Ed Elson

And I understand that at these valuations, you may want to stay away from it.

I agree with that.

The

What typically an investment bank does, one of the reasons to go public is it's a branding event, and you only get to go public once.

And you want to manufacture scarcity and hype such that you get a pop.

And I've even said, advise companies that are going public, price well below the demand, because if you're up 40, 60, 80, circle went public at 200% pop,

the additional five or 7% dilution, which isn't the case here because they're raising so much money, but the additional five or 7% dilution from, or two or 3% from leaving money on the table, because technically you're raising money.

You could raise a lot more money at a lower dilution, but the branding you get when you're seen as, wow, this IPO,

even if you can raise money to cheaper costs, to be able to have CNBC analysts fawning over the fact that your first trade was 30% up, that's almost worth the dilution because it creates a certain momentum and halo, wow, this must be a great company.

No, the bankers manufactured the pop.

Sometimes they misestimate it and the pop is more, but the last thing you want is a broken IPO, because that'll be the story.

If SpaceX were to price at 1.8 and go out on the first trade at 1.5,

That would be an extraordinary victory for everyone, including SpaceX.

Obviously not the first trade, the people who bought into the IPO or got allocation, but every story would be SpaceX broken IPO.

Not SpaceX raises money at 80 times,

revenues, but SpaceX, a broken IPO.

So the banks are smart at estimating demand.

They'll look at the number of times oversubscribed it is, and they'll say price lower, price lower, whatever it is, and such that we can manufacture a pop.

So if you're fortunate enough

and 99.9% of people aren't, to get into our allocation in the IPO, then fine.