mact3333

@TSLAFanMtl Let me guess , you’ve become political too ?

It was such a stupid comment, honestly. As if you can't or shouldn't have both a strong brand and a great product. One does not prevent the other. Elon still does not take any ownership for his behavior/decisions and failure to perform his fiduciary duties as CEO. Narcissist.

@Liathetrader @Ferrari Johny Ives is arrogant enough to think what works for a cell phone would work on a premium car maker like Ferarri…this car make the Cybertruck look like a Porsche GT3RS

Design is not only how it looks, it's also how it works. What the team at @Ferrari and LoveFrom achieved is a re-imagination of a driving experience for the electric age. While everyone is complaining about losing the look, driving is mainly about the passion and the feeling. This is the most advanced integration of interior and exterior I've seen. The car body conforms to the wind and air... (THREAD)

@Liathetrader @Ferrari And if the same car said GM on it for 35k you’d think it was a POS!

@alojoh you are thinking way too politically...Elon has a mission and politics is secondary....think you've changed way more than Elon.

The SpaceX / Tesla merger has to happen soon. The reason is simple: Elon cannot risk that closing, which will take potentially a few quarters, may slip into the 2028 presidential election. The Dems regaining the WH would be a catastrophy for all Elon-linked assets since Biden era lawfare 2.0 would kick in. For this exact reason Elon will also be super engaged in the 2028 presidential campagin since nothing will be more important to him and his companies than ensuring continuation of current Reps rule. It's not rocket science follks.

What’s funny is 95% of physicians that I personally know that have a strong opinions on things like whether vaccines and masks work or not, haven’t done a single minute of objective research on it… they assume their medical associations speak gospel truth hence they are sheep… this guy appears to be one of them.

A person who claimed to have "invented" mRNA - he didn't - is telling people wearing a mask is living in fear over "over-hyped" diseases. Except people wear masks for all sorts of reasons, and I suppose the rare chance I get into an automobile accident and wear a seatbelt is living in fear. he is not only anti-vax, he is anti-mask and is trying to expand his echo chamber

I’ll be shocked if we truly only get 1 irrelevant share … I’d think people with the funds and Tsla shares will get 50-100 shares if requested I’ll be curious since I consider myself to be a good model since I’ve had Tsla shares dating back to first day of ipo but holding since 2017 and I’ve been Etrade platinum member since 1999… if I don’t get more then 10 shares, normal retail doesn’t have much of a chance

BREAKING: We’ve heard something highly unusual about how the SpaceX IPO allocation may work. Retail investors may get something Wall Street almost never gives them: A real shot. @bradsferguson breaks it down. 👇

@drterrysimpson Simple solution, prove her wrong if it’s so clear cut it should take 5 minutes

It is a shame to see this nonsense - this is what happens when you believe nonsense

@alojoh Their revenue will grow 100% over next year why leave that out ????

Just to give you a sense of just how expensive SpaceX is: 1) In the last 12 months SpaceX generated $19.3 billion in revenue. 2) Let's assume Elon 10x'd this revenue over the next 4 years to $193 billion. This requires an annual growth rate of 78% (CAGR). SpaceX grew 15% in Q1 yoy. 3) Let's assume Elon deliver a 30% operating margin (Tesla is at 4%) and SpaceX is taxed at a low 16%. 4) Than the implied earnings would be $48.6 billion (about 1 quarter of Nvidia 2026 earnings). 6) At the current $2.0 trillion MCap this would imply a P/E ratio of 41x. 7) Here is the kicker: this is not a NTM P/E (next twelve months) but a next 4 years P/E ratio. 8) An NTM P/E of 41x would be very high already (Nvidia trades at 20x) but a next 4 years P/E ratio is ludicriously high. 9) On top of that, that's just the view around the current $2.0 trillion of MCap. Now ask yourself, given this extremely high P/E ratio, how much upside is left over the next 4-5 years? Can Elon deliver more than 78% annual revenue growth for the next 4 years?

Nice gesture but that’s all it is ..1 share ain’t gonna make any difference …50-100 share minimum then it truly means something for most of retail … legally people that are not accredited shouldn’t be investing in IPO’s cause you can lose alot … ie- I lost 99.8% in the KLAR ipo

@garyblack00 Except they do make money please keep up …45B deal with Anthropic .. they doubled annual revenues over night …50B revenues for 2026 … agenda or incompetent as analyst serious question?

I don’t know of a single company with a $2T market cap that doesn’t make money, let alone one that trades at 300x EBITDA. That should give potential $SPCX investors pause. $TSLA

@jimstewartson Except Anthropic just signed 45B deal with space x lol!… just doubled annual revenue overnight … you obviously know nothing about space x!

Please gaze upon what the greatest conman who ever existed wants you to think is worth $2,000,000,000,000. Revenue: $18,674,000,000 Profit: -$4,937,000,000 Count the zeroes. Anyone who buys this science fiction deserves what they’re going to get.

@DirtyCheapStock Umm Dario says hello for 15B…🙄

The SpaceX IPO is the best way to understand how human stupidity works in financial markets. The Market Cap will be around $2 Trillion USD with only $18 Billion in Revenue and no profit, again, no profit. These AI and Space exploration narratives inflate prices in ridiculous ways. But trust me, the market is efficient.

1. None of the brokers listed will tell you if Tsla shareholders will have special rights to SPCX shares due to legal reasons 2. Elon “will” take care of Tsla shareholders by telling these brokers like MS/ Etrade , Robin Hood , etc to give priority to people holding Tsla … don’t think brokers will directly Tsla investors they have “ priority “ 3. You will probably need to be accredited investor , have minimum amt like 100k with brokerage and enough funds in cash to buy allotted shares( ie- 200.00 ipo price x 100 shares = 20k). 4. Like many IPO’s you’re prob only getting 100 shares if you’re lucky So imho , yes Tsla shareholders will get priority, but it will only be for small amount of shares(100 shares) … think we are all making a much bigger deal out of this then the reality of the true situation

I just spoke with Charles Schwab about the @SpaceX IPO. Schwab is one of a handful of brokerages selected by SpaceX to allocate IPO shares to retail investors. If you have an account with Schwab, here’s how to prepare for the SpaceX IPO: 1) You first need to opt into IPOs from the Trade > IPOs page on Schwab's website. 2) After you've opted in and the IPO shows on the page, you can submit an Indication of Interest. The indication of interest will be able to be submitted when the Roadshow period begins for the stock. This is currently expected to be early June. 3) You need to have minimum $100,000 in total balance to be eligible to participate in the SpaceX IPO share allocation. Schwab still doesn't know how many shares will be allocated to their brokerage at this point since SpaceX will be the one to decide that in the coming weeks. Just be prepared to check back on the IPO section of Schwab's website. Additional info will come later. Lastly, don’t be surprised if you receive fewer IPO shares than you requested (if any at all). Demand for the limited number of available IPO shares will almost certainly be extremely high, and these participating brokerages will only get a certain sized allocation of shares to offer to retail investors, so it'll likely be tough to accommodate everyone. The best thing you can do is to just be prepared. Note: SpaceX specifically stated in their S-1 filing that any purchase of their Class A common stock in this offering through these platforms will be at the same IPO price, and at the same time, as any other purchases in this offering, including purchases by institutions and other large investors, which means any retail investors that are lucky enough to get allocated some SpaceX IPO shares will pay the same price as the big guys.

@drterrysimpson The worst kind of racists are the racists that have no clue that they are racist

What the graph actually shows is that medicine evaluates more than one variable, while internet race theorists desperately wish it did not. You stare at overlapping distributions among already elite applicants and somehow see a complete hierarchy of human worth, future physician quality, and intellectual legitimacy. Medicine learned long ago that reality is more complicated than your spreadsheet theology.

@GilmanHill You do realize that with time and execution millions will also benefit financially right ?

Question - If SpaceX, Anthropic & OpenAI have unlimited access to capital in the private markets, and it is well known that being a public company and needing to adhere to SEC regulations is a nightmare, then why would they possibly want to go public? (Yes, I know the answer, just curious who else does too.)

