why people invest in this? they will just lose their money
As long as there is a sucker willing to pay more they will gain money. And unfortunately there are millions of suckers on the planet. Fundamentals don’t mean anything with this IPO. It’s basically all hype based like Pokemon cards.
One of the big problems with investing is that the average investor thinks they’re smarter than the average investor.
Why do people like this guy? Tell him to fuck off already.
$1.75 trillion is impossible unless people develop a strange love for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield
satellites designed to provide new military space capabilities to U.S. and allied governments
The primary project SpaceX is reportedly vying for are contracts for the Golden Dome space weapons system.
That’s the ticket to win nuclear war (or dream about it) and it will be priced accordingly.
Now that even main Indices (which were supposed to be much safer to invest in - via things like ETFs - than individual stock picking) are being shamelessly rigged to feed Retail and Fund money to the IPO pires, you should literally not be invested in any US Stock Market by the time this and other AI IPOs happen.
Literally even having money under your matress (even with the current inflation) is safer than being in any way form or shape invested in the Nasdaq 100 and if this shit is the straw that breaks the camel’s back, matress savings storage is safer that being invested anywhere in a US stock market.
I was in none other than Lehman Brothers in the 2008 Crash and saw that shit from the front row and all of this crap (the ever more articles about how AI is not delivering returns for companies using it, the steep increases in AI usage fees - which stink of desperate attempts at monetising it, which in turn mean that either the companies selling AI services have run out of runway or believe AI cannot improve further hence their investment must start producing returns NOW - these 3 AI IPOs pretty much at the same time all with insane valuations and the shameless rigging of Indices) are making alarm bells ring in my head like crazy.
Think of it as alarmism if you want.
I can tell you one thing for sure from my own experience in 2008 Crash: there were but a few obscure signs that shit was about to hit the fan back then (for example, there was an article in The Economist about how the Credit Derivative positions of both Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were 2x higher than the 3rd largest and the rest of the Industry, plus some wispers of Goldman Sachs reducing their exposure to Credit Derivatives) and between that and the first big crack - Bear Stearns collapsing and being sold the JPMorgan for peanuts - it was but a few weeks and between that and Lehman Brothers going bankrupt and the markets going into an uncrontrolled crash, it was about a week, so expect the same kind of time scale in the transition from “this all looks kinda suspicious” to the first “oh shit” (maybe OpenAI’s IPO?!) to an out of control fall of the markets that no matter what they try Central Banks are unable to stop until it hits a stable new and much lower level, and meanwhile all that shit will be throwing shrapnel into the rest of the Economy, not just via retraction in Financial Markets such as the Money Markets but via the complete collapse of everything proped up by the current data center projects (most of which not even yet started yet already propping up things like land acquisition and long term equipment purchasing contracts).
Judging by how P/Es in the Nasdaq 100 are now literally TWICE as much as in 2022, in the least bad scenario the Nasdaq market will collapse to half its value right now as P/E levels go back to 2022 (which was much closer to historic average), though judging by my experience in 2008 Crash plus there being other massive asset price bubbles in other markets (such as realestate), IMHO as the the bursting of the bubbles feed each other and impact the broader Economy which in turn impacts back all kinds of markets - via retractions in Consumption and Investment as well as spiking Loan Default rates in turn feeding into retractions in credit from traditional Banks and Money Markets - this shit will go much further than a mere 50% fall in the Nasdaq).
I think a lot of people will brush it off what ever happens with SpaceX because Xai is the weakest of the big model providers. I don’t think we’ll even get to the openAI IPO. I think the S1 or IPO from anthropic will be the real kicker, because they’re the darling at the moment. The one that seems to have the most momentum and business customers.
If their S1 turns out to be utter dog water and/or their IPO flops, that’s when the real panic comes. When people say “oh crap, these GPU data centers don’t have customers that can make money”, and that narrative will hit all the people building data center and all the people selling hardware to them. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, that’s like… what, 25% of the S&P 500? That seems like a big enough hit to catch a lot of other stuff in the blast radius.
I’m sure you are much more familiar with internal workings than I am, but isn’t the playing field so different now due to machine trading?
Markets don’t react as human traders would because of algorithms buying up dips and other black magic rules that happen in milliseconds.
If Hormuz was closed in 1998 markets would have been in a panic, and when it happened in 2026 it was a small blip.
