A month away from its closure, onetime gambling oasis Primm, Nev., located along the state border with Southern California, has a new lease on life.

The Primm family, owners of the land that includes three casino resorts and other businesses along the 15 Freeway, announced Tuesday a partnership intended to save the struggling state-line strip and hundreds of jobs.

The deal allows Las Vegas-based Terrible’s, owned by the Herbst family and perhaps most famous for a string of gas stations and convenience stores, to operate the properties.

“What we saw with them is the same energy that we had in rebuilding Primm,” said Cory Clemetson, describing the new deal with Terrible’s in an interview with The Times. Clemetson is president of Primm South Real Estate Co. and a grandson of Primm founder Ernie Primm, who made a name for himself in Southern California in the 1930s and ’40s with his Gardena card rooms.

“Primm has long been one of Nevada’s most recognizable destinations,” said Tim Herbst, president of Terrible’s, in a statement. “This partnership reflects our commitment to preserving that legacy while creating new opportunities for growth, investment, and tourism for decades to come.”

Terrible’s takes over for Affinity Gaming, owned by private equity company Z Capital Partners, in the full-circle world of southern Nevada gaming. In 2010, Herbst Gaming declared bankruptcy and saw Primm taken over by Z Capital Partners.

An email to representatives for Affinity Gaming was not immediately returned.

The process for the return of Terrible’s to Primm kick-started May 5, when Affinity confirmed the closure of Primm Valley Casino Resorts.

Affinity’s subsidiary, Primadonna Co. LLC, sent termination notices to more than 300 employees effective July 4.

The closure was devastating, Clemetson said.

“It felt like a gut punch,” he said. “I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me that they would announce something like that for the Fourth of July. Laying off in excess of 300 Nevadans who are mostly paycheck to paycheck with nowhere to go didn’t sit well with my family.”

Primm Valley was the last of three resorts built between 1977 and 1994 at the site that remained in full operation.

Buffalo Bill’s, the largest of the three resorts, closed 24-7 operations in July 2025, after Whiskey Pete’s, the original casino, shuttered in December 2024.

Affinity Gaming declined multiple requests from The Times to speak about Primm’s struggles.

In a letter presented at a Clark County Board of Commissioners meeting, Erin Barnett, Affinity’s vice president and general counsel, wrote in October 2024 that “traffic at the state line has proved to be heavily weighted towards weekend activity and is insufficient to support three full-time casino properties.”

Scott Butera, Affinity’s chief executive and president, offered a few comments about the closure at the May 21 Nevada Gaming Commission meeting.

“As a tenant with a difficult lease and an expensive property and increased competition every day in California … it just became a very difficult thing,” he said, “and we’ve been losing money for years there.”

Clemetson said that Affinity asked for help over the years, such as potential rent reductions, but that the Primm family was unaware of Affinity’s finances.

As for the future, Clemetson said Terrible’s was in the process of reacquiring a gaming license for Primm, which he hoped would happen in the next three weeks.

He also said it was the goal of the Herbst and Primm families to try to keep all workers who received a termination notice employed.

Clemetson said he was excited about Primm’s future under Terrible’s and chalked up its bankruptcy in 2010 to the Great Recession.

“They suffered a similar fate of many big brands like MGM and Caesar’s,” Clemetson said.

“They’re very well thought of in Nevada and they’re a very successful family who’s done well,” he added.

Speaking of Primm’s chances of regaining its former glory, Clemetson reached back into his own past as a young sports agent for players on the L.A. Galaxy soccer team.

“I can’t tell you how many people told me I was dumb to get involved representing soccer players because soccer would never make it here,” he said. “Now, Major League Soccer has a few franchises over a billion dollars.”

As for Tim Herbst and his family, “we believe Primm’s best days are still ahead.”

A strike that had the potential to disrupt the U.S. World Cup opener at SoFi Stadium has been averted, with United Here Local 11 and Legends Global, the stadium’s food-service operator, agreeing Tuesday to a tentative deal.

The nearly 2,000 workers represented by the union, which includes dishwashers, concession workers, bartenders and servers, voted last week to authorize a strike with 96% of those voting supporting the decision to walk off the job. Workers were demanding salary increases, protection against subcontracting and job loss through automation, and were refusing to comply with FIFA’s request to collect sensitive private information such as nationality and home addresses.

Details of the new contract were not released but the union had demanded “substantial increases” in pay to more than $30 an hour while Legends proposed wage freezes for some workers and a 25-cent hourly increase for cooks and dishwashers.

“We got major economic gains and significant protections around subcontracting automation,” Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president, said. “I don’t know the soccer analogy, but it’s a grand slam of a contract.”

Legends was also happy with the deal.

“We are pleased to have reached an agreement with Unite Here Local 11 and look forward to delivering an outstanding hospitality experience for fans at the FIFA World Cup matches,” the company said in a statement.

Petersen said the final sticking points included a prohibition preventing any accrediting agency, including Legends, from sharing workers’ personal information and the right for union members to walk off the job without prejudice if they feel threatened by the presence of Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials at the stadium.

“That was the last piece that fell into place [Monday] afternoon, which, you know, is a unique, unprecedented provision,” he said. “Because when you have a contract, you can’t strike. We carved out this exception.”

FIFA, global soccer’s governing body and the organizer of the World Cup, said it needed the information as part of its background-check procedure. But the union feared the sensitive date would be shared with immigration authorities.

Union members have been working without a contract for a year and Petersen said workers would have picketed the stadium ahead of Friday’s tournament opener between the U.S. and Paraguay. SoFi Stadium will play host to seven other World Cup games, including the U.S. group-play finale with Turkey on June 25.

“The privacy concerns, and then the ability to strike. It’s about being able to work in peace, right? Being able at least to have some protections,” Petersen said.

FIFA has declined to comment on the contract talks, saying they are “between Legends Global and Unite Here Local 11.” But its insistence on collecting personal information was a major stumbling block to a deal.

FIFA said it was partnering with the governments of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the three countries in which the 39-day tournament will be played, “to enhance safety and security of all workers, staff, team members, vendors, journalists, volunteers, and spectators by mitigating potential insider threats. … Such name checks do not constitute pre-employment checks.”

Petersen said the contract runs through April 2028, expiring about 2 ½ months before the 2028 Olympics comes to SoFi Stadium.

Fidelity Investments, the big brokerage and mutual fund firm, long has had a rule protecting its small retail clients from plunging into initial public stock offerings while the shares were still subject to IPO-related hype.

In most cases, Fidelity would allow IPO investments only for clients with at least $500,000 in their brokerage accounts.

No longer. For the SpaceX IPO expected to launch on June 12, Fidelity has cut the threshold to only $2,000.

It’s a curious decision, considering that the SpaceX IPO will be not only the largest such IPO in history — with a possible $75 billion in shares coming on the market, valuing the entire company at about $1.8 trillion — but potentially the most over-hyped. SpaceX, you may know, is the biggest company controlled by Elon Musk, so if you buy its shares, you’re buying into his vision.

A Fidelity representative told me that it made the change because SpaceX has reserved about 30% of its offered shares for retail investors, much more than the traditional 10%, “which means there are more shares being offered to retail clients.”

Fidelity’s liberalized policy is an example of how Wall Street has been moving the investment goalposts in order to stuff more of SpaceX’s shares into the portfolios of ordinary investors.

Fidelity’s clients, of course, can make their own decision about whether to buy in, but that’s not the case for owners of some stock index funds, who may find SpaceX among their holdings whether they like it or not.

That’s because managers of stock index funds are duty-bound to add a stock to their holdings once it’s added to the index they track.

The risk inherent in the SpaceX IPO may fall significantly on unwitting retirement account holders, who tend to be heavily invested in index funds. Vanguard, which pioneered index mutual funds, says that about 30% of retirement account holders choose equity funds if they’re offered by plan sponsors, and most are indexed.

There’s no mystery why Wall Street is anxious to sell SpaceX to the small investor. It’s because almost all of the major investment banks, led by Goldman Sachs, are underwriters of this massive stock issue, so they have an incentive to get the shares out the door promptly. Accordingly, there has been a big push on the Street to stuff them into the leading stock indices, leaving index fund managers no choice but to buy.

Before getting into some of the weirder features of the SpaceX IPO, here’s a brief primer into how index funds work and how index fund managers have responded to the prospect of a huge and widely followed stock issue dropping onto the market. Nor is SpaceX the only mega-IPO lurking on the horizon. It’s likely to be followed this year by the AI firms for Anthropic and OpenAI.

The overseers of stock indices, of which the largest are Standard & Poor’s (which owns the S&P 500, the standard benchmark for the overall stock market) and Nasdaq (owner of the Nasdaq 100 index of the largest Nasdaq-listed companies), generally have been cautious about when to add a stock to their indices.

Standard & Poor’s, for example, waits until a stock has been publicly traded for at least a year and has turned a profit in four quarters, including the quarter prior to its addition. At Nasdaq, the rule has been that companies have to wait for at least three months and have at least a 10% float, meaning that at least 10% of its shares are available for trading.

With the SpaceX IPO in the offing, however, Nasdaq reduced its “seasoning” period to only 15 days and removed the 10% threshold. I asked Nasdaq if it made the change to entice SpaceX to list on its exchange rather than on the New York Stock Exchange, but didn’t get an answer. Anyway, Nasdaq did get the listing.

Another index operator, FTSE Russell, which manages the broad-based Russell 2000 index, reduced its entry threshold for big companies to as few as five trading days after an IPO, rather than waiting for the next quarterly or annual report.

Investors may have dodged the most significant bullet on June 5, when Standard & Poor’s opted not to change its index-listing rules for any of its market indices. But if you’re holding index funds that track the big-cap Nasdaq 100 or the Russell 2000, you’ll be tethered to SpaceX , depending on its weight in the index — if it keeps flying, good for you. If it crashes, you’ll take a loss.

That brings us back to SpaceX itself. As its name indicates, the company is best known as a rocketship firm, with billions of dollars in U.S. government contracts aimed at transporting humans to the moon.

But what is it, really? In its prospectus, the company describes its mission as building “the systems and technologies necessary to make life multiplanetary, to understand the true nature of the universe, and to extend the light of consciousness to the stars.”

This is not the language of Benjamin Graham and David Dodd, the gurus of value investing. It’s more like the language of Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote science fiction. (As it happens, Heinlein coined the term “grok,” which Musk took as the name for the AI bot of his social media platform X.)

Even if you believe in the goals, none of them is rationally achievable within the traditional investor’s horizon of a few years or even a few decades, much less within your lifetime. The same goes for the company’s claim of a “total addressable market,” or TAM, of $28.5 trillion for its products and services; for perspective, consider that the gross domestic product of the United States in 2025 was about $32 trillion.

Almost all of SpaceX’s claimed TAM comes from its prospective AI business — the only one of its three business segments that has virtually no concrete achievements to claim. It’s not clear that even Heinlein would have written such a stretch into his books.

In real life, Aswath Damodaran, the stock valuation expert at NYU, says the figure “borders on fantasy” and places it in the same category as other “bloated and patently unreachable numbers floated for companies” by Silicon Valley promoters.

Currently, the jewel in SpaceX’s revenue crown is Starlink, Musk’s network of orbiting internet-providing satellites. Starlink provided the largest share of SpaceX’s revenue in 2025 — $11.32 billion of its $18.8 billion — and was its only profitable segment, with $4.42 billion in net income. Space operations lost $657 million on $4.08 billion in revenue, and AI lost $6.36 billion on $3.2 billion in revenue.

The IPO, therefore, looks like a massive bet on AI, propped up by profits from Starlink. There’s reason to be concerned about Starlink’s future, however. SpaceX’s IPO prospectus discloses that although the number of Starlink subscribers has more than doubled over the last year, to 10.3 million as of March 31 from 5 million a year ago, its average revenue per subscriber has been shrinking, to $66 as of March 31 from $99 at the end of 2023.

Moreover, Starlink satellites have a useful life of only five years, meaning that the fleet has to be refreshed more often than the average American household replaces the family car, at untold expense in research and development and launches. About 10,000 satellites are currently in orbit.

It’s also possible that Starlink may run into increased political backlash. Its satellites have been blamed for interfering with astronomical observations and posing an ever-increasing risk of space collisions.

In 2021, Musk dismissed the collision concerns: “Space is just extremely enormous,” he said, “and satellites are very tiny.”

Then there are the governance features of SpaceX. Put simply, only one person is in a position to make any decisions, Elon Musk. He will own a mere 12.3% of the Class A shares due to be issued in the IPO, which each receive one shareholder vote, but 93.6% of the Class B shares, which have 10 votes each. That gives him 85.1% of all shareholder votes. As a result, the prospectus says, “Mr. Musk will be able to control the outcome of matters requiring shareholder approval,” including the selection of the board of directors.

Will he exercise his control mostly for the benefit of shreholders, or for himself? His record isn’t encouraging. As I’ve reported, he has a habit of using his various companies to prop up each other, most recently by sticking SpaceX and other companies with the excess inventory of Cybertrucks, the ridiculed pickups marketed by Tesla, which he also controls. When his SolarCity solar energy company ran into financial trouble in 2016, he merged it into Tesla with the assent of a compliant Tesla board.

None of this necessarily means that SpaceX will be a drag on the market. It could soar on IPO days and remain aloft, despite what the numbers suggest will be a majestic overvaluation from the inception. Or not. Either way, small investors could end up holding the bag.