@Knickstape2005 Now do the rest of the medical schools not named Yale lol… you are cherry picking data that doesn’t pertain to the other 95%!

Which is why Yale will win any lawsuit. Yale admitted 60 students with MCAT scores over 518, the average for Black students in the sample. 5 were Black. They admitted 56 with scores under 518, 5 were Black. Who were the other 51? Were there Asian students in that 51? Absolutely!

@DillonLoomis And it doesn’t take into account the 12B a yr it will get from Anthropic !

SO many people are going to misunderstand this. SpaceX didn't lose $4.3B of cash in Q1 this year. The net loss is dominated by massive investments in the AI segment, accounting charges from the xAI merger and non-cash charges The Space segment had an operating loss of $662M in Q1 Connectivity (Starlink) generated $1.2B in operating INCOME in Q1 The AI segment was a $2.5B operating loss in Q1 In total, that's a $1.94B operating loss in Q1 This means $2.4B of the Q1 net loss sits BELOW the operating line. Things like: • Spending on AI compute that results in depreciation and amortization (which does impact the income statement) • Starship R&D was $930M in Q1 alone • The xAI merger non-cash charges (stock based compensation) In Q1, adjusted EBITDA was POSITIVE $1.1B - this metric strips out D&A, stock compensation and merger charges Not only that, but SpaceX recently took on more debt and is paying interest expense in the range of $450M/quarter which contributes to the higher net loss figure But Starlink is making over $1B/quarter in operating profit. The Falcon launch business is profitable but being masked by R&D for Starship. It's really xAI that's still deeply unprofitable which should be a surprise to no one - it's simply in an aggressive spending phase

You do realize nobody has a problem with any color getting in at the 95th or 99th percentile yet you keep coming back to this either you have a agenda or incapable of learning …stay focused on the issue , there are blacks/hispanics on “ average” who are getting in with lower scores based on skin color .. it’s morally wrong and illegal and you know this hence the constant 5000 worded diatribes where you have no point .. if you were right you could explain your position in two sentences

You and others keep saying “no one disputes that point” immediately before disputing the point. Because the moment anyone argues that physician quality is more complicated than standardized testing distributions, the response becomes: “therefore schools are admitting less qualified minorities.” That conclusion is exactly what is being challenged. And again, you are quietly treating tiny differences among extraordinarily elite applicants as though they reveal profound truths about future physician quality. A student in the 95th percentile is not suddenly incapable because another student scored in the 99th percentile. Medicine is not selecting Nobel laureates in standardized testing. It is selecting future physicians from pools of already highly capable people while evaluating many dimensions of human performance. And yes, courts can decide where legal boundaries are after the 2023 rulings. But legality and physician quality are not identical questions, no matter how often people try to collapse them into one slogan.

@yaghsizian @drterrysimpson I’m talking about getting into med school not whether you can drive med school

everyone literally is arguing about that re Yale, and your other point makes no sense, literally thousands of doctors practicing now of all races with scores equivalent to the ones you mentioned. At a 507 there is a 96% chance for a student to progress to their second year and pass Step 1. If they can handle the work, they can handle the work…

One of the things I continue to find remarkable in this debate is how many people look at Black students scoring in the 95th percentile on the MCAT — often higher than the average matriculant at most American medical schools — and still conclude they were admitted “only because of race.” These are objectively elite academic performers. Many scored higher than applicants admitted to excellent medical schools across the country. And yet some people persist in speaking as though the mere existence of Black students at Yale is proof that standards collapsed and that unnamed “more deserving” Asian applicants were robbed. At that point, the conversation is no longer about MCAT scores. It is about an inability to imagine that highly accomplished Black students belong in elite institutions. What also fascinates me is how quickly social media pundits become absolute authorities on physician selection, while dismissing the judgment of admissions committees at institutions that have spent generations training world-class physicians and scientists. Medicine is harder — and more human — than sorting percentiles on a spreadsheet.