There are plenty of deep rooted problems with the current economy that I think makes it fragile- Among them, the fact that without data center buildout, the US would be in a recession.
So while your post makes perfect sense and I agree with all of it, I just don’t trust markets to follow the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe.
Machine trading
Algorithmic or “machine” trading was very much already a thing and deeply ingrained into the market in 2008.
“This time is different” is always bullshit. In fact there’s even a book called exactly that which covers 500 years of History of financial crashes and people saying that for some reason or other “things are different now” to justify “no more Crashes”, is an incredibly common occurrence just before major Crashes.
Markets exist in a human society context, which exists in a real world context, were the only Laws that never break are the Laws Of Physics: no matter how much of a fantastical and magical imaginary fairyland the Financial Investment universe has become, there is always some link back to the real world (what would be the point for investors if their investment didn’t somehow translate back into being able to get more concrete things in the real world), at the very minimum through the value of the currencies in which the investment assets are valued (if the Economy supporting a currency collapses, the real value - aka purchasing power - of investment assets which are priced in that current goes down, the number which is that asset in that currency can keep going up and yet it’s actually worth less - you can see a good example of that by looking at the FTSE100 and the GDPEUR cross-currency pair when the result of the Leave Vote in Britain came out: the FTSE100, which is listed in British Pounds, went up right after it at the same time as the British Pound collapsed around 20%, so the real value of the FTSE100 and thus the stocks in that index actually went down even though the number itself was up)
(EDIT It doesn’t matter how much of the transformation from “imaginary asset worth” to actual real concrete goods and services in the real world uses and abuses the subjectivity of “convincing people that this imaginary shit is worth as much as it is worth” to swindle people to give real stuff in exchange for la-la-land fantasy tokens - as shown every single time by Ponzi Schemes, such things always end up in running out of fools or the fools running out of money, and then collapsing, the only question being how far they spread before that happens)
This is why in my post I pointed out several links back from the stockmarkets to the broader Economy.
Beyond that, the broader Economy links to the broader society by in the extreme how humans react to being fucked up repeatedly (i.e. having difficulty accessing resources required for survival and seeing their quality of life plummet). I suspect that the current movements when it comes to ever more extreme surveillance, ever more shrill blaming of scapegoats (such as immigrants and transsexuals) by the billionaire-owned Press and Politicians and ever more extreme use of Force by the State against civil society movements trying to change things, is the current elites preparing for just that human reaction - a lot of very wealthy people are preparing (some even openly stating things around those lines) for turning Democratic countries into Autocratic ones rather than accept any changes to the machinery that makes them ever richer and lets them de facto be the top power.
I would say that the only uncertainty is not IF things will break, it’s how far they will stretch before they break - judging by all that’s happenning, there really doesn’t seem to be any chance for enough of the people holding most of the money accepting that “this is unsustainable” and taking a loss for things to go back enough that a different route can be taken - as the Economy increasingly sputtered and growth stopped, they just doubled down on pillaging wealth from the rest of society and funding political movements scapegoating minorities and outsiders rather than addressing the reasons for the Economy having stopped growing.
As for specifically your point on algorithmic trading, that kind of trading applies to very short time frames - money goes in and then out sometimes in seconds - and its mainly a way of making money by front-running the information about trades done in different Stock Markets or things like news that will impact prices: it doesn’t create market movements, it just tries to run ahead of them, so its not actually a sustained force to push the Markets in any direction.
I would say that the current overabundance of speculative bubbles (including the AI bubble and realestate bubble) are not the product of algorithmic trading but rather the product of the increasing concentration of wealth - especially following the 2008 Crash - which has moved a lot of money from those who have little and mainly Spend most of their money to those who have much and thus Save/Invest most of their money (something which also explains the current record level of Household Debt - the people at lower end of the wealth scale increasingly require more debt merelly to survive) so A TON of money was seeking any and all investment opportunities thus pumping out lots of asset prices purelly via more demand for those assets rather than due to the fundamentals of what backs them (for example, corporate profits) having got better. If you search for it, there are several people out there explaining it much better and in more depth than me.
Fair. Good answer
But we computers now. Really is different.
We was computers in 2008 too. Not at all different.
