TJ Capital

Seeking the truth in a world filled with hype and bs.

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@realDonaldTrump Good. Maybe learn something. Can’t imagine you or your kids being this selfless and heroic.

[Just a Dude Who Invests @DudeWhoInvests]

Financial advisors putting your money in an index fund for you

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@elonmusk @sama BOTH of you are scam artists. He steals and you sell fantasies. Can’t stand either of you.

[Sam Altman @sama]

homeboy you're the one sellling public market investors on short-term space datacenters

[George Noble @gnoble79]

The largest IPO in history is also shaping up to be the largest exit liquidity operation in history

SpaceX went public at more than 90x revenue, and the insiders who bought in at a fraction of today's price are about to start selling their shares to you.

Let me walk you through why this IPO is built to separate retail investors from their money:

SpaceX has NEVER turned a profit and lost close to $5 billion last year.

At the offering you were paying more than 90x revenue and at the peak the market briefly valued it near 140x.

30 years ago the head of Sun Microsystems explained in detail why paying even 10x revenue almost always ends in tears, and he was right.

But listen closely, because the valuation is not even the real story.

The scarcity is what CREATED this valuation in the first place, and the calendar that kills the scarcity is what kills the price.

Less than 5% of SpaceX shares were actually available to trade at the IPO. Then the index committees REWROTE their own rules to fast track the stock into the Nasdaq 100 just 15 trading days after listing, which forced every passive fund and index ETF in the country to buy at the exact moment the float was at its tightest. The Nasdaq inclusion alone forced an estimated $4.3 billion of buying, and the Russell reweighting added roughly $3 billion more.

The supply was minuscule and the buying was mandatory. That's a manufactured squeeze, and it is why the stock went above $225 in its first week.

Now watch what happens next, because this is the part they ain't explaining to you:

The lockup was staggered on purpose, and the entire schedule is sitting in the prospectus for anyone who bothers to read it.

In early August, right after Q2 earnings, 20% of the locked shares come free. Another 10% unlocks early if the stock trades 30% above the $135 IPO price going into the report.

Then tranches of 7% hit the market at 70, 90, 105, 120 and 135 days after the IPO, which means fresh insider supply lands roughly every 2 to 3 weeks from late August through late October.

Q3 earnings triggers the single biggest release of all, another 28%, roughly 1.3 billion shares. On December 8 the 180 day lockup expires entirely. And on June 12, 2027 comes the final wave, when Musk's own 6.4 billion shares, 42% of the whole company, become sellable for the first time.

Add it all up and insiders could be free to sell as much as 44% of the company by early September, which would balloon the tradable float by roughly 900%.

All of that supply lands on a stock the company deliberately packed with retail, because SpaceX reserved close to 30% of the offering for individual investors vs the usual 10%.

This deal created over 4,400 paper millionaires inside the company. You think none of them are looking to cash out?

Early holders are already loading up on puts to lock in what they have.

First they keep the float tiny. Then they let the index rules force the world to buy at the top. Then they release a flood of insider stock into a crowd of retail buyers who were handed the shares up high.

When the price finally breaks the offering level, the people who got in years ago at pennies on today's dollar will hit the bid, and the exit liquidity is your retirement account.

And what are you actually left holding? Strip away the science fiction and the only business inside SpaceX that reliably earns money is Starlink, which produced $1.2 billion of operating income last quarter. A wonderful business worth hundreds of billions on its best day. NOT $2 trillion.

Serious fair value work lands around $30 a share.

Nobody has been a bigger bear on this deal than me. I called it out the moment it started trading, and it is already playing out on schedule as the shares have given back the entire squeeze and slipped below their opening print.

I was Peter Lynch's auto analyst back in 1981 and I have watched every disaster since, and I am telling you this is one of the great wealth transfers of my lifetime packed into a fancy narrative.

Tesla was the biggest misallocation of capital in the history of stock markets. SpaceX may have just surpassed it.

SPCX goes straight onto my short list, and the beauty of this setup is that the catalyst is not a guess or something, it is literally a PUBLISHED CALENDAR.

This is the most grossly overpriced stock at scale that I have ever seen.

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@MsVeilMoney No

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@elonmusk @JonErlichman Pump and dump!

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@brivael If you believe this BS all insiders should agree to a 5 year lockup. They of course would never agree to this coz they know it’s likely to be valued at less than the IPO price in 5 years when they write off the AI business.

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@elonmusk Valuation = Revenue multiple of hopes and dreams! Hard pass.

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@IvankaTrumpRV2 E

[Chris Murphy 🟧 @ChrisMurphyCT]

If I were in Trump's Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment.

This is completely, utterly unhinged. He's already killed thousands. He's going to kill thousands more.

