Hacker News Reader

Comment by qaq | Hacker News Reader

Well Space X is private if it was public I bet it would have higher valuation. (I would gladly invest some money not for ROI but just to help fund what they are trying to accomplish)

View on HN

Still, let's hope it doesn't become public too soon - it would get immediately reduced to short-term profit-banging corporate machine by the biggest shareholders. For now, we need a company that's driven by a long-term vision (of something else than money).

Well I personally bet if SpaceX was public it would have crushed to the ground long ago.

Yep, I'd switch a large share of my family portfolio to SpaceX if --and as soon as-- it were possible.

Oh, yeah, downvoted without an argument. I've been investing in advanced-technology stocks for the last two decades, with happiness. Because that's where the future and growth are located.

I don't know why others downvoted you, but buying a post-IPO stock is not directly funding the company the majority of the time.

If you examine advanced tech companies over the last several decades, it is clear that reasonably investing in them as a portfolio is a highly profitable adventure.

I don't doubt it, but beware of survivor bias. Several "advanced tech companies" don't exist anymore, and not taking them into account would be misleading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

"In finance, survivorship bias is the tendency for failed companies to be excluded from performance studies because they no longer exist. It often causes the results of studies to skew higher because only companies which were successful enough to survive until the end of the period are included."

How is that not taken into account by a portfolio strategy? if one part goes to zero and another part grows 350x over 20 years, what is the problem? even assuming a complete lack of thinking about failing assets while they fall to zero.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com