Author Topic: Finance & Investments  (Read 76559 times)

Offline RandomGuy99

It must be hard as the richest man in the world.

Imagine you wake up in the morning and have to decide if you're going to go to work or take the day off. 

I wonder who needs to approve your time off?

Offline Blackpool Rock

BBC News - Elon Musk's SpaceX raises $75bn ahead of world's biggest stock market launch
External Link/Members Only
Didn't I already post this in #940  :unknown:

Anyway it's just been on the news that in the few hours since the NYSE opened these Space X shares are already up about 11%

What a shit investment, glad I didn't buy any  :music:

Offline RandomGuy99

Didn't I already post this in #940  :unknown:

Anyway it's just been on the news that in the few hours since the NYSE opened these Space X shares are already up about 11%

What a shit investment, glad I didn't buy any  :music:
I am glad I didn't buy. You're not really going to get a lot of them even if you put in a decent amount of money like £10,000. You'd only get 74 shares.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2026, 06:16:25 pm by RandomGuy99 »

Offline bigden40

I see that the SpaceX IPO has created 4,400 millionaires.  Thats quite something.

Offline RandomGuy99

I see that the SpaceX IPO has created 4,400 millionaires.  Thats quite something.
Presumably they are all employees of the company. They've been working hard, so they deserve it.

External Link/Members Only
« Last Edit: June 12, 2026, 09:07:21 pm by RandomGuy99 »

Offline Blackpool Rock

I am glad I didn't buy. You're not really going to get a lot of them even if you put in a decent amount of money like £10,000. You'd only get 74 shares.
The amount of shares is totally irrelevant though  :unknown:
It's the % increase in the value of your holding that matters whether you hold 1 share or 1 Million shares

Offline RandomGuy99

The amount of shares is totally irrelevant though  :unknown:
It's the % increase in the value of your holding that matters whether you hold 1 share or 1 Million shares
Not if you want to make a decent amount of money out of it. Having one share and it going up to $500 a share doesn't make you a vast amount of money.

Offline bigden40

Not if you want to make a decent amount of money out of it. Having one share and it going up to $500 a share doesn't make you a vast amount of money.

BR is talking percentages and is spot on. Are you pretending not to understand?

If you had invest $10,000 like in your example to get 74 shares and you then made 500 per share you’d have 37,000 profit
« Last Edit: June 13, 2026, 10:09:27 am by bigden40 »

Offline RandomGuy99

An interesting article

From El Dorado to Mars: the business of big promises

Jun 12, 2026

In the prospectus for SpaceX’s Initial Public Offering (IPO), there is a clause that would make any corporate lawyer with even a modest sense of humour raise an eyebrow. The board of directors has granted Elon Musk one billion restricted shares. Those shares will vest only if two conditions are met: a market capitalisation of $7.5 trillion and “the establishment of a permanent human colony on Mars with at least one million inhabitants.” The word “Mars” appears 63 times in the filing, more often than “net income.”

For ordinary investors lacking such imagination, it is difficult not to smile. But perhaps that is precisely why we read about the IPO in newspapers while Musk is the richest man in the world. After all, the very concept of finance was born from humanity’s ability to tell stories about distant worlds, often somewhere between geography and science fiction.

If today’s investors seem obsessed with climbing aboard the Artificial Intelligence bandwagon, a few centuries ago the irresistible dream was gold. Sir Walter Raleigh, Queen Elizabeth I’s favourite courtier, became obsessed with El Dorado, the legendary city of gold that indigenous accounts claimed lay hidden somewhere in the forests of Venezuela. In 1595, he set sail with five ships and one hundred “gentleman adventurers.” He found nothing.

Upon his return, Raleigh published The Discovery of Guiana, a narrative prospectus describing a city on a saltwater lake as large as the Caspian Sea, ruled by a king who covered himself in gold dust each morning. He later admitted that he wrote it to “secure royal patronage.” It worked. In 1617, he raised £50,000 for a second expedition, which ultimately ended with his execution.