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

I am reaching out to the @X community for advice with the likely risk of sharing TMI. I have been sufficiently upset about the whole matter that I have lost sleep thinking about it and I am hoping that this post will enable me to get this matter off my chest.

By way of background, I started a family office called TABLE about 15 years ago and hired a friend who had previously managed a family office, and years earlier, had been my personal accountant. She is someone that I trusted implicitly and consider to be a good person.

The office started small, but over the last decade, the number of personnel and the cost of the office grew massively. The growth was entirely on the operational side as the investment team has remained tiny. While my investment portfolio grew substantially, the investments I had made were almost entirely passive and TABLE simply needed to account for them and meet capital calls as they came in. While TABLE purchased additional software and other systems that were supposed to improve productivity, the team kept increasing in size at a rapid rate, and the expenses continued to grow even faster.

While I would periodically question the growing expenses and high staff turnover, I stayed uninvolved with the office other than a once-a-year meeting when I briefly reviewed the operations and the financials and determined bonus compensation for the President and the CFO. I spent no time with any of the other employees or the operations. The whole idea behind TABLE was that it would handle everything other than my day job so that I would have more time for my job and my family.

Over the last six years, expenses ballooned even further, employee turnover accelerated, and I became concerned that all was not well at TABLE. It was time for me to take a look at what was going on.

Nearly four years ago, I recruited my nephew who had recently graduated from Harvard and put him to work at Bremont, a British watchmaker, one of my only active personal investments to figure out the issues at the company and ultimately assist in executing a turnaround. He did a superb job.

When he returned from the UK late last year after a few years at Bremont, I asked him to help me figure out what was going on with TABLE. When I explained to TABLE’s president what he would be doing, she became incredibly defensive, which naturally made me more concerned.

My nephew went to work by first meeting with each employee to understand their roles at the company and to learn from them what ideas they had on how things could be improved. He got an earful.

Our first step in helping to turn around TABLE was a reduction in force including the president and about a third of the team, retaining excellent talent that had been desperate for new leadership.

Now here is where I need your advice.

All but one of the employees who were terminated acted professionally and were gracious on the way out (excluding the president who had a notice period in her contract, is currently still being paid, and with whom I have not yet had a discussion).

The highest compensated terminated employee other than the president, an in-house lawyer (let’s call her Ronda), told us that three months of severance was not enough and demanded two years’ severance despite having worked at the company for only two and one half years.

When I learned of Ronda's request for severance, I offered to speak with her to understand what she was thinking, but she refused to do so. A few days ago, we received a threatening letter from a Silicon Valley law firm.

In the letter, Ronda’s counsel suggests that her termination is part of longstanding issues of ‘harassment and gender discrimination’ – an interesting claim in light of the fact that Ronda was in charge of workplace compliance – and that her termination was due to:

“unlawful, retaliatory, and harmful conduct directed towards her. Both [Ronda] and I [Ronda’s lawyer] have spoken with you about [Ronda’s] view of what a reasonable resolution would include given the circumstances. Thus far, TABLE has refused to provide any substantive response. This letter provides the last opportunity to reach a satisfactory agreement. If we cannot do so, [Ronda] will seek all appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.”

The letter goes on to explain the basis for the “unsafe work environment” claim at TABLE:

“In early 2026, Pershing Square’s founder Bill Ackman installed his nephew in an unidentified role at TABLE, Ackman’s family office. [His nephew]—whose only work experience had been for TABLE where he was seconded abroad for the last four years to a UK watch company held by Ackman—began appearing at TABLE’s offices and conducting interviews of employees without a clear explanation of his role or the purposes of these interviews. During this period, he made a series of inappropriate and genderbased [sic] comments to multiple employees that created an unsafe work environment. Among other things, [his nephew] made remarks about female employees’ ages (“Tell me you are nowhere near 40”), physical appearance (“Your body does not look like you have kids”), as well as intrusive questions about family planning and sexual orientation (“Who carried your son? Who will carry your next child?”). These incidents were reported to senior leadership at TABLE and Pershing Square. Rather than being addressed appropriately, the response from senior management reflected, at best, willful blindness to the inappropriateness of [his nephew]’s remarks and, at worst, tacit endorsement.”

The above allegations about my nephew had previously been brought to my attention by TABLE’s president when they occurred. When I learned of them, I told the president that I would speak to him directly and encouraged her to arrange for him to get workplace sensitivity training. The president assured me that she would do so.

When I spoke to my nephew, he explained what he actually had said and how his actual remarks had been received, not at all as alleged in the legal letter from Ronda’s counsel. I have also spoken to others at the lunch table who confirmed his description of the facts. In any case, he meant no harm, was simply trying to build rapport with other employees, and no one, as far as I understand, was offended.