And in 2000
And in 1997
And even in 1973
Here’s the twist. SpaceX doesn’t have to do anything at all. It can go bankrupt tomorrow and its valuation will only go up.
The stock market never made any sense whatsoever, and this is just peak stock market behaviour.
The major indices already said they’re not buying. That number they made up was counting on forcing them to buy automatically.
This is nuts. Can someone explain this cos I just don’t get it. Why would you invest in a company if its well established that its unlikely you’ll ever make a profit or even get that money back??
Tl;dr - Not a single person would be investing in SpaceX. Americans’ retirement funds would be invested into it, without their knowledge or consent, regardless of how obvious the outcome is.
All my friends got on the wait-list to be part of the ipo launch. Trust me a lot of people want this and it will sell like crazy.
- Buy stock when it’s valued at $1.75 trillion
- Elon says on twitter he thinks it will be worth $3 trillion soon
- Some idiots buy stock, price goes up
- You sell
- Profit
You can keep doing this as long as there’s a bigger idiot down the line. If you’re still holding the stock when it collapses you’re the biggest idiot and you lose.
Surely the SEC will shut down these shenanigans! /s
SpaceXs initial valuation is so large it will distort the market, and they changed the rules so the index funds will all buy shares automatically to balance their portfolios, which will shoot the price up and balloon the valuation even further, then Elon and the investors that helped him buy twitter can sell at ludicrous prices at the expense of American 401ks and and passive managed pension funds.
It’s a trillion dollar rug pull in broad daylight.
That’s what they want to happen, but the biggest index fund are already shutting that down. The main losers are going to be his die hard sycophants, who won’t be able to help themselves from buying this trap.
The thing is, the bigger the amounts of money involved the more idiots you need to actually push the price up and keep the fleecing going.
Mind you, the 5% float of SpaceX’s IPO means you only need enough idiot money per cycle to move the price of $87 billion worth of stocks rather than the full $1.75 trillion, which is probably why they’re rigging Indices to force Retirement Funds to be the idiots as it would be a lot harder to source enough idiot money out of Retail Investors.
they are forcing us to invest by stealing from our 401k.
because nasdaw and russel rigged inclusion rulescheck your 401k people, you might need to move into other ETF to avoid AI companies and bubble
First signs of US economic decline
Nixon Shock: “Am I a joke to you?”
I can’t wait for my 401k to lose a significant chunk of its value within the next 5 years because some chud at Fidelity needed to ride Elon to the moon. And also the AI crash.
The S&P 500 rejected adding SpaceX though. So no worries from them but when AI crashes and burns so will your 401k.
They didn’t reject adding SpaceX, they simply said they would not change the rules to add it early, like the other indexes are. Those rules include a minimum time listed as a public company, a certain percentage of shares being floated to the public, and some profitability. I doubt SpaceX ever gets there.
Some of those other AI companies might make it through the gauntlet, though, and be listed eventually.
Also, NASDAQ will be changing its rules to list SpaceX as soon as 15 days after IPO.
No idea how US pensions work… But can’t you change the funds?
I sold the default fund and moved it into non US stuff.
Many employers offer to match the employee’s contribution to their retirement fund up to a certain amount, but the employer gets to pick which funds are available. Anyone can open their own IRA (retirement fund) but they won’t get that employer match.
Why would the employer care which funds are available though?
Here, the employer picks the provider and default fund, but you can change it to anything the provider offers. (Although most don’t)
The only option I have is to shift into international markets and even that isn’t too much of a shield as many of those have US allocations that will be buying SpaceX
If only you could change the currency it’s held in. I have little faith the dollar will be accepted by anyone when I’m retirement age.
Well… with the help of a lot of naive investors, some pedophile politicians and the amount of drugs he’s taking, everything is in the realm of possibilities
Inflation will be 60x soon enough.
For readers, that averages 51% per year.
The stock market? Does that even mean anything anymore with respect to value? To me it’s a dead husk that has been raped time and time again.
deleted by creator
in order to achieve that they’d have to hire pretty much the entire aerospace industry. everyone in the usa with any expertise in rockets or satellites. im doing my part by never working for that fucking fascist piece of shit.
I’m sorry to i form you that they plan to have a majority of their business revenue come from their AI division, not their satellite division and definitely not their rocket division
Never understood the business model for SpaceX and Starlink. Huge capital and operational costs without a clear understanding of who is paying for it.
