Also his video "Investing in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)":
> If you can get in on the ground floor of an IPO, that is getting an allocation in the initial share offering before the stock starts trading, there is evidence that you are likely to make a profit; IPOs tend to be underpriced. While this might seem like an obvious way to easy profits, there are a few crucially important things for you to consider.
And perhaps the episode of the podcast he co-hosts on IPOs:
> We’ve previously compared IPOs to lotteries that are prone to inflated valuations and low returns. Today we welcome “Mr. IPO,” Professor Jay Ritter onto the show for a deeper dive into IPO performance, for his insights into SPACs, and to hear his research into why economic growth doesn’t correlate with stock returns. Early in the episode, Jay unpacks how long-term IPO returns perform against first-day trading. While exploring the role that venture capital plays in tech IPOs, Jay talks about why negative earnings don’t affect tech IPOs in the short-term before sharing how skewness factors tend to impact young companies. Reflecting on how IPOs are usually underpriced, Jay discusses how the interests of companies are not aligned with the interests of IPO underwriters. After looking into IPO allocation, Jay compares the 2020 ‘hot IPO market’ with the internet bubble of the late 90s. Later, we ask Jay about what special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) are and why they’ve exploded in recent years. His answers highlight their investing benefits, risks, and why SPACs might be a better option for companies than IPOs. We examine how SPACs have historically performed and then jump into our next topic; why economic growth isn’t a good indicator that a country is worth investing in. He touches on why returns don’t correlate with economic growth, the place of capital gains and dividend yields when investing abroad, and how innovations in an industry can lead to higher stock returns. We wrap up our conversation by asking Jay for his take on whether the stock market is efficient before hearing how he defines success in his life. Tune in to hear our incredible and informative talk with Jay Ritter.
Wow, I had tried submitting the same video but you have beaten me to it! Upvoted, hope that this reaches the main discourse of the site.
Personally, I have been a john bogle/passive investing fan after reading some books about investing and I always thought that they were a nice aggregate but the corruption within the nasdaq and s&p to bypass their own laws or bend their laws for these private corporations is bad
I saw some comments in the video like: " As an existing private holder of SpaceX - heck yeah I want an IPO, brilliant exit opportunity. As a retail client - ain't no way I am gonna be left holding that bag, no thanks! "
Since Index funds investors are forced to buy things in Index funds, this is gonna be just an exit strategy for these private companies and we would be just left holding the bags
People within the comments are feeling like they have lost faith within the institutional markets (a bit myself included)
I feel like a bubble will come which will impact a lot of us as these IPO happens.
(this isn't financial advice), I will look more towards semi passive investing funds like dimensional, more than anything, it is to prevent grift like this from taking place. These private companies are essentially grifting the passive index fund and its investors.
I am really pissed at a lot of things right now, Corruption and hype seems to be the only two things people are caring about. I genuinely wonder what humanity will think looking back in these moments, It's a somewhat depressing thought.
John Bogle (rest in peace) would be extremely displeased by all of this if he was alive. The world might start losing faith within the institutional investments due to these events further increasing the gap between rich and poor and the people who lose from all of these would be normal people and that impact, even if not direct, will indirectly hurt the normal public the most rather than these billionaires who make money from these mechanisms.
Those two companies can only be lumped together by someone who doesn't understand what they do.
- Openai is way over-extended and can't die soon enough.
- Spacex, on the other hand, is way ahead of any of its competitors in the invention and building of real world things that people need and pay for and has amazing goals for the future that are likely to be met by a CEO with a history of making the impossible merely late.
> Spacex, on the other hand, is way ahead of any of its competitors in the invention and building of real world things […]
Like going to Mars? Like xAI and Grok?
Perhaps if SpaceX actually focused on "invention and building of real world things" your point would be stronger? I mean: why exactly did SpaceX purchase xAI?
Like building and flying the most reliable rocket in history while launching more frequently than any other rocket in history. They make an F9 second stage every couple of days.
They were ahead of nation states, but China has already closed the gap (wrt reusable vehicles). Musk squandered the first mover advantages of Tesla and SpaceX for individual power and wealth instead of the long term success of those enterprises. And so, it’s not unreasonable for folks to say Tesla and SpaceX were just tools for a grifter to become the wealthiest person in the world; that’s what he was optimizing for, based on the evidence. Musk cares about power, control, and himself, broadly speaking.
Does it matter in the long run? Probably not. Musk will be like Gates with more wealth; speaking circuit while others build at scale (China is ~1/3 of global manufacturing capacity).
SpaceX has already pivoted from mars to moon after so many deadlines. It was very much hype oriented.
Another point but datacenters in Space literally does not make science.
Even something like arctic/antartica might make sense, but beyond that the nordic countries and iceland makes even more sense from my understanding as they have proper infrastructure.
My main point is that, even it might be worth something, I am not saying 0 but it would be a very fractional amount of money if it isn't for the hype. They aren't that different in that regards. Both products work around generating hype.
These are gonna be extremely overvalued and the average citizen is going to be left holding the bags of both.
Also his video "Investing in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs)":
> If you can get in on the ground floor of an IPO, that is getting an allocation in the initial share offering before the stock starts trading, there is evidence that you are likely to make a profit; IPOs tend to be underpriced. While this might seem like an obvious way to easy profits, there are a few crucially important things for you to consider.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a7qhIpxv60
And perhaps the episode of the podcast he co-hosts on IPOs:
> We’ve previously compared IPOs to lotteries that are prone to inflated valuations and low returns. Today we welcome “Mr. IPO,” Professor Jay Ritter onto the show for a deeper dive into IPO performance, for his insights into SPACs, and to hear his research into why economic growth doesn’t correlate with stock returns. Early in the episode, Jay unpacks how long-term IPO returns perform against first-day trading. While exploring the role that venture capital plays in tech IPOs, Jay talks about why negative earnings don’t affect tech IPOs in the short-term before sharing how skewness factors tend to impact young companies. Reflecting on how IPOs are usually underpriced, Jay discusses how the interests of companies are not aligned with the interests of IPO underwriters. After looking into IPO allocation, Jay compares the 2020 ‘hot IPO market’ with the internet bubble of the late 90s. Later, we ask Jay about what special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) are and why they’ve exploded in recent years. His answers highlight their investing benefits, risks, and why SPACs might be a better option for companies than IPOs. We examine how SPACs have historically performed and then jump into our next topic; why economic growth isn’t a good indicator that a country is worth investing in. He touches on why returns don’t correlate with economic growth, the place of capital gains and dividend yields when investing abroad, and how innovations in an industry can lead to higher stock returns. We wrap up our conversation by asking Jay for his take on whether the stock market is efficient before hearing how he defines success in his life. Tune in to hear our incredible and informative talk with Jay Ritter.
* https://rationalreminder.ca/podcast/139
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Ritter
* https://site.warrington.ufl.edu/ritter/ipo-data/
There's also Patrick Boyle's video on this topic, "SpaceX IPO Scandal":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rS3fTbC7TE
Wow, I had tried submitting the same video but you have beaten me to it! Upvoted, hope that this reaches the main discourse of the site.
Personally, I have been a john bogle/passive investing fan after reading some books about investing and I always thought that they were a nice aggregate but the corruption within the nasdaq and s&p to bypass their own laws or bend their laws for these private corporations is bad
I saw some comments in the video like: " As an existing private holder of SpaceX - heck yeah I want an IPO, brilliant exit opportunity. As a retail client - ain't no way I am gonna be left holding that bag, no thanks! "
Since Index funds investors are forced to buy things in Index funds, this is gonna be just an exit strategy for these private companies and we would be just left holding the bags
People within the comments are feeling like they have lost faith within the institutional markets (a bit myself included)
I feel like a bubble will come which will impact a lot of us as these IPO happens.
(this isn't financial advice), I will look more towards semi passive investing funds like dimensional, more than anything, it is to prevent grift like this from taking place. These private companies are essentially grifting the passive index fund and its investors.
I am really pissed at a lot of things right now, Corruption and hype seems to be the only two things people are caring about. I genuinely wonder what humanity will think looking back in these moments, It's a somewhat depressing thought.
John Bogle (rest in peace) would be extremely displeased by all of this if he was alive. The world might start losing faith within the institutional investments due to these events further increasing the gap between rich and poor and the people who lose from all of these would be normal people and that impact, even if not direct, will indirectly hurt the normal public the most rather than these billionaires who make money from these mechanisms.
[flagged]
[dead]
Those two companies can only be lumped together by someone who doesn't understand what they do.
- Openai is way over-extended and can't die soon enough.
- Spacex, on the other hand, is way ahead of any of its competitors in the invention and building of real world things that people need and pay for and has amazing goals for the future that are likely to be met by a CEO with a history of making the impossible merely late.
> Spacex, on the other hand, is way ahead of any of its competitors in the invention and building of real world things […]
Like going to Mars? Like xAI and Grok?
Perhaps if SpaceX actually focused on "invention and building of real world things" your point would be stronger? I mean: why exactly did SpaceX purchase xAI?
* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq6vnrye06po
Like building and flying the most reliable rocket in history while launching more frequently than any other rocket in history. They make an F9 second stage every couple of days.
They were ahead of nation states, but China has already closed the gap (wrt reusable vehicles). Musk squandered the first mover advantages of Tesla and SpaceX for individual power and wealth instead of the long term success of those enterprises. And so, it’s not unreasonable for folks to say Tesla and SpaceX were just tools for a grifter to become the wealthiest person in the world; that’s what he was optimizing for, based on the evidence. Musk cares about power, control, and himself, broadly speaking.
Does it matter in the long run? Probably not. Musk will be like Gates with more wealth; speaking circuit while others build at scale (China is ~1/3 of global manufacturing capacity).
SpaceX has already pivoted from mars to moon after so many deadlines. It was very much hype oriented.
Another point but datacenters in Space literally does not make science.
Even something like arctic/antartica might make sense, but beyond that the nordic countries and iceland makes even more sense from my understanding as they have proper infrastructure.
My main point is that, even it might be worth something, I am not saying 0 but it would be a very fractional amount of money if it isn't for the hype. They aren't that different in that regards. Both products work around generating hype.
These are gonna be extremely overvalued and the average citizen is going to be left holding the bags of both.
That's some early stage Tesla optimism right there. What's really happening is that starship is the space cyber truck.