ELON MUSK - World's first Trillionaire

cantersaddick

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

On a practical level he was obscenely rich / wealthy already. The IPO doesnt practically change that as it’s all paper money to a large degree.

He doesn't have a trillion in cash to do good with more than he did last week. He cant really sell the Space X shares to raise that cash as the market would plummet and their value fall. Assuming anyone / enough want to own them.

What I'm saying is the concerns on him pre date the IPO. His influence was already too great but I dont see how you change that unless Twitter gets banned or similar.

I mentioned the "paper money"/ liquidity argument in page 1 and frankly ay that level of wealth I just don't buy it. Reasons outlined in above post. 

I agree him being a problem pre-dates the IPO but I think the IPO clearly demonstrates how he has leveraged his influence to break the rules for his own benefit and at the cost of normal people. And the extreme scale of his wealth hitting a trillion is getting publicity and so a great opportunity to highlight the danger he poses to society and democracy.

The thread was about his new status as a trillionaire (versus a billionaire). 

As such my point stands that this change is paper money as it’s a consequence of the IPO. 

But regardless I don’t see how you ‘stop’ it per se beyond globally aligned tax of extreme wealth. 

The valuation of his businesses is the clever trick he manages. His personality / vision / story telling (whatever you call it) makes the financiers set the extreme valuations. The same is true for many celebrity business people over the decades beyond the underlying financial performance of the core businesses. 

Eventually bubbles burst but in the meantime…🙁

Yes its a change in his paper valuation due to the IPO but at that level of extreme wealth it does matter.

He frequently leverages his paper wealth to access huge amounts of extremely cheap credit to fund purchasing whatever he wants from planes and yachts to twitter and whatever other stocks and investments he wants to buy. He uses that credit to offset personal and business earnings to reduce his tax liability. 

So yes his paper valuation has gone up (by changing rules in a move that will cost millions of peoples pensions and investments) but so has his access to credit and so his ability to avoid tax. So it does matter.

I agree his trick is in the story telling but this is not the same as other celebrity businesses. It’s a whole different scale. The way he has leveraged his influence to avoid rules, fix a valuation and at the cost of normal people's investments is unprecedented. And dangerous. 

Yes but not the point I made and you replied to. 

His increased Wealth in the last  week I doubt sees his appetite to raise cash and invest / spend likely change is what I’m saying. 

Again he already had too much ! And that is my key observation. 

This uptick in his estimated wealth doesn’t change what he does I don’t believe. His ability to do good (or bad) if he chooses already existed.  

I’m not sure what you mean by at the cost of normal people’s investments. In what sense is your (or mine) investments harmed by his IPO? I’m sure I read he pays the most tax of anyone albeit I do follow your argument his share is not the same proportion you or I must pay and the current rules allow avoidance beyond us mere mortals. And is therefore both unfair and immoral. 

 You may be right I’m just unclear what you mean. 

 

It may not have changed his appetite to raise cash but it has significantly changed his ability to and that is an important point. And he is leveraging against that wealth to put more cash into spacex.

It may not change whether he does good or bad but it does highlight the obscene nature of his decisions to do bad.

I did a detailed post on page 1 with sources about how he leveraged his influence to get around or change stock market and index fund rules for this IPO and why this will affect everyone's pensions funds and investments. I'll quote it for you in a sec but in short:
- valuation rules changed so the IPO is at a fixed price artificially high
- inclusion rules changed for index funds to get it included without meeting any of the criteria
- agitated for a 3x multiplier on index funds due to "small scale of the float" meaning shifts in price have a disproportionately large impact on the fund
- forced buyer effect means index funds and pesnion funds forced to buy much sooner than usual

So when the price is allowed to move freely in August it will inevitably fall due to the valuation being so artificially high. All our pensions and investments in index funds will lose money and disproportionately so due to the 3x multiplier. But he's made money so it's fine...

He has only been able to do this by abusing the power and influence he has. Very few others would have been able to manipulate the rules and the bodies responsible for them in such a way. This kind of action is completely incompatible with democracy or society.

cantersaddick

cantersaddick said:

Making_all_the_noise said:

He is as obnoxious as everyone has pointed out but his wealth is not liquid, it’s tied up in what is to my mind, are some wildly overvalued equity holdings. 

He has a ridiculous cult of followers which inflates any of his company’s stock. It feels like institutional investors jump on the bandwagon to profit as well. None of the valuations seem to add up from what I can see. Value seems to be tied up in brand Musk. His genius was best put to the test by DOGE and it was an unmitigated failure. 

On the liquidity argument. Personally I believe it holds no weight at that level of extreme wealth. When a person is able to leverage their holdings for massive amounts of extremely cheap credit to fund their personal lifestyle (thus offsetting their personal tax liability) or to fund their next aquisition (thus offsetting their corporations tax liability) the argument that its not liquid no longer has any validity. 

This IPO in particular shows exactly why individuals with this level of extreme wealth are simply not compatible with democracy and society. Its about the power relationships. Musk now has so much power and influence that he was able to influence stock market rules and processes so that usual IPO rules, criteria and limits do not apply. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2026/06/08/spacex-ipo-wall-street-rules/90459479007/

This isnt just going to mean he makes more money - its going to mean lots of us lose massive amounts (relative) on our pensions and investments.

The valuantion rules were changed to hide the fact that Space X is a loss making company and inflate the prices. He agitated for Fast-Track Index Inclusion meaning - index funds like the NASDAQ 100 and FTSE Russell changed their waiting period for inclusion in the index from months to mere days. This coupled with the "Forced Buyer" Effect means that passive funds, tracks, and pensions benchmarks are forced to buy shares much sooner than they would usually or even should. The IPO also defied standard Wall Street bookbuilding practices (where a price range is tested and adjusted via investor roadshows) by setting a strict, fixed price of $135 per share prior to public offering. 

These together mean that in August when the price is allowed to move freely it is basically guaranteed to drop due to the inflated valuation. but all of our pension funds and investments in trackers and index funds have been forced to buy it. So we will all lose value as he gets richer. And the value our funds lose will be exaggerated as Musk ensured  the Nasdaq enacted a 3x multiplier for the stock's float-adjusted weight (claiming this is due to the small scale of the float). This means the stock's movement will have an exaggerated impact on the broader index - and our investments. 

There is no society or democracy where one man should have the power to influence rules to this extent and so massively enrich himself at the expense of ordinary people.

https://news.sky.com/story/spacex-ipo-latest-elon-musks-company-to-debut-on-stock-market-and-could-make-him-a-trillionaire-13552004

https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/ftse-russell-latest-to-make-u-s-index-inclusion-easier-ahead-of-spacex-ipo-35157adf

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/spacex-plans-raise-75-billion-ipo-135-per-share-source-says-2026-06-03/

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/09/spacex-ipo-explained-stock-price-date.html

Detailed post here.

valleynick66

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

On a practical level he was obscenely rich / wealthy already. The IPO doesnt practically change that as it’s all paper money to a large degree.

He doesn't have a trillion in cash to do good with more than he did last week. He cant really sell the Space X shares to raise that cash as the market would plummet and their value fall. Assuming anyone / enough want to own them.

What I'm saying is the concerns on him pre date the IPO. His influence was already too great but I dont see how you change that unless Twitter gets banned or similar.

I mentioned the "paper money"/ liquidity argument in page 1 and frankly ay that level of wealth I just don't buy it. Reasons outlined in above post. 

I agree him being a problem pre-dates the IPO but I think the IPO clearly demonstrates how he has leveraged his influence to break the rules for his own benefit and at the cost of normal people. And the extreme scale of his wealth hitting a trillion is getting publicity and so a great opportunity to highlight the danger he poses to society and democracy.

The thread was about his new status as a trillionaire (versus a billionaire). 

As such my point stands that this change is paper money as it’s a consequence of the IPO. 

But regardless I don’t see how you ‘stop’ it per se beyond globally aligned tax of extreme wealth. 

The valuation of his businesses is the clever trick he manages. His personality / vision / story telling (whatever you call it) makes the financiers set the extreme valuations. The same is true for many celebrity business people over the decades beyond the underlying financial performance of the core businesses. 

Eventually bubbles burst but in the meantime…🙁

Yes its a change in his paper valuation due to the IPO but at that level of extreme wealth it does matter.

He frequently leverages his paper wealth to access huge amounts of extremely cheap credit to fund purchasing whatever he wants from planes and yachts to twitter and whatever other stocks and investments he wants to buy. He uses that credit to offset personal and business earnings to reduce his tax liability. 

So yes his paper valuation has gone up (by changing rules in a move that will cost millions of peoples pensions and investments) but so has his access to credit and so his ability to avoid tax. So it does matter.

I agree his trick is in the story telling but this is not the same as other celebrity businesses. It’s a whole different scale. The way he has leveraged his influence to avoid rules, fix a valuation and at the cost of normal people's investments is unprecedented. And dangerous. 

Yes but not the point I made and you replied to. 

His increased Wealth in the last  week I doubt sees his appetite to raise cash and invest / spend likely change is what I’m saying. 

Again he already had too much ! And that is my key observation. 

This uptick in his estimated wealth doesn’t change what he does I don’t believe. His ability to do good (or bad) if he chooses already existed.  

I’m not sure what you mean by at the cost of normal people’s investments. In what sense is your (or mine) investments harmed by his IPO? I’m sure I read he pays the most tax of anyone albeit I do follow your argument his share is not the same proportion you or I must pay and the current rules allow avoidance beyond us mere mortals. And is therefore both unfair and immoral. 

 You may be right I’m just unclear what you mean. 

 

It may not have changed his appetite to raise cash but it has significantly changed his ability to and that is an important point. And he is leveraging against that wealth to put more cash into spacex.

It may not change whether he does good or bad but it does highlight the obscene nature of his decisions to do bad.

I did a detailed post on page 1 with sources about how he leveraged his influence to get around or change stock market and index fund rules for this IPO and why this will affect everyone's pensions funds and investments. I'll quote it for you in a sec but in short:
- valuation rules changed so the IPO is at a fixed price artificially high
- inclusion rules changed for index funds to get it included without meeting any of the criteria
- agitated for a 3x multiplier on index funds due to "small scale of the float" meaning shifts in price have a disproportionately large impact on the fund
- forced buyer effect means index funds and pesnion funds forced to buy much sooner than usual

So when the price is allowed to move freely in August it will inevitably fall due to the valuation being so artificially high. All our pensions and investments in index funds will lose money and disproportionately so due to the 3x multiplier. But he's made money so it's fine...

He has only been able to do this by abusing the power and influence he has. Very few others would have been able to manipulate the rules and the bodies responsible for them in such a way. This kind of action is completely incompatible with democracy or society.

Thank you. I hadn’t seen any coverage of this new fast track route and therefore implications for passive / tracker funds to be automatically caught up in it. 

But again I’d only say his excessive influence existed as a multi billionaire not as his new status as a trillionaire. To be clear I don’t much like him !

ShootersHillGuru

The bottom line regardless of his position is that the man is a nazi. He’s despicable and deserves nothing more than our disgust.

Chaz Hill

ShootersHillGuru said:

The bottom line regardless of his position is that the man is a nazi. He’s despicable and deserves nothing more than our disgust.

Saw an appropriate quote the other day. "You can take the boy out of apartheid South Africa but you can't take apartheid South Africa out of the boy".

jose

ShootersHillGuru said:

The bottom line regardless of his position is that the man is a nazi. He’s despicable and deserves nothing more than our disgust.

Our club sometimes only uses xitter to disseminate information (as in updates can be found on….), which excludes non xitter users, and serves to enrich the Fascist.
I wish the club would only use it’s website presence for information, otherwise they validate Musk.

Dazzler21

World's first Bond Villain. 

Leroy Ambrose

Athletico Charlton said:

The rise of ultra wealth in a very small number of mainly tech individuals, as the world struggles with mega monopolies avoiding tax and destroying many smaller businesses, coming at the same time as a potentially crippling loss of vast swathes of employment, driving millions into poverty, due to Tech driven by AI and Robotics; will surely have some major sociological and ideological impacts within many of our lifetimes is my guess.
The first trillionaire seems the start.

If you're interested in this, do a deep dive on Curtis Yarvin...

Then do a bit more on Peter Thiel. 

What these people want ain't pretty. 

WSS

If the governments around the world don’t grab hold of tech hard we’re well on the way of Wall-E being a documentary.

Chris_from_Sidcup

Personally i quite like Musk, he's done a lot of good and is one of the most impactful leaders of our generation. Not sure why people don't like him.

Chris_from_Sidcup

Only joking. I can imagine the rage as some people read it though.

As an side, the earlier Jonathan Pie video that was posted is absolutely brilliant.

cantersaddick

Leroy Ambrose said:

Athletico Charlton said:

The rise of ultra wealth in a very small number of mainly tech individuals, as the world struggles with mega monopolies avoiding tax and destroying many smaller businesses, coming at the same time as a potentially crippling loss of vast swathes of employment, driving millions into poverty, due to Tech driven by AI and Robotics; will surely have some major sociological and ideological impacts within many of our lifetimes is my guess.
The first trillionaire seems the start.

If you're interested in this, do a deep dive on Curtis Yarvin...

Then do a bit more on Peter Thiel. 

What these people want ain't pretty. 

Thiel is properly scary. Wants an authoritatian tech surveilance corporate government for the west. Ohh and wants to charge people subscriptions for air (seriously). 

AndyG

There is something seriously wrong with the world when a guy whose companies have never made a profit at any point can accrue this much wealth. This isnt a post of envy as I believe if people deliver then they deserve to be rewarded however this guy is a conman imo and an extremely dangerous one at that

ME14addick

I decided to stay on X if only to call out some of the huge amount of dis/misinformation. Whenever I open the app, posts from Musk's own account always pop up first. He is obsessed with the UK and keeps on stating a lot of rascist nonsense. He is an evil dangerous man because far too many people believe the vile rubbish he posts.

Chizz

jose said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

The bottom line regardless of his position is that the man is a nazi. He’s despicable and deserves nothing more than our disgust.

Our club sometimes only uses xitter to disseminate information (as in updates can be found on….), which excludes non xitter users, and serves to enrich the Fascist.
I wish the club would only use it’s website presence for information, otherwise they validate Musk.

You don't have to have an account on X to read posts on X. So, the club posting on X does not exclude people who don't use X. 

Braziliance

Four pages and not a single congratulations? Blimey. 

Congratulations Elon Musk, I know you love Charlton Life and will have a read of these detailed posts, fair play mate. 

Also on the path to be a trillionaire myself. I am currently 0.000001% the way there. 

charltonkeston

Raith_C_Chattonell said:

I heard an interesting contributer to Wake Up to Money from Surrey Satellite Technology in Godalming.  Elon Musk bought into this co. and learnt how to they put satellites together using commercial parts and keeping things in house.  

He also learnt that the big problem was the cost of putting the stuff into space - and this became his speciality.  20 years ago it cost 40,000 dollars to put a Kilo in space it now costs 10,000 dollars entirely due to Spacex.  The SSTL rep said that Musk's new rocket Starship could reduce the cost to 1,000 dollars per Kilo.

(I still detest the man btw).

(37 minutes in)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002xgg1

https://www.sstl.co.uk/

Just about $1m a human, at present. Maybe Musk needs to spend a couple of billion on a fantasy\vanity project for himself. 

oohaahmortimer

Canters you seem clued up on this share stuff, why is the share price still rallying if it was overpriced on the initial offering and I saw a headline up nearly 50% from IPO that sounds like it was undervalued to have climbed that much so quick 

Carter

The plot for the Alien films and tv series was one of a future earth divided not by nations and sovereign borders but of corporations. Good plot for these worlds but fairly scary 

Ultimately like with investment bankers, MPs, and various other characters the system enables them to do what they do and as much as its leaving a stench in my throat I hate the idea of punishing innovation and success. I can't pretend to understand how these people have done what they have done. I understand leveraging and the kind of false promise and hope the stock market is as opposed to the buying money I'm being told this IPO is. 

Confusing world now 

EVs = good 
Musk = bad 
Tesla, the best EV = gets faeces rubbed on the badges and door handles 

RodneyCharltonTrotta

I quite like Musk. But then again I also quite like/ don't hate Donald Trump. 

The big banks/ asset managers have backed space x (think black rock put in $5bn in ipo). Will be intersting to see how it performs over coming years.

Think the investment is as much in Musk as it is in Space x for many.

arny23394

RodneyCharltonTrotta said:

I quite like Musk. But then again I also quite like/ don't hate Donald Trump. 

The big banks/ asset managers have backed space x (think black rock put in $5bn in ipo). Will be intersting to see how it performs over coming years.

Think the investment is as much in Musk as it is in Space x for many.

Admitting you like a fat dribbling orange nonce is a bit weird

arny23394

Musk may be the biggest dork on the planet, but he does a mean star jump.

RodneyCharltonTrotta

.

DamoNorthStand

I've looked into my crystal ball and see 'discussion closed' in 3.....2.....1

RodneyCharltonTrotta

DamoNorthStand said:

I've looked into my crystal ball and see 'discussion closed' in 3.....2.....1

Precisely why i deleted my response to prevent that.

Should be able to post a view contrary to the general consensus without being called weird for having a different point of view.

Henry Irving

Out of interest how rich, comparativly, were Rockafeller, Carniege, Hearst and the other US multimillionaires of the 18th and early 19th century?

In real terms were they as rich as Bezos, Musk, etc?

cantersaddick

oohaahmortimer said:

Canters you seem clued up on this share stuff, why is the share price still rallying if it was overpriced on the initial offering and I saw a headline up nearly 50% from IPO that sounds like it was undervalued to have climbed that much so quick 

Few factors causing this. Its under early insider lockup until August which limits the float to a very small amount of shares until August and fixes a minimum price on the initial offering. The forced buyer effect I mentioned in previous posts where for the first time ever index funds and trackers are being forced to buy immediately on the initial listing rather waiting and seeing where the price settles. That will be driving a lot of demand for what is a tiny number of shares and so will be leaving an even smaller number of shares for others to fight over. That and this IPO is the most talked about IPO in history and so speculators and people who arent regular investors are buying and that is causing some initial momentum and price rises. Probably some money to be made in the very short term with a bit of luck in timing. August when the restrictions end is when we will find out the real value. Nothing is certain but its very much widely expected that there will be a lot of shares flooding the market and the price will drop significantly. Suspect investors will see this coming and start selling a bit before the August date.

Huskaris

Henry Irving said:

Out of interest how rich, comparativly, were Rockafeller, Carniege, Hearst and the other US multimillionaires of the 18th and early 19th century?

In real terms were they as rich as Bezos, Musk, etc?

He overtook Rockefeller in 2024. They said this based on him being worth just shy of $0.5bn which was 1.6% of GDP of USA, the comparison they used for Rockefeller 

At the start of 2020, Musk was worth $27bn. 

And given how SpaceX has been going since launch, I might need to look up what the one above "trillionaire" is soon...

cantersaddick

RodneyCharltonTrotta said:

DamoNorthStand said:

I've looked into my crystal ball and see 'discussion closed' in 3.....2.....1

Precisely why i deleted my response to prevent that.

Should be able to post a view contrary to the general consensus without being called weird for having a different point of view.

I dont think anyone has said you cant post a contrary view. What I would challenge is whether you have actually posted your point of view. Beyond saying you like Musk and another individual you havent exactly stated why you like them or why others are wrong to dislike them. A bit of your reasoning might help.

Carter

cantersaddick said:

RodneyCharltonTrotta said:

DamoNorthStand said:

I've looked into my crystal ball and see 'discussion closed' in 3.....2.....1

Precisely why i deleted my response to prevent that.

Should be able to post a view contrary to the general consensus without being called weird for having a different point of view.

I dont think anyone has said you cant post a contrary view. What I would challenge is whether you have actually posted your point of view. Beyond saying you like Musk and another individual you havent exactly stated why you like them or why others are wrong to dislike them. A bit of your reasoning might help.

I think what he is saying, and I'm happy to be proven wrong. Sometimes people just don't instill absolute abject hatred. Also, we don't always have to lay every single reason we like or dislike someone or something. I never liked Norman Lamont as his eyebrows freaked me out, couldn't tell you anything else about him. 

If, objectively I think for example Donald Trump has done something good, or sensible or that would make life better for me/my friends. I might not have a totally negative opinion of him, I'd probably not say it as its fashionable to hate trump/musk/farage/starmer and would just get piled on, called weird, called racist, transphobic, misogynistic delete as appropriate 

Probably why it's fir the best we don't do politics on here