Adventures linked to the conquest of distant lands have always exerted a special pull on investors, who rarely resist the promise of boundless wealth. Along the imaginary journey from El Dorado to Mars, the power of such narratives has remained remarkably constant. Only the frontiers of imagination have changed. It is debatable whether the surface of Mars is any less alien to a 21st-century observer than the bays of Southeast Asia were to a Dutch merchant in the 1600s.

The world’s first joint-stock company was founded precisely to explore and colonise such distant worlds. The Dutch East India Company (VOC) was established in 1602 by the legislative assembly of the Dutch Republic. How did it persuade investors to finance voyages lasting months through unknown seas, with no guarantee of return? By promising spices, nutmeg, mace and cloves. Products that grew on remote islands in waters no shareholder would ever cross. At its peak, the VOC was worth what some historians estimate to be around $8 trillion in today’s money, more than four times the valuation SpaceX is seeking at IPO (though this comparison should be treated with caution, as comparing a 17th-century trading company with a 21st-century listed company is more complex than the figure suggests).

Yet not every promise of a new world has rewarded those who believed it. In Paris in 1720, everyone wanted shares in the Mississippi Company. The man behind the frenzy was John Law: Scottish monetary theorist, professional gambler and convicted murderer. Through his connections and financial acumen, Law won the trust of Philippe d’Orléans, Regent of France, who desperately needed a solution to the debt crisis inherited from Louis XIV. The Regent gave Law control over the national bank, the mint and tax collection.

From that position, Law built an elegant and circular system. The state issued paper money through his bank; investors used that money to buy shares in the Mississippi Company; the proceeds flowed back to the state, reducing public debt. Holding the entire structure together was a single promise: Louisiana overflowed with gold, silver and inexhaustible riches. The company’s shares rose by 1,900% within months.

The problem was that almost none of the buyers had ever seen Louisiana. It was largely swamp land, sparsely populated by a few hundred European settlers and devoid of any known mineral wealth. By December 1720, the bubble collapsed. Law fled France in disguise, died in poverty and left behind a financial crisis that would contribute, decades later, to the conditions preceding the French Revolution.

Yet the mechanism had worked. The impossible had been sold, purchased and converted into real economic consequences. Vast fortunes were made, and lost.

More recently, futuristic narratives have lost none of their power to attract capital. The frontier has simply shifted from geography to technology and even existence itself.

In 1901, Nikola Tesla persuaded J.P. Morgan, then the richest man in the world, to finance a 57-metre tower on Long Island. Officially, the project aimed to create a wireless communications system superior to that of Guglielmo Marconi. Morgan invested $150,000. Tesla later revealed his true ambition: transmitting free electricity to the entire planet by using the Earth itself as a conductor. Morgan withdrew his support in a four-line letter. The tower was demolished in 1917, and the land was sold to cover a $20,000 debt.

Sometimes a scientific breakthrough becomes an object of worship before science has fully understood it. After Marie Curie’s discovery of radioactivity in 1898, radium became synonymous with vitality and energy. The logic was simple, and fatal. If radium emitted energy, surely it must be healthy. By the 1920s, consumers could buy radium creams, tonics, lipsticks, suppositories and even radioactive pillows. The most infamous product was Radithor, created by William J.A. Bailey, a Harvard dropout with no medical degree who nevertheless styled himself as “Doctor Bailey.” The product consisted of distilled water infused with radioactive isotopes. Bailey sold roughly 400,000 bottles before dying of bladder cancer in 1949. When his body was exhumed in 1970, it was still radioactive.

Among humanity’s enduring dreams, flight occupies a special place. The Wright brothers achieved it in 1903 at Kitty Hawk. From that moment, a new question emerged: if humans could fly, why not do so from the comfort of their own cars?

No one embodies that dream better than Paul Moller. Since 1965, he has been trying to build a flying car. His company was originally called Discojet, a name that says almost everything. Its flagship product, the Skycar M400, featured three wheels, a bubble cockpit and eight rotary engines.

