SpaceX stock fell again on Monday, giving it three straight down days after a massive run-up following its IPO earlier this month. SpaceX also confirmed its first-ever bond issuance in a filing.
That’s a pretty terrible hed, as it has two reads. SpaceX “stock tumbles” (should be “shares tumble”) 16.4%, shaving off:
the most IPO gains (in a single day) since debut
most of its IPO gains since debut
While both are accurate in this case, the second sounds far more dire. Ambiguity is never a good thing, especially in finance reporting.
A few things to bear in mind:
Shares were priced at $135 but floated at $150, so the banks and institutional investors behind the initial float are still in the black for $15/share longer, while individual investors who got in at the opening bell are far closer to the edge (this is a relatively common thing to see in a bubble) at $154.50 (woohoo! a 3% gain), and anyone who bought after is now in the red.
Nasdaq (and index fund managers) is probably very happy that they didn’t cave and add it to the 100 index immediately; it was down a mere 1.32% today.
20% insider share unlock after earnings in early to mid-August; 10% share unlock if the stock trades 30% above the IPO price (it has spent most of its brief time above $175.50, so it’s unclear what the parameters are); 7% share unlocks set for around Aug. 21 and then again on Sept. 10, meaning “insiders could potentially sell 44% of SpaceX shares by early September, increasing the current float by about 900%.”
Such quick unlocks are unusual and could be disastrous at an order of magnitude of shares sold. Employees may be eager to cash out equity, but private investment tends to be a bit more deliberate, so that 44% figure is an unlikely-to-pass worst-case scenario.
That said, it’s a healthy and unsurprising profit-taking correction, as it signals the initial mismatch between supply and demand has abated, and it remains up on paper. I’d still not get in if I had money to invest, as the fundamentals are terrible (I’m risk-averse, so I tend to like to see profits). But with the initial exuberance out of the way, large movement should be more closely tied to said fundamentals.
That’s a pretty terrible hed, as it has two reads. SpaceX “stock tumbles” (should be “shares tumble”) 16.4%, shaving off:
While both are accurate in this case, the second sounds far more dire. Ambiguity is never a good thing, especially in finance reporting.
A few things to bear in mind:
Such quick unlocks are unusual and could be disastrous at an order of magnitude of shares sold. Employees may be eager to cash out equity, but private investment tends to be a bit more deliberate, so that 44% figure is an unlikely-to-pass worst-case scenario.
That said, it’s a healthy and unsurprising profit-taking correction, as it signals the initial mismatch between supply and demand has abated, and it remains up on paper. I’d still not get in if I had money to invest, as the fundamentals are terrible (I’m risk-averse, so I tend to like to see profits). But with the initial exuberance out of the way, large movement should be more closely tied to said fundamentals.