Hacker News Reader

Comment by infecto | Hacker News Reader

They're perfectly consistent. An absured valuation isn't evidence of fraud. Exceptional capital formation isn't fraud either. You're conflating overpriced, good at raising money and scam as if they're synonyms. I am curious how the absurd bank price targets will play out in the long-term and if there will be any repercussions but its hard to immediately jump to scam but I realize this is the favorite fan-fic for folks on both sides.

View on HN

What about Musk gutting government agencies (including the SEC) through DOGE?

Or Musk pushing NASDAQ & co to fast track SpaceX into their indexes, to force institutional investors to buy SpaceX?

Or about Musk & others weakening analyst protection through the current US administration cutting legal failsafes so that now basically every analyst on the market never releases negative share projections?

At which point do we accept that these billionaires push these systems until they crack, "legally", because they buy the people making the laws.

I did not realize that is what we were discussing. Just because I don't like someone (I don't like musk) does not mean I will immediately jump to the harshest classification. I could never get behind the valuations, I don't generally like how he behaves but I also recognize that he historically has done a great job at financial engineering and serving as a hypeman, both can be true at the same time for me.

> I will immediately jump to the harshest classification.

The first points are just facts. Not "harshest classifications".

Sorry if I did not make it clear enough. The original discussion was around SpaceX being a scam. That is what I was referring to. I have no disagreement on other points. As I continue to say both can be true.

Obviously it’s not “perfectly consistent”. There is at least a bit of incongruity in these three, no? A sniff of something off? Also, I’m not conflating anything. I asked you to say more on a couple of things you said in your comment. No need to be absolutist or argumentative about it.

The world is filled with shades of gray. Some folks like yourself take what I consider a very passionate view on these topics. I take a bit more nuanced view. I don’t like Elon, I would never invest in his companies at the current valuation but I also recognize he has built successful businesses, does a great job at financial engineering and overall is generally a really could hype man for this companies. All those things can be true at the same time. I think when folks become too passionate on either side it ruins the argument, I look at how you generally take a rude/attacking stance when all I am saying is I don’t think it’s a scam outright but I find the valuation to be silly.

I'd strongly recommend you read back what I've said and what you've said. The idea that I've presented anything "very passionate" while you've just been "nuanced" is a little silly. Read it. Please.

The only thing silly is how rude you are. Sorry.

You asked how the ideas fit together. I explained. Now you’re telling me they must be inconsistent without identifying the contradiction. I typically don’t deal in feelings in these types of topics but I am aware this is a very passionate topic and person for many. That’s just not me. Good luck with your efforts.

> An absured valuation isn't evidence of fraud.

For a public company that is certainly true. The valuation is determined by the market as a whole, so there can be no fraud.

But the fraud is in the profitability claims, such as 1T/yr in just a few years, which are clearly completely fabricated nonsense. No company officer should be allowed to make such claims without being removed from office.

>No company officer should be allowed to make such claims without being removed from office.

Any other company officer in a fortune 100 company would be removed from office if they made claims like this. The single reason he isn't is because he owns something like 80 something percent of voting power.

No different than Meta or Snap but folks only like to think about Elon.

“Good at raising money” = scam. The valuation is based of fraudulent promises, just like Musk’s other scam, TSLA.

Definitely not and I think those types of opinions erode any rational discussion. It’s part of the problem with these discussions. There are extreme views that take a position that is not defendable but follow the hive mind for whatever side they are on.

I like to think in shades of gray and I am somewhere in the middle. Tesla? Amazing product, crazy valuation. SpaceX, some of the underlying products are indeed very valuable but the valuation is again out of this world, no pun intended. The market can stay irrational a lot longer than I can stay solvent. Would never take a short against Elon but I also would never invest into his businesses.

Musk literally said SpaceX would be worth more than all of planet earth. That’s fraud.

You’re moving the goal post in your argument. First it’s being good at raising money is a scam. Now you are pointing out his incredibly foolish claims. No disagreement, it’s an absurd statement. I don’t know if it classifies as fraud.

I’m not moving the goalposts. I said: “The valuation is based of fraudulent promises, just like Musk’s other scam, TSLA.” and that’s 100% factual.

Forward-looking statements (even unrealistic ones) are not fraud. If that's your standard for fraud, then literally every public company is a fraud.

Yes, making knowingly false forward looking statements is fraud.

The term scam is definitely inflammatory, but I think the sentiment is fair considering the unprecedented and extreme overvaluation and the unrealistic justification for it. It's even worse when you consider Elon's consistent track record of over-promising and under-delivering. Taken together with Elon's role in gutting regulations and coordinating to change listing rules, it's totally fair to characterize what's going on as intentional dishonesty for profit - i.e. a scam.

> just like Musk’s other scam, TSLA

Just so we're clear: You think that the only company selling EVs in the USA for a net profit is a scam?

What do you call Rivian, Lucid, Fisker, Bolinger, Lordstown, Slate, and Aptera?

Slate has been conspicuously silent about orders since the day after launch. Lucid is on the brink of bankruptcy. Fisker has gone bankrupt... twice. Lordstown no longer exists (with assets purchased for pennies on the dollar by their former CEO). Aptera has reorganized more times than I can count, and has been planning to release their product any day now for over 10 years!

Rivian actually lost a lawsuit this year for misleading investors about the potential profitability of their product leading up to IPO. An IPO which raised more money in one fell swoop than all the external funding Tesla had in their entire existence. By your own metric, is Rivian not a bigger scam than Tesla?

By the way, a bad fact for Rivian in that case was that they sexually harassed a female exec, who turned around and revealed (in her own lawsuit against them, just weeks before IPO) that the expected ASP of the R1 would be less than the production cost. Oops.

And, somehow, Tesla is the problem. Yea, that makes sense.

A CEO making knowingly false forward looking statements is fraud, and it’s illegal.

Which in all cases is very hard to prove. Executives make extremely bullish statements quite often. We are just cherry picking here.

We are highlighting the most egregious fraudulent claims in market history. Musk makes Enron look like IBM.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com