Over half a century, Moller raised tens of millions from private investors, faced SEC action over misleading statements about commercial prospects, declared personal bankruptcy in 2009 and launched an Indiegogo campaign in 2013 to fund what he called “the first historic manned flight.” The Skycar has never achieved free flight with a pilot on board.

The dream of a flying car almost seems modest compared with the missions embraced by some 21st-century companies. In recent years, technological progress has given rise to a growing number of businesses whose stated missions contain distinctly messianic or even eschatological undertones, positioning themselves as vehicles for saving humanity.

OpenAI was founded to “ensure that Artificial General Intelligence benefits all of humanity”: initially a non-profit organisation (from 2015 to 2019) building what many regard as the most potentially transformative – and potentially dangerous – technology ever created, in order to make it safe. Critics argue that this original vision has gradually given way to commercial imperatives.

Anthropic, founded by former OpenAI employees concerned about AI safety, exists to build safer AI. The paradox is embedded in the company’s very rationale.

Neuralink seeks to implant chips into the human brain to enable a “symbiotic human-AI relationship.”

Ginkgo Bioworks set out to “program living organisms as easily as software.” After going public in 2021, its valuation fell sharply.

Calico, part of Alphabet, was founded in 2013 with the ambition of understanding and combating the biological processes of ageing – effectively, to “solve death.” It has spent billions, published relatively little and death remains unsolved.

Altos Labs, backed by Jeff Bezos, is pursuing cellular rejuvenation and radical life extension.

Unity Biotechnology aimed to cure age-related diseases and saw much of its market value evaporate after disappointing clinical results.

A common thread runs through all these visions. The underlying narrative structure has changed little since the era of the East India companies. A distant horizon – whether geographical, technological or existential – is established to justify investment. In the meantime, enormous amounts of money can be made.

This logic, blending the Protestant work ethic with Silicon Valley philosophy, remains one of the driving forces behind major market themes today, including the race for AI.

Robert Shiller, winner of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Economics, spent years formalising something market participants had understood intuitively for centuries: finance is, in many ways, an epidemiology of stories.

In Narrative Economics, Shiller argues that the human mind evolved to respond more strongly to stories than to data. By this logic, a recession is not merely an economic event. It is a moment when a story about a fragile future becomes dominant and causes millions of people to spend less at the same time.

The reverse is equally true. Speculative booms are fuelled not only by returns but by narratives capable of influencing reality before reality has had time to confirm or deny them.

At its deepest level, finance is a system of trust mediated by stories – a pantheon filled with illusions that became visions, and visions that became illusions. There is no formula for distinguishing between the two.

Perhaps the difference lies in whether the implicit contract between story and reality continues to hold. Trust survives as long as reality and narrative keep moving closer together. It collapses when they drift irreversibly apart.

John Law understood this, in his own way, on that morning in 1720 when he disguised himself to flee Paris. Elon Musk, with rockets launching every few days from Florida, is still keeping story and reality aligned – at least for now.

Offline RandomGuy99

BR is talking percentages and is spot on. Are you pretending not to understand?

If you had invest $10,000 like in your example to get 74 shares and you then made 500 per share you’d have 37,000 profit
Yes, I understand it's about percentages just like those high interest rate savings accounts various providers offer with 6 or 7% rates but they're capped a maximum saving of £250 a month, so the maximum you can make in interest is £210.

There was someone on the BBC website saying that they wanted to invest a maximum of £750 in SpaceX, so 5 shares.

Offline Blackpool Rock

Yes, I understand it's about percentages just like those high interest rate savings accounts various providers offer with 6 or 7% rates but they're capped a maximum saving of £250 a month, so the maximum you can make in interest is £210.

There was someone on the BBC website saying that they wanted to invest a maximum of £750 in SpaceX, so 5 shares.
I have to say i'm with Bigden here, are you pretending not to understand as it's really quite simple.