Starlink is the part of spaceX making money. Selling a low latency global communications capability is a sound business model. The rocketry part is close to break even. I suspect it could do with a few more launches that weren’t starlink.
It’s xAI that’s tanking the whole thing. Without that SpaceX would be profitable. With it, it’s a trash stock.
The business model is armament. Future warfare uses land and air drones and they require network access, which Starlink provides and they’re much more difficult to jam than ground-based network facilities.
And he played his hand too soon in Ukraine: by deciding for himself to reject Ukrainian coverage in Crimea. This creates an opening for competitors that only war can afford to duplicate.
Yeah. Are they really expecting me to believe we can‘t have wide spread fiber that has fairly little maintenance costs but we can totally afford weekly space rocket launches to maintain Starlink? And Starlink is supposed to be an affordable option while still being profitable? Yeah, sure buddy. Totally doesn‘t sound like a hyperloop-esque pipe dream. /s
Stsrlink is about the only thing in the company pulling in solid revenue. There’s a good analysis on https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2026/05/30/what-is-starlinks-financial-performance
But basically it’s a subscription service which they can sell around most of the planet and compete with infrastructure heavy services (as in expensive to replace them). They also have a lot of enterprise customer usecases (like agriculture and construction) as well as cashcow government (army).
Their growth is actually massive compared to last year, and starlink itself is already profitable. Their economy gets better with the investment in the rocket tech. Starship will be able to lift 20x the amount of starlink than falcon 9, apparently also cheaper, while the next gen starlink sats will also be able to serve a lot more customers. That’ll drive their operating cost down, while allowing selling more.
(Just to be clear, spacex as a company is still hot garbage because of the bundling of x and xai and also probably the control structure giving musk all the power while not even holding majority stake, the above is just about starlink and the rocket tech.)
The problem with Starlink is it’s only ever a niche service. There’s a limit to how many satellites you can have in the sky over paying subscribers (as opppsed to, say, deserts or oceans) - I did some back of the envelope maths that put it at about 15 million subscribers with acceptable speeds, maybe double that with terrible service.
By comparison, Deutsche Telekom in Germany alone has 5 times as many mobile subscribers, and a similar number of fixed-line broadband. Amd best of all, Deutsche Telekom doesn’t need to replace all its infrastructure every 5 years when it falls to Earth.
So on what possible basis does Starlink warrant a “to the moon” valuation, and traditional providers don’t? Traditional providers can serve more consumers, at lower cost, with better return on assets…
Starlink, and batshit ideas about datacentres in space, exist for one reason: US infrastructure is complete shit. It would almost certainly be long-run a better investment to fix the power, water, and telecomms infrastructure on the ground, but right now you have a government that would rather private companies fire money into space than pay taxes.
I don’t disagree that even starlink is overvalued, my point was that it’s the only thing in spacex bringing in profit and why.
FWIW, their v3 satellite model is apparently a 10x bandwidth increase over v2 (although weights about 5x as much). At the moment they are so oversubscribed that they can charge a $1000 surcharge for people to just sign up in some areas, so there’s definitely demand. So given they’re already around 10 mill subscribers there is some growth to be had (although I agree it won’t be 100s of millions, maybe a few 10s - far from the 50+ multiplier on the valuation, even ignoring the other 2 money pits bundled in)
That being said, you’re entirely correct that fixing the on-ground infrastructure is a much better investment if the goal is good internet service and would deliver a better quality service for cheaper, but that is happening extremely slowly in most of the developed countries (e.g. UK has terrible internet infra as well), especially in rural areas. So for the next 10 years starlink doss have a large market because the ground infrastructure sucks, and it’s not “hype” to spend money on it for investors where’s space stuff is.
It gets even worse.
From this article from early 2025, we get a median life for Starlink satellites of 5.3 years, though expected to improve with newer versions of the satellites.
From other more broad analysis of the life expectancy of low orbit satellites we get that the solar cycle - which is 11 years - means that at its peak many more such satellites die due to the Earth’s athmosphere expanding (so the satellites are more impacted by athmospheric drag hence are less likely to manage to remain in orbit, which they do using engines which have limited propellant). This is in addition to normal hazards of space, such as failures due to solar activity.
So expect that even for the lastest generation, half-life of these satellites is between 5 to at best 11 years.
