SpaceX上市后首份财报：营收激增但资本开支惊人致股价下跌

[music] Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news.

This is Bloomberg Business Week Daily. Reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, [music] companies, and trends shaping today's complex economy. Plus, global business, finance, and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with Carol Masser and [music] Tim Stenc on Bloomberg Radio.

Hi everyone, welcome to the Bloomberg Business Week weekend podcast. A big focus for everyone this week. I got to be honest, [music] since the IPO back in June, this has been a countdown. We are talking about SpaceX and its earnings. Investors got their first look at SpaceX's financials following its landmark IPO. For all the details on the results, head to the Bloomberg end at bloomberg.com. But Tim, like you kept saying, it wasn't really about earnings because the company isn't profitable overall.

Yeah, my dad always reminds me, earnings mean you have earnings and SpaceX didn't have any earnings. Uh bottom line for investors, topline revenue surged, staggering capex sent the stock tumbling in the release. that theme of the eyewatering AI spend. It's something we dig into this hour with a noted critic of the AI build and spend.

That tech critic, he's also the publisher of Where's Your Ed? We're talking about Ed Zitron. He stopped by to dissect the hundreds of billions of dollars going into the AI capex movement and spend overall and why the massive gap between data center spending and actual AI revenue is creating what Ed calls quote an unsustainable circular economy. He's kind of not alone in that thinking.

No, he he's definitely not. And I think what he says really resonates with uh a an audience and and we see that when he comes on the program. AI is talked a lot about by us here at Bloomberg. You know that at this point. So too increasingly are prediction markets and the battles they are dealing with when it comes to their role in the financial world and the growing legal challenges that are questioning them.

That's right. We wanted to hear how Kelshi is keeping up with all the lawsuits filed against them. We do that with Bobby Denalt, head of enforcement and legal counsel at Kshi. Needless to say, there's a lot at stake. And speaking of high stakes and back to AI, Aaron Brown, Bloomberg opinion columnist and former chief risk manager at AQR Capital Management, that's Cliff Asesses's fund, weighs in on the AI hedge fund situational awareness and why a staggering 439% first half return was a glaring warning sign about market mania.

All of that to come this hour. We begin with legal battles surrounding prediction markets. The recent surge in volume across platforms like Kelshi and Poly Market has made event-based trading one of the fastest growing corners of finance. Yes, but also growing regulatory scrutiny of these markets. Just last week, New York State authorities sued Kali for allegedly running an illegal unlicensed gambling operation in the state, marking another legal hurdle for an industry that has won support from the Trump administration.

We needed to learn more. And so for that, we caught up with Robert Denalt, head of enforcement and legal counsel at Kshi.

I mean, as both a New Yorker and a lawyer, I'm alarmed by the overreaching sentiment that's coming from the attorney general's office. So Khi is a licensed federally regulated exchange. By her logic, any federally regulated exchange that's operating with a federal license and overseen by a federal regulator can suddenly be subject to the whims of state criminal enforcement if the attorney general of a particular state wakes up and decides one day that these contracts actually come within New York state gambling law.

That's not how any exchange in US history has ever operated. Right. So, we have we're here at Bloomberg. guys talk about the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, other exchanges, all of them could be potentially affected by the breadth and scope of the New York Attorney General's uh approach and legal theory in terms of how she believes she can regulate and bring to heal federally licensed exchanges here in New York State.

Bobby, are you saying you're the exact same things as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ markets that are saying you're the exact same thing apples to apples? Then

what I am saying is that federal law dictates that that is the case. When a federal law like the commodity exchange act exists and provides for a way for an entity to get licensed by something like the commodity futures trading commission or the securities exchange commission that lensure and that federal regulation is what governs that marketplace. Now if states want to litigate with that regulator on a case-by case basis about what types of contracts might implicate some state laws, that's one question.

And that's some of the lawsuits we've seen over the last year on sports. But this is much more farreaching. This is claiming that that license means nothing and if you don't hold a New York license, you're running a criminal operation and you need to be run out of the state. And I think it's important to ground this sort of in history of disruptive sort of new players in marketplaces, right? Ki's new, but this this sort of licensed regime has existed for many decades.

We've seen similar playbooks used against companies like Uber and Airbnb where states try to throw their weight around and bring crazy cases to block what customers want as a reasonable alternative. We think that that's pretty similar playbook to what the attorney general is following here.

So why why shouldn't Kali seek a license from the New York State Gaming Commission? Why wouldn't you do that?

So it really goes to the way that the business operates. We are a federally licensed exchange that requires us to run open markets that are available nationwide. Our users set the price. Traders set the price. We match traders in an open marketplace with one another. We are not on the other side of individuals trading. We don't run a casino where people can come in and drink and play card games. We don't run a sports book where we profit when people lose.

What we do is run open marketplaces where users define the price point. And that type of financial product, even if it touches on topics that is similar to a topic touched on by a sports book, the way that that product operates is typically what governs what regulations appi apply.

So even though people keep coming at you and say gambling, gambling, gambling, that's why you're not gambling.

So I think it's important to define exactly what they mean when they say gambling. To me, gambling is when you go up against the house. when you go to a place that controls whether you're going to win or lose, they're going to chase losers, they're going to maximize their ability to limit winners, they're not going to run like a true business, but where a where an exchange exists and individuals are setting price with one another.

I think that it operates under a different regulatory framework. And it's not to say that a whole paniply of different topics can be touched on by different regulated products. Right? So we see concerns in options trading or leverage trading, retail traders moving into markets that are traditionally regulated markets at the federal level. I think some of the same concerns exist for those markets. And if you read the lawsuit closely, a ton of the definitions and the language and the descriptions that Attorney General James' office uses could easily be transposed onto Robin Hood, crypto trading, derivatives trading, any sort of trading activity that the attorney general suddenly decides poses a customer threat to individuals who want to participate in.

I mean there is in in April she did sue Coinbase and Gemini for running illegal gambling platforms. There were some like why do you think Khi was singled out in