OK so in the extreme you have £1000 to invest in whatever and the shares are priced at £1000 each so you get 1 share, the value goes up by 11% so your 1 share holding is now valued at £1110
Alternatively you have the same £1000 to invest and the shares are priced at £1 each so you get 1000 shares, the value goes up by 11% so your 1000 share holding is now valued at £1110

It really is as simple as that  :unknown:

Offline RandomGuy99

I have to say i'm with Bigden here, are you pretending not to understand as it's really quite simple.

OK so in the extreme you have £1000 to invest in whatever and the shares are priced at £1000 each so you get 1 share, the value goes up by 11% so your 1 share holding is now valued at £1110
Alternatively you have the same £1000 to invest and the shares are priced at £1 each so you get 1000 shares, the value goes up by 11% so your 1000 share holding is now valued at £1110

It really is as simple as that  :unknown:
If the shares are $135 and I have a spare $1,350,000 then I can buy 10,000 shares.

If the shares go up to $140 then I made $50,000.

If I have 7 shares, then I made $35. I can probably make more by buying more shares of a longer value stock and getting larger increases in price.

SpaceX went up and then back down again as people sold to get a profit and then probably bought in again at $160. A day trader's dream.

Hidden Image/Members Only

Hidden Image/Members Only
« Last Edit: June 13, 2026, 11:08:36 am by RandomGuy99 »

Offline Blackpool Rock

If the shares are $135 and I have a spare $1,350,000 then I can buy 10,000 shares.

If the shares go up to $140 then I made $50,000.

If I have 7 shares, then I made $35. I can probably make more by buying more shares of a longer value stock and getting larger increases in price.

SpaceX went up and then back down again as people sold to get a profit and then probably bought in again at $160. A day trader's dream.

Hidden Image/Members Only

Hidden Image/Members Only
Sorry but you do realise that if a share is only worth £1 then it's gross increase in price will be a lot less than compared to a share valued at £1K  :unknown:

The £1 share would go up by 11 pence whereas the £1K share would go up by £110
Using your logic they would both go up by the same amount.

I do think that your being deliberately obtuse here  :unknown:

Offline RandomGuy99

Sorry but you do realise that if a share is only worth £1 then it's gross increase in price will be a lot less than compared to a share valued at £1K  :unknown:

The £1 share would go up by 11 pence whereas the £1K share would go up by £110
Using your logic they would both go up by the same amount.

I do think that your being deliberately obtuse here  :unknown:
but the $1000 share is unlikely to go up by 11%. The £1 share could easily go up by 50% in the long term.

Offline Blackpool Rock

but the $1000 share is unlikely to go up by 11%. The £1 share could easily go up by 50% in the long term.
Incorrect  :hi:


Offline PepeMAGA

but the $1000 share is unlikely to go up by 11%. The £1 share could easily go up by 50% in the long term.
I don't know if you're trolling or what.

Offline Blackpool Rock

Speculation  :thumbsup:
So the same as your speculation that the £1 share could go up 50% in the long term  :unknown:

Offline RandomGuy99

So the same as your speculation that the £1 share could go up 50% in the long term  :unknown:
Absolutely, hence the use of the word "could" :thumbsup:
« Last Edit: June 13, 2026, 01:36:58 pm by RandomGuy99 »

Offline Blackpool Rock

I don't know if you're trolling or what.
I don't know but i'll give him the benefit of doubt as it's not really the sort of thread to troll or argue on however it appears that some of his logic is based on incorrect information or assumptions, anyway i'll leave it here

Offline PepeMAGA

I don't know but i'll give him the benefit of doubt as it's not really the sort of thread to troll or argue on however it appears that some of his logic is based on incorrect information or assumptions, anyway i'll leave it here
:hi:


« Last Edit: June 13, 2026, 02:12:43 pm by PepeMAGA »

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,593
  • Likes: 369
  •  
  • Reviews: 209
Speculation  :thumbsup:

Are you saying that the price is likely to increase more (or less) purely based on the total number of share issued, as a matter of market liquidity?