Deutsche Telekom does not have the capital costs of replacing half its network every 5 - 11 years.
For Starlink and SpaceX, I can probably understand the business model, considering the race to getting more satellites to orbit be it for surveying or in case of Starlink stable Internet anywhere. But anything beyond that, like data centers in space I just ridiculous. No way that their valuation is anywhere near what it is realistically.
Starlink is basically a military tech that is too expensive even for the US military, so it was sold to gullible investors as a great deal… It won’t ever be profitable, at least not near the level that was promised. But it might turn out to be essential during a few wars.
While you’re probably right, I wonder if we would’ve said the same thing about GPS
GPS was planned out and deployed over 20 years (from proposal to operational).
It was also designed and worked for its intended purpose with only 24 satellites.
Block III gps satellites are designed to last 15 years and there are 10 of them.
Starlink is disposable chains of 1,000s of satellites that will be constantly burning up in the atmosphere and replaced at huge costs, including co2 from the launches.
I don’t think it’s the same, we already have the infrastructure for the network in most places with a dense population. Existing infrastructure is of the similar quality to Starlink, and the maintenance cost for the existing infrastructure is lower.
In case of GPS, the infrastructure existing before was much worse.
The only cases I can think of, where Starlink outperforms the existing infrastructure are:
-
Areas with low population density - the problem, in those areas, by definition, there aren’t many customers
-
Situation when someone is actively trying to sabotage the existing infrastructure, like those ships, that are breaking underwater internet cables, or the active jamming near the front lines - what happens in the Ukraine shows that Starlink is great for that case. It is enough to treat it as strategically important, but it doesn’t justify the starlink valuation. I really hope this market won’t grow much.
-
I look at Starlink where currently about 6 spacecraft deorbit a week and need replacement as a huge operational cost. Many SpaceX launches are Starlink launches, it raises the question of whether this is a circular or self fulfilling industry.
An analysis from early 2025 showed that the median life expectancy of a 1st generation Starlink satellite was 5.3 years, though expected to improve in v2 and v3.
Beyond that, the solar lifecycle means that every 11 years the earth’s orbit expands increasing drag on low-orbit satellites (which brings them down) as well as bombarding them with more radiation (increasing the likelihood of failures).
Other sources I’ve found in searching for it give their median life-expectancy as being 5-7 years.
Land-based telecom operators don’t have to replace pretty much all of their transmission infrastructure - worse, in a costly to access location - more than once a decade.
Space-based tele-communications is more than proven as a viable business model, what’s nowhere near proven (or anywhere close to being mathematically demonstrable) is one single operator of those being worth more than many major land-based telecom operators each with many times the number of customers of that space-based telecoms business and providing much faster network access (somebody else gave Deutsche Telecomm as an example) put together.
(How exactly in terms of actual PHYSICS will Starlink deliver via radio waves to for example all 245 million European households - necessary to justify such valuations - a reliable 1Gbps connection for €10/month needed to to beat the land operators?)
SpaceX’s IPO valuation which itself is mostly anchored on Starlink, is totally unjustified and unjustifiable by fundamentals.
As far as I understood, I always thought that they just used other people’s rockets to piggyback their own satellites to space basically for free
Unless you want to separate starlink from spacex it’s kinda the other way around.
I think spacex was adding starlink deployment to all their rockets and their “plan” was to launch other satellites and nasa projects, then get the starlink stuff up there for less.
Haven’t heard that though you need a lot of other launches with space available….
Its actually a great business model as they need to do actual test flights to build better rockets and instead of that being pure R&D expenses, its supplemented by launching Starlink satellites which generate their own revenue for the company.
Great theory, but the Falcon 9 is already a proven design and most of SpaceX’s R&D is going to the starship, which uses completely different engines and which has blown up or disintegrated just as much as its successfully gotten above the atmosphere. It’s also never actually completed an orbit or delivered a gram of anything to orbit.
Starlink is a useful tool to boost launch numbers precisely so investors think things are better than they actually are. Originally SpaceX burned through government and private investor money. Now that they’ve blown through the entire Artemis budget the interim director of nasa gave them through blatant corruption, and launched even more billion dollar fireworks using private investor money, they are desperately trying to convince the public for more fireworks funds.
