site banner
birb_cromble  8d ago (text post)   1002 thread views

Weekly Finance Thread (without clever alliteration)

A weekly thread to discuss financial matters - from personal all the way up to global.

Ground Rules

  • Remember that we're all just Internet randos. Don't bet your life savings on a hot tip from this thread.
  • Keep culture war in the culture war thread. Yes, global events may impact our personal finances, but that does not mean we have to incessantly harp on culture war aspects here. If you are going to discuss it, please stick to the practical impacts of it on an individual level.
  • Be kind. Remember that everyone here comes from different circumstances. We all have different resources available and different risk tolerances.
  • Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Better is better. Celebrate people when they take a step up and work to move their finances in the right direction. Don't flame out because they haven't followed what you consider the optimal path. Everybody has to start somewhere.
2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The only reason Musks can do fuckery to push it into indices is because a lot of people want to buy the stock and will let him IPO 50+ billion at a 2 trillion valuation.

He personally will likely not cash out much in the IPO. And it really is a great company I would love to buy at some point. I am likely hoping that the mess up the IPO like Meta and I get to buy it between $500b and a trillion. Starlink has potential to be a cash flow machine. xAI is interesting but I have no idea if frontier models will be profitable and it’s going to burn a ton of cash. And SpaceX innovation is insane.

I won’t buy the IPO though unless I see an opportunity arb the indexes but I would really like to own it someday.

The bigger issue isn’t the etf inclusion it’s an issue that our biggest companies don’t go public now because of regulations (complicated). It should have been listed years ago. Valuations on it are tough but it’s obviously a very valuable company.

And it really is a great company I would love to buy at some point. I am likely hoping that the mess up the IPO like Meta and I get to buy it between $500b and a trillion.

It is, but not at $2 trillion, or even $1t.

our biggest companies don’t go public now because of regulations (complicated)

Are you sure this is the reason? I haven't researched much but it seems more like it's just +EV for them to milk the private markets for all they have and only then IPO and milk public markets.

Morningstar is valuing SpaceX at around $780B. Do you think that's fair?

Just based on the S-1, I'd put it somewhere between $600B and $750B.

How is one supposed to go about answering that question? As far as I can tell the stock market is voodoo, and there is no "correct" value for a company.

We have this technology called excel. You then estimate revenue and margins for the next ten years. After that you general take the tenth year cash flow and assume it grows at the rate of nominal gdp forever.

Then take the 10 year interest rate in US treasuries and add a risks premium like 3.5%. Then use some function in excel that takes the cash flows in my first paragraph and discount every year until then at like 8% (4.5% + 3.5%) per year.

This will give you the current stock price. Due to the efficient market hypothesis whatever price you see in your brokerage account should be + or - about 5% of what your excel gave you.

So if we apply this formula to, say, Tesla, do we get it's current price? From what I understand, it's worth more than all the other auto companies combined, so either it's overvalued, or they're undervalued. With that in mind, what does it mean for the price to be "wrong"? What's supposed to happen if the "efficient market" doesn't get the price "right"?

Terminal Value Calcs. I think I simplified and said you just project 10 years of cash flows and then throw on a terminal growth rate. If the market is efficiently pricing then it’s basically assuming legacy automakers are whip and buggy manufacturers that don’t have a terminal growth value and instead terminal growth is negative.

Well, that's a rather quick turn from "it's a simple matter of doing some calculations with revenue and margins in your excel" to fanciful tales from the land of make-believe. If the result of your formula doesn't match the price after you've plugged in actual revenues, why even bring it up? Why is the valuation based on a fantasy scenario where all the other manufacturers are expected to fall off a cliff more correct, than one where Tesla is expected to fall off a cliff?

I don’t own tesla shares. And this is still correct finance theory. As someone who though does own a Tesla I would never own a legacy automaker car again. Maybe Tesla is too high on cash flow present value but I have no problem considering legacy autos obsolete and long term zeroing them. Tesla and legacy autos feel like completely different industries and shouldn’t be compared.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats