Readers weigh in on the SpaceX IPO, IBM as a quantum computing winner, and the marketing of longevity.
To the Editor:
Countless studies have been done on initial public offerings since the 1970s, and the story is always the same (“The SpaceX IPO Is a Game You Play at Your Own Risk,” Cover Story, May 22). Virtually all IPOs trade below the opening price within one year. Unless you get shares on the offering from your broker, do not buy on the day it opens. You can absolutely buy if you want to day-trade or minute-trade, but if you want to buy for the long term—wait. It’s as close to a guarantee as you get in this game. The odds heavily favor being able to beat the initial price.
Ray Noack
On Barrons.com
The Lion’s Share
To the Editor:
Andy Serwer calls out the IPO dilemma, which prevents meaningful participation in premarket appreciation in many attractive unicorns (“SpaceX Went Up 1,000-Fold—and You Couldn’t Buy It,” Up & Down Wall Street, May 21). As a retail investor, I’m angered at being sidelined, watching from under the table as private-equity and venture-capital interests devour the entire meal. It’s long overdue for the Securities and Exchange Commission to take measures, including shortening the IPO on-ramp. By the time most enterprises become public, there’s no meat left on the bone for retail investors to enjoy.
Tom Routliffe
Wakefield, R.I.
Quantum Guesswork
To the Editor:
Yes, picking quantum computing “winners” is simply a wager at this point (“This Wall Street Veteran Thinks Quantum Is More Than a Speculative Bet. Sizing Up the Stocks,” Interview, May 21). However, IBM will almost certainly be a player in the space. IBM is cheap for a tech stock, especially after its erroneous inclusion in the “at risk” software-as-a-service bucket. The recent run-up due to the federal government’s $2 billion investment was an unexpected gift.
Mark Horn
On Barrons.com
The Longevity Industry
To the Editor:
“Live Longer and Better. Does ‘Biohacking’ Really Work?” (Retirement Quarterly, May 21) has little to do with living longer and healthier and more to do with the marketing of it. The promise of all of the biomarkers cited has yet to be shown to be beneficial in real outcomes—that is, living longer and less morbidity. The occasional mention of the lack of data in the article should be a red flag to any person in science just as it would be to any investor looking to invest in a company or a product. The paraphrased defense “detecting disease early…how can it hurt?” is irresponsible and ignores the potential risks and increased costs of chasing vague unproven tests and therapies, not to mention the potential harms of the invasive testing and treating done to chase these dubious findings.
Dr. Louis J. Papa
Rochester, N.Y.
Send letters to: mail@barrons.com. To be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the writer’s name, address, and phone number. Letters are subject to editing.