Offline Norwichwood

Penny stocks? Who's buying this shit?

Mainly post men and smucks.

I didn't read the adverts

Offline RandomGuy99

Are you saying that the price is likely to increase more (or less) purely based on the total number of share issued, as a matter of market liquidity?
No.

I am saying that there might be more potential growth in a smaller companies. I did alright on Rolls Royce and they weren't priced at £100s at the time.

Offline Blackpool Rock

No.

I am saying that there might be more potential growth in a smaller companies. I did alright on Rolls Royce and they weren't priced at £100s at the time.
When did you buy  :unknown:


Offline Blackpool Rock

2021
So they would have been somewhere between around £100-£125 per share  :unknown:

Sounds expensive despite you saying they weren't in the £100's they actually were  :unknown:

Well done BTW as this is clearly before their meteoric rise but not exactly the low priced penny shares or even a few quid a share that you seem to think are the only options to shoot up in value  :unknown:

Offline PepeMAGA

2021
I bought at the same time, but you can still get big jumps with rolls now at £12. If the war wasn't on they'd be closer to 15.
Space X are not limited in growth by the cost of the individual share.

Offline RandomGuy99

So they would have been somewhere between around £100-£125 per share  :unknown:

Sounds expensive despite you saying they weren't in the £100's they actually were  :unknown:

Well done BTW as this is clearly before their meteoric rise but not exactly the low priced penny shares or even a few quid a share that you seem to think are the only options to shoot up in value  :unknown:
No, they were 120p and now they're 1300p or an almost 11x increase and that's Rolls Royce a company that makes real things and has been around for 120 years.

They're not the only options, but they are the affordable options that the average person can invest in and get a decent return instead of buying 7 SpaceX shares based on "future plans".
« Last Edit: June 13, 2026, 08:49:16 pm by RandomGuy99 »

Offline RandomGuy99

UK aerospace companies are much more affordable to invest in.

Offline bigden40

UK aerospace companies are much more affordable to invest in.

There’s a reason for that, they’ve achieved much less.  SpaceX has 657 successful orbital launches, and circa 11,000 Starlink satellites.  The UK has a total of zero orbital launches.

Feel free to invest on SaxaVord if you think it’s a better deal though.


Offline RandomGuy99

There’s a reason for that, they’ve achieved much less.  SpaceX has 657 successful orbital launches, and circa 11,000 Starlink satellites.  The UK has a total of zero orbital launches.

Feel free to invest on SaxaVord if you think it’s a better deal though.
They're still making good money without pipe dreams like AI data centres in space.

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,593
  • Likes: 369
  •  
  • Reviews: 209
UK aerospace companies are much more affordable to invest in.

Your buying logic seems completely bonkers.

The price of the shares and how many you can buy is absurd.

Offline bigden40

Your buying logic seems completely bonkers.

The price of the shares and how many you can buy is absurd.

I think he’s just consumed by animus against Elon. 

Offline PilotMan

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,593
  • Likes: 369
  •  
  • Reviews: 209
I think he’s just consumed by animus against Elon.

That's not the only thing he seems to be consumed by  :unknown:

Offline alabama1

That's not the only thing he seems to be consumed by  :unknown:
Now now, lets not talk bad of RG99, the copy and paste Oracle of the forum  :D

Offline Munter84

The amount of shares is totally irrelevant though  :unknown:
It's the % increase in the value of your holding that matters whether you hold 1 share or 1 Million shares

Well, the unit price can be a barrier to investors. Isn't that why Berkshire Hathaway created B Class shares? Owning the A class (at $733,000 a share!) is a badge of honour in itself, quite aside from being an investment.

Offline PepeMAGA

Moving on, a peace deal seems very imminent for Iran.
Trump is keep to get it signed today to coincide with his Birthday and probably the UFC event. Less certain now after an Israeli strike in Beirut.
If it does get signed the markets ( European at least) should go high tomorrow.

