Stewart Squared
Episode #93: Too Big to Question: SpaceX, Wall Street, and the End of Accountability
- AI & Agents
- Money & Sovereignty
- Entrepreneurship & Startups
- Crypto & Decentralization
- Geopolitics & Power
- Robots & Atoms
- Insider trading
- Nancy Pelosi
- Trump
- conflict of interest
- Great Depression
- stock market crash
- SpaceX IPO
- prospectus
Listen
Download MP3About this episode
In this episode of the Stewart Squared podcast, host Stewart Alsop and guest Stewart Alsop II tackle the explosive SpaceX IPO, conflict of interest in politics and finance, and whether we're heading toward economic collapse or the singularity. The conversation kicks off with them acknowledging they had to restart recording after getting into a heated argument about whether Trump's stock trading and Nancy Pelosi's husband's trades fall into the same category of insider dealing—though neither technically qualifies as illegal insider trading. From there, they dig into the mechanics of the SpaceX IPO, questioning how Elon Musk convinced major banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to support a staggering $1.75 trillion valuation despite the company reporting nearly $5 billion in losses against $18.7 billion in revenue. Stewart II, who actually read the 300-page S-1 prospectus (unlike most people), explains how this IPO could fail and compares it to the infamous WeWork collapse. They explore the manual process still involved in IPOs, the role of stock exchanges from the Dow to NASDAQ to the new Texas Stock Exchange, and how Trump has concentrated executive power in ways that echo—and pervert—Teddy Roosevelt's use of executive orders. The discussion touches on reserve currencies, Argentina's economic history, cryptocurrency's death as a decentralized ideal, and whether the singularity is real or just conspiracy fantasy embraced by wealthy tech elites.
Timestamps
00:00 Stewart Squared podcast begins with revealing an argument about Trump and Nancy Pelosi both doing insider trading though it's not technically illegal insider trading
05:00 Discussion shifts to insider trading history from the Great Depression era and how current rules no longer work effectively with both politicians stretching ethical boundaries thin
10:00 SpaceX IPO prospectus analysis begins with focus on Elon Musk's control and conflicts of interest as banks go along with questionable trillion dollar valuation for massive fees
15:00 Investment banking history explored from boutique banks in seventies taking startups public to Internet bubble abuses and evolution through social media crypto and AI eras
20:00 Stock exchanges worldwide discussed including NASDAQ origins in 1971, New York Stock Exchange history, and newer Texas stock exchange where Elon sells shares with fewer reporting rules
25:00 Chevron principle explanation showing how Trump gathered executive power while claiming to fight deep state creating ironic situation of doing more executive overreach not less
30:00 US dollar reserve currency status threatened by massive national debt and interest payments now consuming thirty percent of federal budget with neither party willing to balance accounts
35:00 IPO mechanics and pricing discussed with SpaceX seeking up to two trillion valuation though market expects between one trillion and 1.6 trillion based on Polymarket betting
40:00 Risk factors in SpaceX prospectus examined including losses of 4.9 billion against 18.7 billion revenue creating outrageous 300x price to sales ratio with Elon controlling 85 percent voting
45:00 Argentina economic crisis comparison drawn from 1960s through 2001 Corralito when peso devalued from one-to-one with dollar to one-to-four overnight destroying savings
50:00 Singularity discussion concludes episode calling it conspiracy fantasy while drawing parallels between Theodore Roosevelt's executive orders for public good versus Trump's for personal profit
Key Insights
1. The discussion reveals a fundamental transformation in how stock markets and Initial Public Offerings function compared to historical norms. The SpaceX IPO represents an extreme example of this shift, with Elon Musk essentially controlling the entire process including valuation, pricing, and disclosure while investment banks like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan simply comply because of the massive fees involved. The IPO aims to raise seventy-five billion dollars at a valuation approaching one point eight trillion dollars, despite the company reporting losses of four point nine billion dollars against eighteen point seven billion in revenue, creating a price-to-sales ratio around three hundred times, which defies traditional financial metrics that would normally support such a valuation.
2. The conversation illuminates how conflicts of interest have become normalized at the highest levels of American finance and government. Trump is described as one of the most active stock market investors while serving as president, with correlations noted between his trades and policy announcements, yet this occurs in an environment where regulatory mechanisms no longer effectively constrain such behavior. The traditional checks and balances that prevented insider trading and conflicts of interest have been stretched so thin that nobody can agree on what constitutes inappropriate behavior anymore, creating a system where all rules have become negotiable for those with sufficient power and influence.
