Can the stock market remain legitimate after such a brazen example of dumping? Regular everyday people can’t access private shares and participate in upside even if they want to. They don’t have the connections like VCs, and aren’t accredited investors. And companies ban secondary transactions, which should be forced by law to be always allowed.
And then after all that, the public have to deal with their index funds, ETFs, mutual funds, pensions, 401ks, etc buying up these overpriced stocks. You have a space company that also acquired a failing social media platform and failing AI company with little revenue justification for the valuation, and a lot of other obligations that make it financially a disaster (like payments owed for spectrum). And two frontier labs with no real moats, each looking for regulatory capture based on safety or ethics or whatever.
To the everyday person, the stock market after the fast listing rule, these three IPOs, and AI job loss, will feel no more legitimate than prediction markets or crypto.
> then they have to deal with their index funds, ETFs, mutual funds, pensions, 401ks, etc buying up overpriced stocks
Only about a third of American stocks are held by passive capital [1]. Out of that, index funds are about 16%, and most of those in America reference the S&P 500, which has not yet announced whether it is changing its rules.
Sure, but it's the Americans that can least afford to be stood up as exit liquidity that have the most exposure here relative to their net worth. The ultra wealthy are going to be heavily overrepresented in the active basket. Meanwhile the folks lower down on the income scale are more likely to have their money in passive funds.
> The ultra wealthy are going to be heavily overrepresented in the active basket.
Do you have evidence to substantiate this claim? My brief research has shown the wealthier the investor, the likelier they are to use a passive strategy.
What levels of wealth are you referring to. I could believe that a doctor or lawyer is more likely to use passive strategies compared to a retail worker, who might just have a small Robinhood account for gambling. But the levels I am talking about are the ultra wealthy vs the middle class. Elon is not using passive index investing for any meaningful amount of his net worth. The vast majority of that is in his companies, which is not a passive investment. The same holds true most of the other ultra wealthy. And the top 1% controls about half the wealth in this country. So I think it is fair to say that they are going to be overrepresented in the active basket.
I think it is incorrect to place these corps in the same bucket. The scam here is SPCX. The only reason they are allowed to do this bs is because Nasdaq are greedy and wants this ticker on their stock exchange. The evaluation of SPCX is based on the AI leg. Not rockets, not starlink, AI.
And then after all that, the public have to deal with their index funds, ETFs, mutual funds, pensions, 401ks, etc buying up these overpriced stocks. You have a space company that also acquired a failing social media platform and failing AI company with little revenue justification for the valuation, and a lot of other obligations that make it financially a disaster (like payments owed for spectrum). And two frontier labs with no real moats, each looking for regulatory capture based on safety or ethics or whatever.
To the everyday person, the stock market after the fast listing rule, these three IPOs, and AI job loss, will feel no more legitimate than prediction markets or crypto.