Ironically, Ronda claims in her legal letter that TABLE didn’t take HR compliance seriously, yet Ronda was in charge of HR compliance at TABLE and the person who gave my nephew his workplace sensitivity training after the alleged incidents. In any case, Ronda, as head of compliance, should have kept a record or raised an alarm if indeed there was pervasive harassment or other such problems at the company, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true.

So why does Ronda believe she can get me to pay her nearly $2 million, i.e., two years of severance, nearly one year of severance for each of her years at the company? Well, here is where some more background would be helpful.

Over the last two months, I have been consumed with a major family medical issue – one of my older daughters had a massive brain hemorrhage on February 5th and has since been making progress on her recovery – and I am in the midst of a major transaction for my company which I am executing from a hospital room office next to her . While the latter business matter is publicly known, the details of my daughter’s situation are only known to Ronda because of her role at our family office.

Now, let’s get back to the subject at hand.

Unfortunately, while New York and many other states have employment-at-will, there has emerged an industry of lawyers who make a living from bringing fake gender, race, LGBTQ and other discrimination employment claims in order to extract larger severance payments for terminated employees, and it needs to stop.

The fake claim system succeeds because it costs little to have a lawyer send a threatening letter and nearly all of the lawyers in this field work on contingency so there is no or minimal cash cost to bring a claim. And inevitably, nearly 100% of these claims are settled because the public relations and legal costs of defending them exceed the dollar cost of the settlement. The claims are nearly always settled with a confidentiality agreement where the employee who asserts the fake claims remains anonymous and as a result, there is no reputational cost to bringing false claims.

The consequences of this sleazy system (let’s call it ‘the System’) are the increased costs of doing business which is a tax on the economy and society. There are other more serious problems due to the System. Unfortunately, the existence of an industry of plaintiff firms and terminated employees willing to make these claims makes it riskier for companies to hire employees from a protected class, i.e., LGBTQ, seniors, women, people of color etc. because it is that much more reputationally damaging and expensive to be accused of racism, sexism, and/or intolerance for sexual diversity than for firing a white male as juries generally have less sympathy for white males.

The System therefore increases the risk of discrimination rather than reducing it, and the people bringing these fake claims are thereby causing enormous harm to the other members of these protected classes.

So what happened here?

Ronda was vastly overpaid and overqualified for the job that she did at TABLE. She was paid $1.05 million plus benefits last year for her work which was largely comprised of filling out subscription agreements and overseeing an outside law firm on closing passive investments in funds and in private and venture stage companies, some compliance work, and managing the office move from one office to another. She had a very good gig as she was highly paid, only had to go into the office three days a week, and could work from anywhere during the summer.

Once my nephew showed up and started to investigate what was going on, she likely concluded that there was a reasonable possibility she would be terminated, as her job was in the too-easy-and-to-good-to-be-true category. The problem was that she was not in a protected class due to her race, age or sexual identity so she had to construct the basis for a claim. While she is female and could in theory bring a gender-based discrimination claim, she reported to the president who is female and to whom she is very close, which makes it difficult for her to bring a harassment claim against her former boss.

When my nephew complimented a TABLE employee at lunch about how young she looked – in response to saying she was going to her 40-year-old sister’s birthday party, he said ‘she must be your older sister’ – Ronda immediately reported it to our external HR lawyer. She thereby began building her case.

The other problem for Ronda bringing a claim is that she was terminated alongside 30% of other TABLE employees as part of a restructuring so it is very difficult for her to say that she was targeted in her termination or was retaliated against. TABLE is now hiring an external fractional general counsel as that is all the company needs to process the relatively limited amount of legal work we do internally. In short, Ronda was eminently qualified and capable and did her job. She was just too much horsepower for what is largely an administrative legal role so she had to come up with something else to bring a claim.

Now Ronda knew I was a good target and it was a good time to bring a claim against me. She also knew that I was under a lot of pressure because on March 4th when Ronda was terminated, my daughter had not yet emerged from consciousness, she was not yet breathing on her own, and my daughter and we were fighting for her life. I was and remain deeply engaged in her recovery while at the same time I was working on finishing the closing for the private placement round for my upcoming IPO.

Ronda also knew that publicity about supposed gender discrimination and a “hostile and unsafe work environment” are not things that a CEO of a company about to go public wants to have released into the media. And she may have thought that the nearly $2 million she was asking for would be considered small in the context of the reputational damage a lawsuit could cause, regardless of the fact that two years of severance was an absurd amount for an employee who had only worked at TABLE for 30 months.

