, but the massive amount of value in the GSEs coupled with realizing the full asset size of the govt stale - even it's simply selling part of them to get a mark to market valuation which can be reflected on the govt balance sheet - is pretty significant. This also factors towards releasing them or selling shares in some way shape or form.

3. Perhaps my biggest faith right now is in Trump's ego. While I personally think he's a bozo and can't believe some of the stuff he's done to this country, I do have a massive amount of faith in that Trump wants to take credit for releasing the GSEs. The GSEs are generally financially ready for release, if Trump doesn't do it during his term I think there's a very good chance somebody else will do it in the future as, at some point, they will have met all capitalization requirements through earnings retention. It's very hard for me to believe if Trump thinks GSE release is feasible, he would leave it for another president to take the credit. Thus, while it's clear there's no rush for GSE release as Trump recently said, I do think it is highly likely to occur before the end of his term, if not for Trump's massive ego alone.

Everybody on here seems to have the same idea for SpaceX - recognize the IPO is overpriced but still want to participate on the belief the IPO will pop - i.e., participate to sell quickly after open to capitalize on the pop.

But, $22.5 billion is allocated to retail so, if all retail has this idea, that's potentially $22.5 billion in selling pressure in the first 5 minutes. If even half of retail has this idea that's still $11.5 billion in selling pressure. This does not include the remaining $52.5 billion allocated through underwriters that can technically be sold at anytime and is also potentially additional selling pressure.

In contrast, the highest ever notional amount of trading volume ever recorded for a single stock was $110 billion for NVDA. Averaging tha $110 billion across the 390 minutes in a trading day gives $282 million per minute, or $1.4 billion in 5 minutes - THE $22.5 BILLION ALLOCATED TO RETAIL IS POTENTIALLY 16X SELLING PRESSURE OF THE HIGHEST MINUTE AVERAGED STOCK VOLUME EVER RECORDED.

That's a lot of dumping pressure. 💩 This will be wild to watch.

Putting the straight valuation issues of SpaceX aside - of which there are many - this post is oriented towards those that might be looking to participate in the IPO and sell on Day 1. That is, capitalize on any IPO Day 1 IPO pop. The main issue I see is that the IPO is so large - i.e., there's a lot of liquidity - I wonder if there's any reasonable expectation of an IPO pop.

In particular, SpaceX is looking to sell 555,555,555 shares at $135 a share - or any IPO offering of $75 billion. Of that $75 billion, reportedly 30% is being offered to retail investors - or $22.5 billion.

Notably, this $22.5 billion retail portion is so large that it's been reported JP Morgan is looking to do a roadshow type presentation before the IPO date that will be live and broadcast to a number of its branches, presumably to pitch the SpaceX IPO to retail investors. Put differently, the $22.5 billion retail portion is so large that they are having to engage in affirmative efforts to directly pitch to retail.

The issue I see is that this amount of liquidity - $75 billion total, and $22.5 billion retail - is so large that it may make it difficult for the IPO to pop.

In particular, the largest single day notional amount of Tesla shares ever traded - one of the most high volume stocks and arguably most comparable to SpaceX - was $43 billion. And, what appears to be the largest of any stock ever, was NVDA with a 1 day notional trade volume of $110 billion.

Thus, for example, if there were $75 billion in IPO shares - $22.5 billion of that were retail - and the trading volume on IPO day were in line with Tesla at $43 billion, you potentially have around as twice as much IPO liquidity than trading volume and, thus, this imply potentially more selling pressure than buying. That is, IPO might actually go down (although this assumes that the vast majority of IPO shares would be sold on the open market on IPO day, **if anybody has any insight as to how what percentage of IPO shares can potentially be sold on IPO day please share it)**.

On the other hand, if SpaceX trading volume were more in line with the max of NVDA - $110 billion - then it seems there would be enough trading volume to support a pop.

Another interesting consideration is if there will even be enough retail demand to eat up the $22.5 billion in shares available. More specifically, using Robinhood's funded account number of 27 million, and it appears Robinhood has a marketshare of about 15%, that gives total retail accounts available to participate of 180 million.

If roughly 1/3 of retail accounts participated - 60 million - that would mean each account would have to subscribe $375 to eat up the $22.5 billion allocated to retail. Which actually seems pretty plausible.

One note, as I expect it will come up, the buying power associated with index inclusion doesn't factor in on IPO day. Specifically, the Nasdaq's alteration of their rules make SpaceX eligible for inclusion 15 days after IPO. Thus, on IPO day there will be no index buying pressure.

**Summary**: SpaceX IPO offering of $75 billion, $22.5 billion of that reportedly allocated to retail. That $22.5 billion allocated to retail would need 1/3 of retail accounts to participate and buy in $375 to eat up the $22.5 billion allocation, which actually seems plausible.

But, on trading day, potentially $75 billion in IPO liquidity in comparison to a Tesla highest ever daily trading volume of $43 billion, and an NVDA highest of all stocks daily trading volume of $110 billion, implies there may be enough IPO liquidity to prevent an IPO pop, depending on how much trading volume there is and amount of the $75 billion that actually be sold on the secondary markets on IPO day.

Curious as to people's thoughts on this, including criticisms.