I suppose that it is that dependence upon Starlink to boost launch numbers makes me suspicious of the books. The whole thing just feels ponzie scheme.
It’s a FOMO play for morons.
The entire valuation is that they say that they can find $28T of businesses on mars and the moon, that that creating these business ideas is something they can do repeatably.
To be fair, you’re only a moron if you are considering it a “hold forever” stock. If you get out in time, or even if you miss-time it, that’s just gambling, which only makes you a moron if you can’t afford the loss.
No single stock should be a hold forever play (unless you count ETFs as a single stock)
A steady dividend stock might be a hold forever stock. Especially if you don’t want to realize the capital gains of the stock’s appreciation.
It’s one single stock for one company, there is still high risk of extreme losses over a very long time
Depends on the company. Some asset heavy companies (think railroads, commercial REITs) pay steady dividends, and are extremely unlikely to just go under without warning.
Starlink is massively profitable, look at their balance sheets. It’s very simple, their users pay them a lot of money to access the internet. Far, far more than the launch costs to maintain the constellation.
Their defense launch business is also profitable, though I haven’t checked how much.
The Starship development and stupid acquisitions (xai) have been a money pit though.
Starlink is the only part of SpaceX operations that turns a profit.
Rocket launches do not, and xAi is a bottomless money pit just like every other AI venture.
I don’t think that’s quite true. (Happy to be proven wrong if somebody has better numbers than me.)
From what I can see the launch business generated $4.1 billion, but profits in that segment are negative because the $3 billion in Starship development costs are lumped in to that. The overall loss (-$600 million) would instantly turn into great profit if they decided to give up on Starship.
But for sure, xAi is a nightmare. Absolutely Elon trying to bail himself out again.
The best numbers I can find are from 2024, when Starlink made a total of $72 million in profit.
Not great numbers though, as the article explains. It only talks about the cost of the end user hardware and providing the service, so the profit is against those expenses. It doesn’t factor in the cost of launches and satellites.
Generated 4.1 billion with a profit of how much?
And how much money did they get from the US government?
Lockheed Martin gets most of their money from the government and still manages to be profitable.
I don’t think Starlink includes their launch fees, leaving that on SpaceX side of the balance sheet. But I haven’t read details.
the business model today is to sell satellite internet
in rural areas, satellite internet is cheaper than cable internet if the distance to the nearest town is large enough.
I understand the business pretty well, my issue is where the money is coming from to pay for it the huge costs. It may be there are enough users to sustain it and at what point will it saturate and stagnate?
the market will saturate for sure but they charge each month so they keep making revenue nevertheless
yeah, and they’ve made billions off of it.
at this rate, it’ll only take a century or two to scratch the dent on the enormous costs!
have you actually looked at the numbers of cost and revenue, or are you just talking out of your ass?
reuters: SpaceX generated about $8 billion in profit on $15 billion to $16 billion of revenue last year
SpaceX’s annual capital expenditures quintupled in two years, hitting $20.7 billion in 2025, fueled by simultaneous Starship launch infrastructure and AI data center buildouts.
https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/eye-watering-sum-spacex-spent-124427519.html
but that debt # includes stopgap loans before the IPO
costs will only go up from here, so by all means, give musko some of your money. what could go wrong?
And doesn’t SpaceX now also own xAI and Xitter? He’s trying to offload his terrible investments.
Not Twitter. He only moved the AI over so he could attach it to something that could hide it’s losses (not very well).
Reusable vehicles meant something like 1/20 the per-launch costs of the pre-existing competition? No matter what you want to pay to have put in space, the supplier who reuses equipment will have a huge advantage.
And starlink? Satellite internet access for remote properties used to have all the latency of a return trip to geostationary orbit. Starlink is a massive advantage compared to that.
You’re not wrong, they were kinda burning money to create a business model. I’m a space fanboy though so I’m glad someone is doing it.
Pretty sad that musk is involved at all, but he started it. More sad that it now has the ai cancer stuck to it.
Still I want humans to go beyond earth and I guess I’m willing to let th devil do it
Right, but hear me out: I know that SpaceX is impossibly overvalued and that makes me smart. So what if I bought some SpaceX stock, waited for some rubes to buy the stock from me at higher price and then I cashed out? Since I’m so smart, I’m sure I could get in and get out before the whole thing falls apart. /s
