5 ms·

My mind warps a little when I look at today's valuations. A company that can go to space, at one tenth or less that of companies that live off of social commun

My mind warps a little when I look at today's valuations. A company that can go to space, at one tenth or less that of companies that live off of social communication and advertising. I'm not saying its wrong. Just, personally, cause for pause.

qaq 9y ago
Well Space X is private if it was public I bet it would have higher valuation. (I would gladly invest some money not for ROI but just to help fund what they are trying to accomplish)
- mkempe 9y ago
  Yep, I'd switch a large share of my family portfolio to SpaceX if --and as soon as-- it were possible.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    Oh, yeah, downvoted without an argument. I've been investing in advanced-technology stocks for the last two decades, with happiness. Because that's where the future and growth are located.
    - justrobert 9y ago
      I don't know why others downvoted you, but buying a post-IPO stock is not directly funding the company the majority of the time.
      - mkempe 9y ago
        If you examine advanced tech companies over the last several decades, it is clear that reasonably investing in them as a portfolio is a highly profitable adventure.
        emiliobumachar 9y ago
        I don't doubt it, but beware of survivor bias. Several "advanced tech companies" don't exist anymore, and not taking them into account would be misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias "In finance, survivorship bias is the tendency for failed companies to be excluded from performance studies because they no longer exist. It often causes the results of studies to skew higher because only companies which were successful enough to survive until the end of the period are included."
        mkempe 9y ago
        How is that not taken into account by a portfolio strategy? if one part goes to zero and another part grows 350x over 20 years, what is the problem? even assuming a complete lack of thinking about failing assets while they fall to zero.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Still, let's hope it doesn't become public too soon - it would get immediately reduced to short-term profit-banging corporate machine by the biggest shareholders. For now, we need a company that's driven by a long-term vision (of something else than money).
- John_KZ 9y ago
  Well I personally bet if SpaceX was public it would have crushed to the ground long ago.
zzzzzzzza 9y ago
The question is, what is there of value in space? Science fiction has really misled people into thinking a human space faring society is economically feasible. As a human there's nothing for you in space except, well, basically, space cancer. Raw materials found in space can also be found at the bottom of the ocean or underground with less or similar extraction cost and right next to the only currently existing consumers of said material. Now a "species" of software intelligences on the other hand, which could adapt their bodies to fit their environments, the various collections of asteroids might present a compelling opportunity to build a dyson swarm (assuming they could think of some useful/valuable to them way to use that much energy). It's kind of hilarious to think that people seriously propose terraforming mars as a strategy to avoid the dangers of global warming or nuclear war; there are a thousand other uses for all that time, labor, and money. Many of which could mitigate threats like that for a tiny fraction of the cost.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  A dyson swarm, even a very small one (relative to the size of the sun), would provide insane amounts of energy. Moon tourism will be big. Once it is economical to offer prices in the low six figures, lots of people will want to go. Setting up a successful colony on Mars will be an immense challenge that will require many beneficial technology and engineering innovations that can be exported back to Earth. And of course there is the immense scientific value of exploring other worlds. It's going to happen. It's just a question of when.
  - paxys 9y ago
    You're thinking a lot further in the future. Company valuations are based on real money today. There are no dyson swarms or Mars colonies. Tesla launches communication satellites into low earth orbit and that is how its worth is calculated.
    - codesnik 9y ago
      time when company valuations were based more on today real money than future prospects, hype and speculation, is long gone.
neolefty 9y ago
Another way to measure is replication costs. How hard would it be to create another SpaceX if it failed as a company? My guess: Under $10 billion, but it would take 5 years, even if you had many of the former SpaceX people. Facebook, on the other hand, because it involves buy-in by over a billion customers, is weirdly harder to replicate.

qaq 9y ago

Well Space X is private if it was public I bet it would have higher valuation. (I would gladly invest some money not for ROI but just to help fund what they are trying to accomplish)

mkempe 9y ago
Yep, I'd switch a large share of my family portfolio to SpaceX if --and as soon as-- it were possible.
- mkempe 9y ago
  Oh, yeah, downvoted without an argument. I've been investing in advanced-technology stocks for the last two decades, with happiness. Because that's where the future and growth are located.
  - justrobert 9y ago
    I don't know why others downvoted you, but buying a post-IPO stock is not directly funding the company the majority of the time.
    - mkempe 9y ago
      If you examine advanced tech companies over the last several decades, it is clear that reasonably investing in them as a portfolio is a highly profitable adventure.
      - emiliobumachar 9y ago
        I don't doubt it, but beware of survivor bias. Several "advanced tech companies" don't exist anymore, and not taking them into account would be misleading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias "In finance, survivorship bias is the tendency for failed companies to be excluded from performance studies because they no longer exist. It often causes the results of studies to skew higher because only companies which were successful enough to survive until the end of the period are included."
        mkempe 9y ago
        How is that not taken into account by a portfolio strategy? if one part goes to zero and another part grows 350x over 20 years, what is the problem? even assuming a complete lack of thinking about failing assets while they fall to zero.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Still, let's hope it doesn't become public too soon - it would get immediately reduced to short-term profit-banging corporate machine by the biggest shareholders. For now, we need a company that's driven by a long-term vision (of something else than money).
John_KZ 9y ago
Well I personally bet if SpaceX was public it would have crushed to the ground long ago.

zzzzzzzza 9y ago

The question is, what is there of value in space? Science fiction has really misled people into thinking a human space faring society is economically feasible. As a human there's nothing for you in space except, well, basically, space cancer. Raw materials found in space can also be found at the bottom of the ocean or underground with less or similar extraction cost and right next to the only currently existing consumers of said material. Now a "species" of software intelligences on the other hand, which could adapt their bodies to fit their environments, the various collections of asteroids might present a compelling opportunity to build a dyson swarm (assuming they could think of some useful/valuable to them way to use that much energy). It's kind of hilarious to think that people seriously propose terraforming mars as a strategy to avoid the dangers of global warming or nuclear war; there are a thousand other uses for all that time, labor, and money. Many of which could mitigate threats like that for a tiny fraction of the cost.

dwaltrip 9y ago
A dyson swarm, even a very small one (relative to the size of the sun), would provide insane amounts of energy. Moon tourism will be big. Once it is economical to offer prices in the low six figures, lots of people will want to go. Setting up a successful colony on Mars will be an immense challenge that will require many beneficial technology and engineering innovations that can be exported back to Earth. And of course there is the immense scientific value of exploring other worlds. It's going to happen. It's just a question of when.
- paxys 9y ago
  You're thinking a lot further in the future. Company valuations are based on real money today. There are no dyson swarms or Mars colonies. Tesla launches communication satellites into low earth orbit and that is how its worth is calculated.
  - codesnik 9y ago
    time when company valuations were based more on today real money than future prospects, hype and speculation, is long gone.

neolefty 9y ago

Another way to measure is replication costs. How hard would it be to create another SpaceX if it failed as a company? My guess: Under $10 billion, but it would take 5 years, even if you had many of the former SpaceX people. Facebook, on the other hand, because it involves buy-in by over a billion customers, is weirdly harder to replicate.