She also likely considered that I wouldn’t want to embarrass my nephew by dragging him into the klieg lights when her claims emerged publicly.

So, in summary, game theory would say that I would certainly settle this case, for why would I risk negative publicity at a time when I was preparing our company to go public and also risk embarrassing my nephew.

Notably, she hired a Silicon Valley law firm, rather than a typical NY employment firm. This struck me as interesting as her husband works for one of the most prominent Silicon Valley venture firms whose CEO, I am sure, has no tolerance for these kinds of fake claims that sadly many venture-backed companies also have to deal with. I mention this as I suspect her husband likely has been working with her on the strategy for squeezing me as, in addition to being a computer scientist, he is a game theorist. My only advice for him is to understand more about your opponent before you launch your first move.

All of the above said, gender, race, LGBTQ and other such discrimination is a real thing. Many people have been harmed and deserve compensation for this discrimination, and these companies and individuals should be punished for engaging in such behavior.

Which brings me to the advice I am seeking from the X community.

I am not planning to follow the typical path and settle this ‘claim.’ Rather, I am going to fight this nonsense to the end of the earth in the hope that it inspires other CEOs to do the same so we shut down this despicable behavior that is a large tax on society, employment, and the economy and contributes to workplace discrimination rather than reducing it.

Do you agree or disagree that this is the right approach?

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@SafeStreetRebel @anna_questions Lose some weight so your body isn’t wider than two pavement blocks!!!

[Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 @seanhannity]

.@GavinNewsom - It is amazing you are now a full time world traveler, full time X poster, full time Trump stalker, full time podcaster and now full time author and no show governor as your state collapses.

If you gave a shit about the people of California you would make sure fire hydrants and reservoirs had water for predictable wildfires and winds, lower taxes, resolve homelessness , fix your broken educational system, balance your budget, stop rewarding and protecting illegal immigrants, that’s bankrupting your state and some are committing the most violent crimes vs your citizens and causing the largest mass migration out of your state as a result.

Spare me your phony lectures about your impoverished life. Tells us more about the Safaris you went on as a child. Your slick hair gel, shtick and bullshit is getting old. You are the worst governor in the country. https://t.co/erAdP7T6ek

[Fareed Zakaria @FareedZakaria]

Blue cities are out of control, promising more, spending more, delivering less and pushing off fiscal problems to some future day.

Democrats in city halls should stop governing as if the goal is to announce new entitlements, and instead make government work.

My take:

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@ClownWorld Customer sounds FAT. Eaten too many unsalted fries.

[TJ Capital @CapitalTj]

@GoldenAgeUnfold D. And I’m a CA Democrat. Hoping Ossoff runs

[Shawn Farash @Shawn_Farash]

TRUMP CALLS OUT BAD BUNNY!

[WarrenVsCCP | 🇺🇸🇹🇼🇺🇸 @WarrenVsCCP]

Meet Eileen Gu, American 🇺🇸 by passport, competing for Beijing 🇨🇳.

She’s American🇺🇸, but chose to compete for China🇨🇳.

China 🇨🇳 doesn’t recognize dual citizenship.

If you want to represent China 🇨🇳 on the world stage, then be consistent — give up the U.S. 🇺🇸 passport.

You can’t claim the benefits of America 🇺🇸 while competing under a system that doesn’t even acknowledge dual loyalty.

Pick a side.

[吴建民 @sifan198964]

美国媒体报道，昨天在米兰获得2026冬奥会团体花滑金牌的Alysa Liu（刘美贤），曾经也像谷爱凌一样，是被北京列为归化招募人才。中国每年提供上千万的训练经费，她可以得到上亿元人民币代言的广告产品。
面对诱惑，Alysa Liu（刘美贤）的父亲，我的八九战友，六四广州学运领袖刘俊国，坚决给予了回绝。
知道谷燕的人很多，知道刘俊国的人很少，他是在旧金山执业的美国律师，是我当年八九的战友，图四就是我和他一起参加一场公益活动的截图。
回望历史，三十多年前，有两个中国青年男女分别来到美国拼搏，他们的名字分别是谷爱凌和母亲谷燕，Alysa Liu（刘美贤）和父亲刘俊国。
他们各自作为单亲爸爸和单亲妈妈都把女儿女儿培养成了世界冠军，但是他们培养的女儿，人生观和价值观有着天壤之别，一个选择了效忠养育她的美国，一个选择了给她更多金钱名利的中国。
谷爱凌作为美国出生，美国培养的冬奥选手，选择每四年做一次中国人，把金牌留给中国，她们母女两人对美国的背叛，已经引起美国人的愤怒，目前已经在美国英文媒体圈引发巨大的争议，要求解除谷爱凌美国国籍的呼声已经铺天盖地。