[ericmay]

> It's the 1920s all over again; publicly pump and privately sell into the demand you're creating.

It's not the 1920s all over again.

> Of the investment banks that helped SpaceX IPO, Goldman Sachs has their price target at $205 (139x implied price to sales), JP Morgan at $225 (152x implied P/S), Deutsche Bank at $255 (173x implied P/S), Morgan Stanley at $300 (203x implied P/S), and Raymond James at $800 (542x implied P/S). ... I'm guessing you're perfectly fine with this behavior from the largest market participants?

Who do those investment banks sell to? How familiar are you with, for example, Goldman Sachs finding buyers for SpaceX shares? The minimum account requirement at Goldman last I checked was something like $10mm - do you really care if such investors are buying shares in overvalued companies or, like me, declining to purchase?

You are just throwing things around and not providing a coherent argument. Everyday investors don't have to buy these shares. They can continue to follow industry standard advice to buy total market index funds, or target date retirement funds or whatever. Investment banks sell to high net worth individuals who are by definition sophisticated investors - they know and accept the risk of such offerings. So no I don't care even a tiny bit if a Morgan Stanley client decides to buy what you consider to be overpriced shares in a "pump-and-dump" scheme based on your own certainly flawed and unsophisticated valuation of SpaceX or any other company.

[csoups14]

Every day investors absolutely buy these shares; these price targets are publicly available and SpaceX shares are equally publicly available. You've claimed everyone who is disagreeing with you in this thread is not providing a coherent argument. Have a great day mate.

[ericmay]

> Every day investors absolutely buy these shares; these price targets are publicly available and SpaceX shares are equally publicly available.

And you can just not buy the shares. It's very straightforward.

[ceejayoz]

> And you can just not buy the shares. It's very straightforward.

Sure, but the SEC exists, in theory, to make that decision one you can make an informed decision on, because con artists don't typically put a disclaimer in that says "this is bullshit".

[ericmay]

You can't make an informed decision on it unless you do your own research and analyze an individual stock. Then it's up to you to decide if it's worth investing in. This is true for any investment. Just because you think something is bullshit doesn't mean it is. Maybe you're just wrong. Buy the security or don't.

[ceejayoz]

> You can't make an informed decision on it unless you do your own research…

Most retail investors suffer from significant information asymmetry. We have regulations, in part, to mitigate this fact.

> Just because you think something is bullshit doesn't mean it is.

A point you yourself might remember when arguing on the internet.

[ericmay]

> Most retail investors suffer from significant information asymmetry. We have regulations, in part, to mitigate this fact.

I don't disagree - however that's a separate point from the OP's it's all a scam and pump-and-dump sentiments and doesn't detract from any point I've made.

> A point you yourself might remember when arguing on the internet.

I know it feels great to write things like this but I don't care - my point stands alone and it's only applicable to you and what you wrote regarding valuations.

[nradov]

You appear to have misunderstood the role of the SEC. They will investigate civil violations of securities laws but there has been no credible allegation of such here. They don't take responsibility for stock valuation.

[ceejayoz]

> They don't take responsibility for stock valuation.

Nice strawman, but that's not what I said.

They can, and do, intervene in things like lying to investors to inflate valuations.

[nradov]

What is the specific lie in this case? I mean something that's factually incorrect, not just optimistic.