10 comments

  • miohtama 9 minutes ago
    This investment has never been secret.

    Google (now under parent company Alphabet) invested roughly $900 million as the majority of a ~$1 billion funding round alongside Fidelity Investments. This gave Google an initial equity stake of about 7–7.5% in SpaceX at a valuation of roughly $10–12 billion.

    • matwood 1 minute ago
      Remember this was also when SpaceX was actually about space, instead of mostly AI and Twitter. Long-term shareholders that were sold on the space, have to be thinking about how to get out once their lockups expire.
  • throwaw12 51 minutes ago
    100x return, I would sell immediately after this kind of gain, maybe that's why I am not a Google
    • rf15 42 minutes ago
      I'm sure at an $80 valuation they will tell everyone how it's time to buy as it slides down further
      • knodi 15 minutes ago
        Average pre-ipo sale price is $6.xx
    • rsynnott 26 minutes ago
      Per the article, they can’t, yet.
    • sidcool 31 minutes ago
      There would be some laws in place. And it would also stress the relationship with Elon.
    • ajross 41 minutes ago
      This is a micro/macro mistake. You obviously can't dump a 6% stake at strike price on Robinhood.

      "The Market", at this scale, means "You find the buyer(s) yourself and work up the deal with a hundred lawyers and PR staff and hope the contract negotiation stays secret".

      • TheAtomic 9 minutes ago
        Actually, that's the service provided by GS, etc. They have those buyers on the other side of their Rolodex.
    • hiddencost 32 minutes ago
      (1) there's a lock out, they can't legally (2) Moving that kind of volume at market price is extremely difficult (3) This disclosure was required by law as part of their earnings. They would rather have said nothing and quietly offloaded it.

      One consequence of booking the revenue is that they're going to have to report a loss when they sell it.

      It's possible there's some tax shenanigans at play (idk): report the profit, mark it against their massive AI capex, sell later when they can book a loss. (I'm not sure if it works that way, it wouldn't for an individual, but maybe they can find a way to trigger a stepped up basis.)

    • embedding-shape 45 minutes ago
      Feeling sated and not constant greed is no way to build billionaires, nope.
    • tonyhart7 16 minutes ago
      if you are big company like google, another 100 billion is not gonna make you feel better since cold cash is liability at that scale

      100 billion is nothing if that money can put you in better spot at technology landscape

  • grim_io 12 minutes ago
    6% is more than all of the issued IPO shares. They were 5%, right?
  • bombcar 10 minutes ago
    What’s that in data centers?
  • the__alchemist 35 minutes ago
    I am short both Google and SpaceX RN; SpaceX's IPO smells foul. Google is an AI-bubble short; Anthropic and OpenAI haven't IPOed yet.
    • matwood 5 minutes ago
      Not sure why you'd short Google. Their business was doing great pre-AI, and will likely do great regardless of what happens to AI. The rumors of their demise when AI hit the scene were clearly greatly exaggerated.
      • next_xibalba 1 minute ago
        There is quite a bit of information out there as to how Google is achieving short term growth in their core search business. And boy, it is ugly. It does not signal long term continued growth.
    • throwaw12 22 minutes ago
      from your list, I think only Google has moat and something I would short least.

      Google has hardware, software ecosystem, mobile ecosystem, controls browser, has access to 2B+ users, has talent to come up with ideas - perfect spot for AI

      • conartist6 18 minutes ago
        Now Microsoft, them I'd short. In a way I have by starting my own company to undermine their various competitive advantages comprehensively
        • matwood 4 minutes ago
          The number of companies that default to using Teams shows why MSFT isn't going anywhere.
          • conartist6 0 minutes ago
            The only strategy that can work against Microsoft is a full broadside. You can't try beat them in just one niche, you have to go after the whole tech stack they offer. That's what I'm willing to try doing.
        • jeremyjh 11 minutes ago
          Microsoft has many of the same advantages but is incapable of judging the quality of the products it makes.
        • the__alchemist 9 minutes ago
          Concur; I am shorting them as well. Your approach is more clever!
    • hahahaa 27 minutes ago
      Short Google? Early is wrong you know?
      • IAmGraydon 5 minutes ago
        That’s a pretty weird take considering they’re down 21% in the last 2 months. How, exactly, is this early?
    • deadbabe 7 minutes ago
      Google is not a good short. They are actually one of the companies that will likely come out on top when the AI-bubble has popped.

      Anthropic and OpenAI though will likely be dead, killed by cheap open weight LLMs and local LLMs.

  • ur-whale 1 hour ago
  • rubyfan 1 hour ago
    Didn’t they just raise $85B “for AI”?
    • brainwad 25 minutes ago
      It's not like they can sell the SPCX stock. It's still locked up.
  • outside1234 1 hour ago
    Hopefully they made this investment pre-IPO at some vastly lower valuation because otherwise… …this is a not going to end well for them.
    • jddj 1 hour ago
      They got in at a ~12B valuation. They'll be fine
      • Aboutplants 55 minutes ago
        If true then they paid under $800 Million for their 6%, now valued at $94 Billion.
        • dagaci 47 minutes ago
          Yes, google they paid $900 millions in 2015 for about 7% stake, 100X. % Number probably fell because of all the "merging".
    • carlosjobim 35 minutes ago
      Why? They will still have their same stake no matter what happens with the stock price.
  • alfiedotwtf 1 hour ago
    FIFY: Google discloses $94B loss
    • minraws 1 hour ago
      They didn't invest 94B$

      But yes the stock could go down much further and I hope they are willing to show the losses if they can show this as gains today.

      Imagine the next call being about how their 95$B went to sub 30B$..

      Will that be a negative line item. I don't see the point in disclosing this stake as earnings.

      But I do get that accounting was made as a tool for companies to show off.

      • HFguy 1 minute ago
        Accounting goes back thousands of years. It was not made as a tool to show off. Lesson is more that tools can be abused for other purposes than intended.
      • consensus1 11 minutes ago
        They don't have to be willing because hiding the losses would be a crime. And it still doesn't matter b/c anyone with a calculator can tell you exactly what the value of their position is on any given day. The $94 billion is 2.4% of Google's market cap, so even if SpaceX goes to zero it will be barely noticeable from the background noise of the stock price movement.
    • locallost 1 hour ago
      It will be difficult since they acquired it for less than a billion 10 years ago.

      https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/20/spacex-fundi...

    • passwordoops 1 hour ago
      "The company’s marketable equity securities include $80 billion in shares subject to short-term restrictions and $14.1 billion subject to long-term restrictions"

      Actually more like $14.1 and whatever value the other $80 is worth when they sell. Which is probably going to be worth well North of whatever is lost on the $14.1 B long-term... All part of the scam to inflate the value of the AI bubble

    • newsclues 43 minutes ago
      hate makes people stupid.
    • formvoltron 1 hour ago
      exactly. amazing what sort of showman Musk is. Didn't he sleep with Brin's girlfriend at one time?
      • kennywinker 1 hour ago
        Idk, but he sure did try to get invited to Epstein’s island to “party”.
        • minton 46 minutes ago
          Terrible! Source?
          • TheOtherHobbes 37 minutes ago
            • rsynnott 30 minutes ago
              It is extremely funny that Epstein is clearly all “oh, fuck, not this guy, gotta make an excuse”, here.
              • consensus1 8 minutes ago
                I'm not seeing it.

                > “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?” Musk states on 13 December 2013.

                > “any day 1st - 8th . play it by ear if you want. always space for you,” Epstein replies.

                > Musk then sends several emails relaying his schedule, and the two settle on 2 January as a date for the visit. The email exchange ends with Epstein telling Musk that he would need to remain in New York and sending his regrets that they could not meet.

                > “Bad news- Unfortunately , my schedule will keep me in New York . I was really looking forward to finally spending some time together with just fun as the agenda. so i am very disappointed. Hopefully we can schedule another time in the near future,” Epstein wrote.

                > In November 2012, Epstein sent Musk an email asking “how many people will you be for the heli to island”.

                > “Probably just Talulah and me. What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk replied, in an apparent reference to his former wife Talulah Riley.

                > Musk followed up with an email on 25 December in response to another Epstein message that encouraged him to visit and offered use of his helicopter.

                > “Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I’m looking for,” Musk wrote.

                > “Understood , I will see you on st Barth, the ratio on my island might make Talilah uncomfortable,” Epstein responded.

                > “Ratio is not a problem for Talulah,” Musk said.

                > On 2 January 2013, Musk sent Epstein an email suggesting that the visit wouldn’t take place saying: “Logistics won’t work this time around.”

          • shakna 34 minutes ago
            Justice Department [0] seems a definitive source.

            [0] https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01762...

          • pavlov 39 minutes ago
            Epstein emails. Google will find it for you.