Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Patrick Ryan (Patrick Ryan) Co-Founder of Odin explains how Anthropic's SPV voiding reduces Section 12G exposure while actively manages a $1.5 trillion valuation narrative ahead of their IPO: "They're getting price discovery. They're getting... lots of retail trading of their stock or interests linked to their stock." "They get... insider liquidity that drives employee retention... but they avoid the disclosure regime of public companies. So they get all the benefits of being a public company without any of the downsides." "If the SEC turns around and says, 'Look, we think you've actually been a public company for the last three years,' that creates a real headache for them. So they want to get rid of that." "Stuff's trading at between a trillion and 1/2 trillion in the secondary market. If you're worried about supporting that kind of valuation at IPO, you want to kind of calm people down a bit in advance... to be like, 'I want you to pay less.'"show more

etn.

8,697 subscribers

19,384 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Chris Williamson says the reason you can’t stay consistent might be sitting at the bottom of a wine glass “So many people want to build habits. They want to build a meditation routine, they want to go to the gym more consistently, they want to improve their eating habits. They don't realize that the thing that's stopping them from doing that is sat at the bottom of the glass of wine that they have four nights a week” “I think that 90 days would be the absolute minimum. 30 days isn't long enough. You need longer. Especially given that the hardest bit is the start, which means that you've paid all of the pain at the very beginning to not actually get any of the benefits of this being your new habit” “A huge proportion of people will not want to go back to drinking. They'll take time off, get into it, and realise I actually don't like this”

Chris Williamson says the reason you can’t stay consistent might be sitting at the bottom of a wine glass “So many people want to build habits. They want to build a meditation routine, they want to go to the gym more consistently, they want to improve their eating habits. They don't realize that the thing that's stopping them from doing that is sat at the bottom of the glass of wine that they have four nights a week” “I think that 90 days would be the absolute minimum. 30 days isn't long enough. You need longer. Especially given that the hardest bit is the start, which means that you've paid all of the pain at the very beginning to not actually get any of the benefits of this being your new habit” “A huge proportion of people will not want to go back to drinking. They'll take time off, get into it, and realise I actually don't like this”

Mikli

47,207 views • 1 month ago

🚨Peter Schiff: China🇨🇳 is silently dumping the dollar, a US🇺🇸 dollar crisis is coming soon! ‘China is gradually weaning themselves off of the dollar. That’s why, if you look at their holdings of US Treasuries, they’ve actually gone down a bit over the years. If you look at all the new Treasuries we’ve issued over the years, the fact that the Chinese haven’t bought any of them is a big deal because they used to be a main buyer of these assets. Instead of buying more Treasuries, they’ve bought more gold. So if you look at US dollar debt as a percentage of all the reserves the Chinese own, Treasuries are a much smaller percentage of their total reserves than they once were, especially if you consider the appreciation of gold. I would guess the reason they’re not moving more dramatically is because they probably don’t want to cause a crash, the dollar to implode, the Treasury market to implode, because they are trying to sell and want to get a decent price. So I think they’re happy to slowly bleed it off to try to get that good price. They just have to worry about the impact on the dollar, because if they try to dump too many dollars at once, the dollar could go down, and especially if a lot of other countries see that and want to get out. There could be a run on the dollar. If all the holders decide they want to get out, they don’t want to be the last one holding the dollar, and so it becomes a rush, and we could be in a US dollar crisis relatively soon anyway… I think we’re heading for a real crisis in the US, and I think countries that are smart would be trying to get ahead of that by selling whatever they can, as quietly as they can, out of US dollars and any US dollar-denominated debt.’ -Peter Schiff on Going Underground

🚨Peter Schiff: China🇨🇳 is silently dumping the dollar, a US🇺🇸 dollar crisis is coming soon! ‘China is gradually weaning themselves off of the dollar. That’s why, if you look at their holdings of US Treasuries, they’ve actually gone down a bit over the years. If you look at all the new Treasuries we’ve issued over the years, the fact that the Chinese haven’t bought any of them is a big deal because they used to be a main buyer of these assets. Instead of buying more Treasuries, they’ve bought more gold. So if you look at US dollar debt as a percentage of all the reserves the Chinese own, Treasuries are a much smaller percentage of their total reserves than they once were, especially if you consider the appreciation of gold. I would guess the reason they’re not moving more dramatically is because they probably don’t want to cause a crash, the dollar to implode, the Treasury market to implode, because they are trying to sell and want to get a decent price. So I think they’re happy to slowly bleed it off to try to get that good price. They just have to worry about the impact on the dollar, because if they try to dump too many dollars at once, the dollar could go down, and especially if a lot of other countries see that and want to get out. There could be a run on the dollar. If all the holders decide they want to get out, they don’t want to be the last one holding the dollar, and so it becomes a rush, and we could be in a US dollar crisis relatively soon anyway… I think we’re heading for a real crisis in the US, and I think countries that are smart would be trying to get ahead of that by selling whatever they can, as quietly as they can, out of US dollars and any US dollar-denominated debt.’ -Peter Schiff on Going Underground

