Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Emanuel's avatar

So it looks like the appointment of Jared Isaacman as head of NASA - a strange decision as outlined in this analysis - was influenced by Elon Musk as a means to cement the prospects of his SpaceX business. Institutional corruption at its finest, but I guess he wanted something back for the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the Trump election campaign.

That all seems to have back-fired now. Following the bust-up between Musk and the President, the White House has withdrawn Isaacman as its nominee and Donald Trump said he would announce a new candidate soon.

Full story: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/01/trump-drops-nasa-nominee-jared-isaacman-scrapping-elon-musks-pick

Expand full comment
Blanca's avatar

This whole story sounds like something straight out of a Netflix script. A high school dropout turns into a NASA chief and builds a payments empire along the way. Pretty wild. But honestly, what caught my attention more were the parts the article kind of glossed over.

First off, over 250 million dollars in stock buybacks, and yet the total share count still doubled? That’s not offsetting dilution, that’s basically using investor money to cover up how much stock they’ve handed out. If a company keeps issuing equity to insiders and then borrows cash to buy it back, that’s not innovation. That’s financial gymnastics.

Another thing the article didn’t really explore is why Shift4 avoids raising money by issuing new shares. They always go the debt-plus-cash route. Maybe that made sense back when rates were low, but now? Borrowing at high interest to avoid diluting founders sounds more like they're protecting their own upside than maximizing long-term value.

Look, I’m not saying Shift4 doesn’t have real tech chops. Their integration across restaurants, hotels, and e-commerce is smart. But the real test is whether this company can keep growing once the founder steps away. And now with the CEO off to NASA, what's left is a pile of debt, diluted shareholders, and a new leader Wall Street hasn’t really met yet.

This isn't a moonshot. It's a tightrope walk at 30,000 feet. For investors, unless the price really makes sense, this space adventure might be better watched from the sidelines.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts