As long as the AI hopium flies
It had the king himself on the board. The company value represented a decent fraction of the national gdp at the time. All without actually never producing anything of actual value. It was just bribes and speculation all the way through. It's wild.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company
Extra History did a more easily digestible series, which was how I learned about it in the first place. https://youtu.be/k1kndKWJKB8
That's actually a pretty reasonnable ask for a tech company, if you believe Palantir can grow to the level of FAANG.
The company's market-cap was almost 3 times national GDP
That puts them in a precarious situation when the political winds change
This is not really to fault them. I see the company as far more mature than Tesla. They've cultivated a brand that works well for them. This is also not intended to be a criticism of Palantir investors, there are many reasons to invest, and even if you subscribe to the above that is of course your right! Many people invest for ideological reasons, myself included, and that's fine.
What 4/5yr term govt can turn off or replace their OS?
It's dubious because whereas a year's worth of GDP has some claim to actually being the value of something (with many caveats but it's engineered to behave like that as much as possible), market cap isn't. It's the amount all the shares would cost if someone bought them all in one go for the price some shares were most recently purchased for, which would never happen.
And the fact that in the entire BSSTC shareholder universe, there wasn't any noticeable volume for a sell, or a registered sell limit, at a lower value leading up to the last peak.
That must have been a rough trade, but someone got something out at the last moment.
It's fine if you don't mind losing your shirt.
For us normal people, we invest to try and grow the money we've saved for the future (in my case, for my retirement), so investing in a company whose stock is insanely overvalued is a great way to blow up my pension pot.
I don't understand the rationale behind "investing for ideological reasons", can you explain it?
15^(1/35) = 1.11
1500^(1/35) = 1.34
Did the author maybe put a few extra zeros in their calculator when figuring out the annual revenue growth which would equal 15x over a 25 year span?
https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3m7...
Can’t people just retweet Karp on X if they want to “support Palantir ideologically”?
This is GME all over again.
Market cap being rediculous is the hallmark of a bubble.
He's ahead of Buffett but WB has massive AUM and MB should be running circles around him.
So yeah... he had one movie worthy trade, but that doesn't make it a sound strategy.
1. No, we don't have proof that there was one person who thought it was worth 3x GDP. We have proof that there was one person who thought a 0.001% share of the company was worth 0.003% of GDP or whatever. They could think it was worth that much for plenty of reasons; maybe they thought the share price would grow for a bit more before collapsing so that they could make some profit, maybe they invested in order to just be an investor and have a say in investor meetings or however things worked back then. Maybe it was a status thing.
2. Why are we using the opinion of one random person to determine the value of a company
Right now 73% or their sales are to the US, and the next biggest source of revenue is the UK, far behind at 10%. The whole of the rest of the world, including the EU, adds up to 17%.
It's kind of a conspiracy theory bingo at that point, it's probably somehow even worse than we can imagine
Sure, but I'm under the assumption that many people, yourself included, are conflating "buying some company stocks" with "investing".
To first order approximation, it does not benefit a company that you trade stocks on the market once they have been emitted, any more than it benefits GM if you opt to buy a second hand chevrolet.
So the support is symbolic only.
A coin will release 1/1000000000th of it's eventual supply, have some trades at 10c and then claim the value of the entire supply as the headline value.
It's obviously dumb.
And to be honest car manufacturers have always had very deep links with politics.
And the US has a pretty bad neo colonialism and CIA rep. If I was the president of Mexico I would not trust anything from up North right now.
The thesis is "The current US administration is making enormous profits from their powerful positions. Whether of not I agree with this, I want some of that money too".
I'm not sure why this isn't mentioned because it's the number one factor driving the price.
A lot of the biggest potential markets are in Asia, and almost all Asia countries fear China, and to many of them it is their main potential military threat.
IMO the best interests of either of the two countries of which i am a citizen would be to be less dependant on the US, however the US is nothing like the threat China presents.
Edit: to add, they are competing with whatever equivalent product China has to sell anyway.
GME is not the same thing: while I think there are some true believers in the company itself (and this is part of what drove the initial interest in it), for the most part interest in modern meme stocks is driven by the polar opposite: a kind of financial nihilism that believes hype and gambling on popularity is the only thing left in the public stock market, and they're basically just trying to ride the wave of a crowdsourced pump-and-dump and fleece others via selling to greater fools (and/or creating a cult around a mythical short-squeeze that is reaching ever more fanciful heights).
It seems like the financial outlet made a maths error and then was amazed by the absurdity of the incorrect result they got.
Specifically their whole outrage is based on having accidentally calculated what would need to happen for Palantir's revenues to grow 1500x as opposed to 15x. The corrected statistic would be the Palantir requires 11.4% revenue growth year over year not 35%.
Palantir is a tech platform that consumes data from their clients in return for providing high level data-driven insights. They assign FDEs (or consultants) to really learn the details of a customers data. Foundry allows them to get single pane view of the data in an org and they actually have both the tech and engineering skills to do the dirty data cleaning jobs.
For an extravagant fee, you give them your data, they clean it for you, and then those same FDEs can tell you interesting things that you should have known, had you actually done proper data architecture in the first place.
Does it add value, yes. Is the value worth the fee? Like snowflake, they throw some very very good parties.
A better comparison is to compare somebody's net value to the total housing value of a city. For instance comparing Musk's net value to the total value of all the houses/apartments in New York. Or the the value of the gold in Fort Knox.
For example:
https://electrek.co/2025/07/23/elon-musk-with-straight-face-...
What other people say is their secret sauce, is they do consulting work for the government (a forward deployed engineer is just a consultant) and they make incredible margins because their senior management and early investors have connections to the government which gets them exclusive access to incredibly juicy contracts. As these contracts paid off they leant heavily into the social media meme stock trend so their CEO spends time talking like a psychopath and doing various non-economic things like spending huge amounts of money running adverts about how they're going to use AI to unleash Americas workers (America's workers aren't able to buy Palantir software or services, but they can buy it's stock).
I was kind of expecting someone to say it had EG really sophisticated ETL tools that can normalise loads of different data or can query across disparate data sources or something.
https://fortune.com/2025/01/30/tesla-profits-bitcoin-crypto-...
Oh yeah, and government subsidies (making up 38% of profits in 2024)
https://news.sky.com/story/elons-playing-a-very-dangerous-ga...
'But they cleaned the data up'. That data was also cleaned up during all the last major system updates. And during the implementation of those systems. And the implementation of the systems before that.
I lumped government subsidies in with EV sales since they are related. Trump wiped these out.
Robotaxi and robots are the fantasy category. They are not currently income producers and may not be for years to come. His robot demos have been widely panned as fake.
Value is subjective. Stock prices measure peoples perception of the value. Your thesis that it is incorrect can only come from 2 places (I think)
1. Dumb money - the market cant see that XYZ is overvalued or undervalued. My rebutal there is nonetheless XYZ has been valued by a conpletely open continuous auction that people are not restricted to participate in.
2. The parts are less than their sum. This may be somewhat true... total control over a company may be more (or less) valuable than splitting. But I dont think it is order of magnitude. And if it is, it is because the value to you isnt the value to me (the value of RAM to a gamer < value of RAM to OpenAI).
The armorials of the South Sea Company, according to a grant of arms dated 31 October 1711, were: Azure, a globe whereon are represented the Straits of Magellan and Cape Horn all proper and in sinister chief point two herrings haurient in saltire argent crowned or, in a canton the united arms of Great Britain. Crest: A ship of three masts in full sail. Supporters, dexter: The emblematic figure of Britannia, with the shield, lance etc all proper; sinister: A fisherman completely clothed, with cap boots fishing net etc and in his hand a string of fish, all proper.[61]
The artifact you link shows a map of the Americas in which California is an island and either Tierra Del Fuego is huge or the bottom of Argentina is an island and the northwest of the continent trails off into nothing, and Florida is sort of a stubby nub (other maps from this period show a more accurate Florida, so this might be a small-size-of-the-object problem).
They had a decent view onto the east coast of the Americas, but after that things got quite inaccurate. It's like... I don't know what anyone's expectations are, but it certainly isn't the perfect world map that's shown in the main image of Wikipedia's article.
Also for the IDF