Afshin Rattansi

107,856 views • 5 months ago

"Mr. IPO" on SpaceX IPO: "There have only been about 18 companies that have gone public at a price-to-sales ratio above 40. SpaceX will go public at 80×. on average, the stock has been a disappointment." SpaceX is eyeing a $1.5 trillion valuation — the largest private-sector company ever to go public Last year it did $18.7B in revenue — bigger than almost any private company at IPO But the price-to-sales ratio will be ~80×. only 18 companies in US history have cleared 40× Of those 18, most disappointed investors after listing The competitive moat is real. Starship makes it nearly impossible to replicate their launch cost advantage The question is not whether it's a great company. it is The question is whether $1.5 trillion leaves anything on the table for you

"Mr. IPO" on SpaceX IPO: "There have only been about 18 companies that have gone public at a price-to-sales ratio above 40. SpaceX will go public at 80×. on average, the stock has been a disappointment." SpaceX is eyeing a $1.5 trillion valuation — the largest private-sector company ever to go public Last year it did $18.7B in revenue — bigger than almost any private company at IPO But the price-to-sales ratio will be ~80×. only 18 companies in US history have cleared 40× Of those 18, most disappointed investors after listing The competitive moat is real. Starship makes it nearly impossible to replicate their launch cost advantage The question is not whether it's a great company. it is The question is whether $1.5 trillion leaves anything on the table for you

plutos

150,212 views • 1 month ago

The next Mag 7 may still be private: "All of us in this room would probably think of.. SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, Revolut, Databricks.” “If you're going to outperform the index over a long period of time, you're going to need exposure to these companies.” Thomas Laffont, Coatue COATUE coatue.thomas Upfront Ventures "Regardless, if you think about the innovation of these late-stage private companies—or one thing we kind of look at is the Mag 7, which has been a significant driver of returns in the public market over the past few years—has essentially kind of been flat over the past year-ish. And that's because Microsoft, as an example, I think has lost almost a trillion dollars of value over that timeframe as people are questioning their positioning kind of in AI. So then that leads you to think, “Well, what would the next Mag 7 look like?” Or who would be other candidates to kind of fit into the index of the future? And I think the names that all of us in this room would probably think of are names like SpaceX, or names like OpenAI, Anthropic, Revolut, Databricks. So I do think it's a really important class of companies. I do think if you're going to want to outperform the index over a long period of time, you're going to need exposure to these companies. Some of them will probably go public in the next 12 to 24 months, so that'll be kind of one impact of it. But it is unbelievable the amount of innovation that is now coming from this group of companies."

The next Mag 7 may still be private: "All of us in this room would probably think of.. SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic, Revolut, Databricks.” “If you're going to outperform the index over a long period of time, you're going to need exposure to these companies.” Thomas Laffont, Coatue COATUE coatue.thomas Upfront Ventures "Regardless, if you think about the innovation of these late-stage private companies—or one thing we kind of look at is the Mag 7, which has been a significant driver of returns in the public market over the past few years—has essentially kind of been flat over the past year-ish. And that's because Microsoft, as an example, I think has lost almost a trillion dollars of value over that timeframe as people are questioning their positioning kind of in AI. So then that leads you to think, “Well, what would the next Mag 7 look like?” Or who would be other candidates to kind of fit into the index of the future? And I think the names that all of us in this room would probably think of are names like SpaceX, or names like OpenAI, Anthropic, Revolut, Databricks. So I do think it's a really important class of companies. I do think if you're going to want to outperform the index over a long period of time, you're going to need exposure to these companies. Some of them will probably go public in the next 12 to 24 months, so that'll be kind of one impact of it. But it is unbelievable the amount of innovation that is now coming from this group of companies."