Offline bigden40

Moving on, a peace deal seems very imminent for Iran.
Trump is keep to get it signed today to coincide with his Birthday and probably the UFC event. Less certain now after an Israeli strike in Beirut.
If it does get signed the markets ( European at least) should go high tomorrow.

Wrong thread?

Offline alabama1


Offline PepeMAGA

Wrong thread?
No, I wasn't getting into the political rights and wrongs etc, the point is if a deal is reached the stock market will go up.

Offline maxQ

UK aerospace companies are much more affordable to invest in.

You're making a very obvious mistake here

Do you only buy penny stocks/shares ?

The UK will eventually have its own version of the Falcon 9, so will China, Japan, Russia, India ect and maybe the EU. In each case its just a matter of time, an investment in the UK company building a Falcon 9 might be a good bet

« Last Edit: June 14, 2026, 08:35:58 pm by maxQ »

Offline RandomGuy99

You're making a very obvious mistake here

Do you only buy penny stocks/shares ?

The UK will eventually have its own version of the Falcon 9, so will China, Japan, Russia, India ect and maybe the EU. In each case its just a matter of time, an investment in the UK company building a Falcon 9 might be a good bet
No, I buy stocks of various prices but not penny stocks. I buy stocks that are at an attractive price which I think will go up in a reasonable period of time

Offline RandomGuy99

The UK will eventually have its own version of the Falcon 9, so will China, Japan, Russia, India ect and maybe the EU. In each case its just a matter of time, an investment in the UK company building a Falcon 9 might be a good bet
I don't think the UK will have its own version of a Falcon 9. When the UK needs to launch a satellite it buys space on a launch vehicle which is often launching a few others at the same time. The UK has tried to get rocket launches working in Shetland but I think the company shutdown after 1 attempted launch. Virgin space seems to have gone quiet. The UK has bought into OneWeb and has plans to use them for satellites.

Offline Rick2468

Kind of related to Finance & Investments. I work in the financial services sector, as part of my job I receive asset valuations for huge insurance / pension trust funds, some worth billions of pounds. Sometimes I get two valuations at the same date with different values so I call up the CFO to check which one should be used. They don't vary by much in the grand scheme of things but it's part of due process and covers my ass if there is ever a dispute on why we used one valuation over the other.

Typical conversation with the CFO involves me asking which valuation to use, to which he responds "Well...how different are they?", I respond "Nearly £10 million" and he says "That's peanuts, just use the most recent one". So that's what I do.

I got an invitation to that company's summer party and on the invite it asked me to state any dietary requirements. I am very tempted to respond "I'd be more than happy to just have 1 or 2 'peanuts' upon arrival, thank you".

Offline Blackpool Rock

Good couple of days for stocks  :drinks:

Let's hope things can stay stable regarding the transportation and cost of oil / gas etc, now just wait for something else / someone else to do something to fuck things up  :dash:

Offline Blackpool Rock

Just read an article which at the end had this about the Space X IPO saying on current valuations it's 100 times annual sales  :scare:

There is clearly a voracious appetite for artificial intelligence and ambitious new technologies. However, the SpaceX IPO has raised fears about AI mania - particularly given the company’s valuation. Based on expected annual revenues of around $18bn and a flotation valuation of roughly $1.8 trillion, investors are valuing SpaceX at about 100 times annual sales.

Offline Norwichwood

Elon knows about pump and dump

But in this case he can't sell his shares in the first year

Offline RandomGuy99

Just read an article which at the end had this about the Space X IPO saying on current valuations it's 100 times annual sales  :scare:

There is clearly a voracious appetite for artificial intelligence and ambitious new technologies. However, the SpaceX IPO has raised fears about AI mania - particularly given the company’s valuation. Based on expected annual revenues of around $18bn and a flotation valuation of roughly $1.8 trillion, investors are valuing SpaceX at about 100 times annual sales.
No shit?