Putting the straight valuation issues of SpaceX aside - of which there are many - this post is oriented towards those that might be looking to participate in the IPO and sell on Day 1. That is, capitalize on any IPO Day 1 IPO pop. The main issue I see is that the IPO is so large - i.e., there's a lot of liquidity - I wonder if there's any reasonable expectation of an IPO pop.

In particular, SpaceX is looking to sell 555,555,555 shares at $135 a share - or any IPO offering of $75 billion. Of that $75 billion, reportedly 30% is being offered to retail investors - or $22.5 billion.

Notably, this $22.5 billion retail portion is so large that it's been reported JP Morgan is looking to do a roadshow type presentation before the IPO date that will be live and broadcast to a number of its branches, presumably to pitch the SpaceX IPO to retail investors. Put differently, the $22.5 billion retail portion is so large that they are having to engage in affirmative efforts to directly pitch to retail.

The issue I see is that this amount of liquidity - $75 billion total, and $22.5 billion retail - is so large that it may make it difficult for the IPO to pop.

In particular, the largest single day notional amount of Tesla shares ever traded - one of the most high volume stocks and arguably most comparable to SpaceX - was $43 billion. And, what appears to be the largest of any stock ever, was NVDA with a 1 day notional trade volume of $110 billion.

Thus, for example, if there were $75 billion in IPO shares - $22.5 billion of that were retail - and the trading volume on IPO day were in line with Tesla at $43 billion, you potentially have around as twice as much IPO liquidity than trading volume and, thus, this imply potentially more selling pressure than buying. That is, IPO might actually go down (although this assumes that the vast majority of IPO shares would be sold on the open market on IPO day, if anybody has any insight as to how what percentage of IPO shares can potentially be sold on IPO day please share it).

On the other hand, if SpaceX trading volume were more in line with the max of NVDA - $110 billion - then it seems there would be enough trading volume to support a pop.

Another interesting consideration is if there will even be enough retail demand to eat up the $22.5 billion in shares available. More specifically, using Robinhood's funded account number of 27 million, and it appears Robinhood has a marketshare of about 15%, that gives total retail accounts available to participate of 180 million.

If roughly 1/3 of retail accounts participated - 60 million - that would mean each account would have to subscribe $375 to eat up the $22.5 billion allocated to retail. Which actually seems pretty plausible.

One note, as I expect it will come up, the buying power associated with index inclusion doesn't factor in on IPO day. Specifically, the Nasdaq's alteration of their rules make SpaceX eligible for inclusion 15 days after IPO. Thus, on IPO day there will be no index buying pressure.

Summary: SpaceX IPO offering of $75 billion, $22.5 billion of that reportedly allocated to retail. That $22.5 billion allocated to retail would need 1/3 of retail accounts to participate and buy in $375 to eat up the $22.5 billion allocation, which actually seems plausible.

But, on trading day, potentially $75 billion in IPO liquidity in comparison to a Tesla highest ever daily trading volume of $43 billion, and an NVDA highest of all stocks daily trading volume of $110 billion, implies there may be enough IPO liquidity to prevent an IPO pop, depending on how much trading volume there is and amount of the $75 billion that actually be sold on the secondary markets on IPO day.

Curious as to people's thoughts on this, including criticisms.

(Originally posted in crypto subreddit. Only 2 responses of all of them acknowledged the nonsense that Bitcoin is and that every narrative of asset value of why to buy Bitcoin has fallen apart. Unbelievable how some people still vehemently believe in it. The new narrative is that this is as expected - you should expect a 50% drop - because of the known 4 year Bitcoin cycle. Which is absurd to think the cycle is guaranteed and, regardless, why people have been buying an driving the price up when it's expected to drop 50% a mere few months later.)

Buy Bitcoin you all said, the number of Bitcoins is capped so it will always go up you all said, it's inflation protected you all said, stay in Bitcoin you all said.

• It's been almost 10 years since Bitcoin got world attention with its first run and there's still no real widespread use case for it, particularly with no real roadblocks to an infinite number of more efficient payment stablecoins being created
• It's now proven it's not stable enough as an asset to hold it's value anywhere close to gold;
• It doesn't generate any revenue;
• And, now to top it all off, Bitcoin is down **50% over the past 8 months** while the stock market has been cruising to all time highs. It doesn't even makes sense as a risk asset anymore.

EVERY USE CASE IS NOW GONE. WHAT A LOAD OF NONSENSE THIS ALL WAS - WHO IN THE HELL IS BUYING BITCOIN

Buy Bitcoin you all said, the number of Bitcoins is capped so it will always go up you all said, it's inflation protected you all said, stay in Bitcoin you all said.

• It's been almost 10 years since Bitcoin got world attention with its first run and there's still no real widespread use case for it, particularly with no real roadblocks to an infinite number of more efficient payment stablecoins being created
• It's now proven it's not stable enough as an asset to hold it's value anywhere close to gold;
• It doesn't generate any revenue;
• And, now to top it all off, Bitcoin is down 50% over the past 8 months while the stock market has been cruising to all time highs. It doesn't even makes sense as a risk asset anymore.

EVERY USE CASE IS NOW GONE. WHAT A LOAD OF NONSENSE THIS ALL WAS - WHO IN THE HELL IS BUYING BITCOIN