Molly O’Shea

15,258 views • 4 months ago

🚨David Sacks on pre-product AI startups turning down billion-dollar acquisition offers: “There's a lot of people who've never been through a bust cycle before. And if they think that this is the normal state of the world, they're going to be sorely mistaken.” Sacks: “You are seeing founders turning down multi-billion dollar acquisition offers for startups that haven’t even released a product yet.” “As if those types of offers grow on trees. And they don't.” Jason: “You think Mira should have taken the billion dollar offer from Zuck, or Ilya should have taken the $30B, Sacks? I mean, these things never happen.” Sacks: “I guess it depends how much they have in the bank account. They're both OpenAI co-founders, so…” Chamath: “They probably sold a bunch of OpenAI equity at $300B and $500B. They seem like they're free rolling, so they have no incentive to sell.” Sacks: “Which is fine, it's just that there's a lot of people who've never been through a bust cycle before.” “And if they think that this is the normal state of the world, they're going to be sorely mistaken.” “Right now, we're in a part of the cycle where you can justify that valuation based on its strategic value to a multi-trillion dollar market cap company.” “But that only lasts while those companies are in the market for strategic acceleration.” “And if you turn that down, then you have to make your company work on its own as an actual business.” “And to get to a $30B valuation based on fundamentals, that is extraordinarily difficult.” “That implies multiple billions of revenue. Actual revenue.”

🚨David Sacks on pre-product AI startups turning down billion-dollar acquisition offers: “There's a lot of people who've never been through a bust cycle before. And if they think that this is the normal state of the world, they're going to be sorely mistaken.” Sacks: “You are seeing founders turning down multi-billion dollar acquisition offers for startups that haven’t even released a product yet.” “As if those types of offers grow on trees. And they don't.” Jason: “You think Mira should have taken the billion dollar offer from Zuck, or Ilya should have taken the $30B, Sacks? I mean, these things never happen.” Sacks: “I guess it depends how much they have in the bank account. They're both OpenAI co-founders, so…” Chamath: “They probably sold a bunch of OpenAI equity at $300B and $500B. They seem like they're free rolling, so they have no incentive to sell.” Sacks: “Which is fine, it's just that there's a lot of people who've never been through a bust cycle before.” “And if they think that this is the normal state of the world, they're going to be sorely mistaken.” “Right now, we're in a part of the cycle where you can justify that valuation based on its strategic value to a multi-trillion dollar market cap company.” “But that only lasts while those companies are in the market for strategic acceleration.” “And if you turn that down, then you have to make your company work on its own as an actual business.” “And to get to a $30B valuation based on fundamentals, that is extraordinarily difficult.” “That implies multiple billions of revenue. Actual revenue.”

The All-In Podcast

88,666 views • 10 months ago

Wisconsin first responder on rural hospital closures: "Sometimes [patients are] waiting until they're sicker to call, because they don't want to go the distance to Eau Claire for a hospital. And so they kind of wait and hope that they'll get better and sometimes they ultimately get worse and then they're more sick when we see them. And so you're kind of watching them, you know, decompensate almost in the back of the ambulance"

Wisconsin first responder on rural hospital closures: "Sometimes [patients are] waiting until they're sicker to call, because they don't want to go the distance to Eau Claire for a hospital. And so they kind of wait and hope that they'll get better and sometimes they ultimately get worse and then they're more sick when we see them. And so you're kind of watching them, you know, decompensate almost in the back of the ambulance"

FactPost

32,797 views • 8 months ago

Mark Cuban: OpenAI is shitting away their money. They'll never get a return on that trillion dollar spend. "There's a lot of FUD being put out about the spending. We're going to spend a trillion dollars because we need all this data center capacity. Well, the data center, the ability to process is going to get faster, cheaper" "I think a lot of the numbers that they're throwing out there aren't going to come to fruition, which is why I say they're full of shit" "We don't know if the business of foundational models is going to be like the streaming industry where there's one leader and a bunch of players that make money, or some that make money at least, or search where there's effectively one company" "So they need to raise all the money, go all in and spend everything they can, kiss all the rings around the world in hopes of being the one" "It's going to be very difficult, but I don't think it's going to pay off the way they expect" "They're pissing away the money at scale. It's hard to do, right? But if you don't go all in like that, you can't keep on raising money."

Mark Cuban: OpenAI is shitting away their money. They'll never get a return on that trillion dollar spend. "There's a lot of FUD being put out about the spending. We're going to spend a trillion dollars because we need all this data center capacity. Well, the data center, the ability to process is going to get faster, cheaper" "I think a lot of the numbers that they're throwing out there aren't going to come to fruition, which is why I say they're full of shit" "We don't know if the business of foundational models is going to be like the streaming industry where there's one leader and a bunch of players that make money, or some that make money at least, or search where there's effectively one company" "So they need to raise all the money, go all in and spend everything they can, kiss all the rings around the world in hopes of being the one" "It's going to be very difficult, but I don't think it's going to pay off the way they expect" "They're pissing away the money at scale. It's hard to do, right? But if you don't go all in like that, you can't keep on raising money."