3. The decline of traditional IPO processes reflects broader systemic changes in American capitalism. In the nineteen seventies and eighties, boutique investment banks would take startup companies public when they had thirty to fifty million in revenue at reasonable valuations, providing opportunities for companies to access public markets relatively quickly. That system was abused during the Internet bubble of the nineties, leading to companies going public and then declaring bankruptcy within months. Since then, the market has experienced successive bubbles in social media, crypto, and AI, with each cycle becoming progressively more detached from fundamental business metrics and increasingly difficult to distinguish sustainable businesses from speculative ventures.
4. The role of stock exchanges has evolved significantly, with the NASDAQ emerging in 1971 specifically to serve technology companies while the New York Stock Exchange dates back to the 1890s. The conversation reveals that SpaceX is being included in the Dow Jones index immediately upon going public, rather than waiting the typical six months, and that Musk is also selling shares on the newly created Texas Stock Exchange where regulations are less stringent. This fragmentation of markets and willingness to bend traditional rules for high-profile offerings demonstrates how institutional guardrails have weakened, with exchanges competing for prestigious listings by offering more favorable terms rather than maintaining consistent standards.
5. The discussion of reserve currency status reveals existential risks facing the American economy. The United States has maintained the dollar as the global reserve currency, which allows the country to borrow its way out of trouble because all other currencies are indexed to it. However, this system is being abused through massive national debt where interest payments now consume roughly thirty percent of the federal budget. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to bring operating accounts back into balance, and there are now situations where countries trade currencies without reference to the dollar. If the United States loses reserve currency status, the country would face an Argentina-like scenario of economic collapse.
6. The comparison between current conditions and historical economic crashes provides important context for understanding present risks. The speakers identify that the 2008 crash was triggered by real estate, the 2001 crash by the Internet bubble, and 2020 by the pandemic, but the trigger for the next crash cannot be predicted in advance. What makes the current situation particularly concerning is that multiple sectors appear overvalued simultaneously, with unsustainable practices across technology, finance, and government spending. The feeling expresse...
Episode transcript
Everyone is wrong about AI, but if you know the history of technology, you can be wrong and still be right.
I know the history since I started in technology with the personal computer in 1980. So listen in while we explore what is true about AI.
Welcome to the Stuart Squared podcast. we have another episode. we ended up in some interesting territory that will be explained either in an outro or an intro, and many, other things.
okay, we got into an argument about, whether Trump and Nancy Pelosi are doing the same category of things, which is insider trading. But it's not legally insider trading, right?
Well, yeah, I mean, yeah, insider trading is something that's always been a bugaboo. And it started because during the depression in the 1920s, people were trading on inside information wildly, and it was part of what contributed to the Great Depression, and the stock market crash. So they put rules in place to prevent that from happening. But it's been. How long has it been? It's almost 100 years since the, stock market crash in 1929. And shit's happened, everything's changed, but the rules don't really work anymore. So you and I got off on it because you said it's a fact that Nancy Pelosi is doing insider trading. And I came back and said, no, it's her husband doing. And is that really insider trading? So, and Trump does it publicly, right? I mean, there's been stories recently about how he's one of the most active investors in the stock market while he's President of the United States, and that there's some correlation between the trades he's made and announcements, he's made, about AI and other stuff. So, we're in this environment where all of the rules have been stretched thin and nobody can really agree on anything. and, so it's a little hard to define what conflict of interest is if nobody agrees. anyway, we got into a conflict and had to end our recording early because we got into a little father son town. So now we want to try to see if we can address this. Now, the podcast that we did, that we didn't finish, started talking about the SpaceX IPO. And, they have their prospectus. Alex been out for about 10 days now. And, I've read the prospectus. A lot of people. In fact, I was at a meeting in Switzerland this week and I asked every single person if you read the S1 prospectus. Only one said they had not. And this is in Switzerland. And these are investors though. and then I wrote a newsletter, it said, can an IPO fail? Because this IPO actually has a prospectus in S1 that's been published. And usually a bad IPO doesn't make it that far. The only example in recent history is the WeWork IPO did make it to an S1. And then the investors said, screw you, we're not buying shares in this company. So they had to withdraw the ipo. that's extreme. But this IPO is extreme. So actually there's a theme here which is all about conflict of interest, which is Elon Musk is sitting there and making the banks do what he wants to do. So setting the price, you know, doing the disclosures, the whole thing. And and the banks are going along with it because there is so goddamn much money involved. If he raises 7. 75 billion, which is what is reported, the banks will make like 5 or 6% of that, which is a ton of money. And so even Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan who are all on the, working on this ipo, are going along with it, going, okay, yeah, we'll do a, 1.8 billion trillion dollar valuation even though there is no known metric that would support that. what a collusion. It's almost like, you know, one of your conspiracy theories like all the banks are getting along, going, no, we got to do this because it's like a law enlusk and it's like SpaceX. And so, but that's the question.
Your first full transcript is free. After that, an email opens every transcript in the index — a list of readers we can write to, not a guest book.