Brad

91,691 views • 12 days ago

Steve Jobs literally gave a masterclass on how "stock options" actually work in 1983: "If somebody came to work for your company, you could let them buy some stock. The problem is they might have to shell out $100,000. If the company went broke, they'd lose all their life savings" "So when somebody comes to work, let's say the stock's trading at ten dollars a share, you give them the option to buy ten thousand shares at ten dollars. They have four years to exercise that option" "If the stock goes down or stays the same, they never exercise it. They don't put up any money, they don't lose anything" "But if it goes to a hundred dollars a share, they can borrow the money to buy it at ten because it's worth a hundred" "In exchange, we only dole out their ability to exercise 25% a year, locking in people really for four years if the stock goes up" "Before we went public, over 80% of Apple was owned by the employees. Right now, I'd say over 50% of Apple is owned by the employees" "I don't think finance is what drives people at Apple. I don't think it's money. But feeling like you own a piece of the company, and this is your damn company" "We always tell people, you work for Apple first and your boss second"

Steve Jobs literally gave a masterclass on how "stock options" actually work in 1983: "If somebody came to work for your company, you could let them buy some stock. The problem is they might have to shell out $100,000. If the company went broke, they'd lose all their life savings" "So when somebody comes to work, let's say the stock's trading at ten dollars a share, you give them the option to buy ten thousand shares at ten dollars. They have four years to exercise that option" "If the stock goes down or stays the same, they never exercise it. They don't put up any money, they don't lose anything" "But if it goes to a hundred dollars a share, they can borrow the money to buy it at ten because it's worth a hundred" "In exchange, we only dole out their ability to exercise 25% a year, locking in people really for four years if the stock goes up" "Before we went public, over 80% of Apple was owned by the employees. Right now, I'd say over 50% of Apple is owned by the employees" "I don't think finance is what drives people at Apple. I don't think it's money. But feeling like you own a piece of the company, and this is your damn company" "We always tell people, you work for Apple first and your boss second"

Jaynit

819,999 views • 1 month ago

William on how an early stage employee takes way more risk than a founder: "If I'm making $400-500K at Google or Meta and go to an early stage company to get 1% of this company and make $90,000. I've now changed the trajectory of my life, that's a lot of risk. But as a founder, you're not. It's a much higher likelihood that of the next round, regardless of your company, you'll be able to sell some secondary. If it shuts down, you can get employed at a great company, and you have a CEO on your resume. That first employee, they have first employee at a failed company. That's actually not a great resume line item. So we've de-risked the founder, but we haven't de-risked the early stage employee."

Sensitive content

William on how an early stage employee takes way more risk than a founder: "If I'm making $400-500K at Google or Meta and go to an early stage company to get 1% of this company and make $90,000. I've now changed the trajectory of my life, that's a lot of risk. But as a founder, you're not. It's a much higher likelihood that of the next round, regardless of your company, you'll be able to sell some secondary. If it shuts down, you can get employed at a great company, and you have a CEO on your resume. That first employee, they have first employee at a failed company. That's actually not a great resume line item. So we've de-risked the founder, but we haven't de-risked the early stage employee."

Patrick OShaughnessy

904,329 views • 3 months ago

🚨 BREAKING: Speaker Johnson is visibly FRUSTRATED that "this is the first time in HISTORY that any party has chosen to shut the government down over a clean CR." "They want to spend up trillion and a half new dollars on all sorts of wasteful programs, including two hundred billion dollars to fund health care benefits on the backs of American taxpayers for illegal aliens!" "They want to give a half a billion dollars back to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to prop up leftist news organizations. And they want to spend billions of dollars overseas on all sorts of extraneous crazy kinds of programs." "They've done it now almost a dozen times! Because they're playing partisan games." "They know we're not going to do that. It's not a serious proposal." "Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the two leaders in both chambers, for the Democrat side, are afraid of their far left flank." "They're afraid they're going to get a challenge in New York because Marxism is all the rage and they're going lose their seats. So they're putting up a 'fight.' It makes no sense and real people are getting hurt."

🚨 BREAKING: Speaker Johnson is visibly FRUSTRATED that "this is the first time in HISTORY that any party has chosen to shut the government down over a clean CR." "They want to spend up trillion and a half new dollars on all sorts of wasteful programs, including two hundred billion dollars to fund health care benefits on the backs of American taxpayers for illegal aliens!" "They want to give a half a billion dollars back to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to prop up leftist news organizations. And they want to spend billions of dollars overseas on all sorts of extraneous crazy kinds of programs." "They've done it now almost a dozen times! Because they're playing partisan games." "They know we're not going to do that. It's not a serious proposal." "Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, the two leaders in both chambers, for the Democrat side, are afraid of their far left flank." "They're afraid they're going to get a challenge in New York because Marxism is all the rage and they're going lose their seats. So they're putting up a 'fight.' It makes no sense and real people are getting hurt."

Eric Daugherty

59,441 views • 8 months ago

Asmongold explains why men are joining the DSA "A lot of men probably want to have a job and take care of themselves, and many of these guys go to college, they're educated in something, and they're not able to get any employment." "Because of that, they want to undo the system that has created the environment that makes them unsuccessful. They view something like the DSA as the solution." "Those guys aren't totally wrong. They're not wrong with their problem. They're wrong with their solution. I don't agree with the solution, but I agree that it's a problem."

Asmongold explains why men are joining the DSA "A lot of men probably want to have a job and take care of themselves, and many of these guys go to college, they're educated in something, and they're not able to get any employment." "Because of that, they want to undo the system that has created the environment that makes them unsuccessful. They view something like the DSA as the solution." "Those guys aren't totally wrong. They're not wrong with their problem. They're wrong with their solution. I don't agree with the solution, but I agree that it's a problem."

Asmongold Updates

44,580 views • 6 days ago

AOC: The Republican Party’s brand is fear. And they have to constantly churn out what they want people to be afraid of—to be afraid of socialists, to be afraid of immigrants, to be afraid of women. They constantly want Americans in fear of somebody because, if you are not afraid of someone who is your neighbor, you’re going to realize who’s actually pickpocketing you. And that is the large corporations that are engaged in profiteering and jacking up your prices for no good reason. It’s going to be this administration that is engaged in record levels of swindling, theft, tariffs, and attacks on your housing. And so this is kind of their new thing of the day. But I think that people are feared out. I think everyone’s nerves are shot from constantly being taught and told what country, person, or community to be afraid of. And they just want a solution. They want their groceries to be more affordable. They want to figure out how we’re going to get health care. They want our housing to get under control. And I think that we’re ready for an affirmative vision, and we’re ready for an affirmative agenda.

Acyn

302,678 views • 18 days ago

When you tax something, you get less of it. If you don’t want businesses to expand, tax the hell out of them. If you don’t want people to work, take their money. That’s why it’s so important that we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill and blocked a $4.3 trillion tax hike.

When you tax something, you get less of it. If you don’t want businesses to expand, tax the hell out of them. If you don’t want people to work, take their money. That’s why it’s so important that we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill and blocked a $4.3 trillion tax hike.

John Kennedy

507,571 views • 1 year ago

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

George Noble

868,687 views • 4 months ago

Charlie Munger: "We frequently find that owners of entire businesses have schizophrenia. They want to sell their business for a little more than it's worth — taking stock so they don't have to pay taxes — and they want the stock to be in the kind of business that will make just one dumb acquisition — theirs — and thereafter will guard the stock like gold, making no more dumb acquisitions. Needless to say, the world is not that easy."

Charlie Munger: "We frequently find that owners of entire businesses have schizophrenia. They want to sell their business for a little more than it's worth — taking stock so they don't have to pay taxes — and they want the stock to be in the kind of business that will make just one dumb acquisition — theirs — and thereafter will guard the stock like gold, making no more dumb acquisitions. Needless to say, the world is not that easy."

Kevin Carpenter

340,233 views • 6 months ago

Being a founder is chaos, one minute you’re getting sued, the next you’re getting a $100M offer. I’ve seen it all. Only about a third of people are built to handle that kind of volatility. The rest? They work for them. And that’s fine. But if you want to be a founder, you better learn to thrive in the storm, not hide from it. Mick Hunt

Being a founder is chaos, one minute you’re getting sued, the next you’re getting a $100M offer. I’ve seen it all. Only about a third of people are built to handle that kind of volatility. The rest? They work for them. And that’s fine. But if you want to be a founder, you better learn to thrive in the storm, not hide from it. Mick Hunt

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

28,145 views • 8 months ago