12 ms·

> Get a job at SpaceX The equity upside at hire # 12,001, when the market cap is $150B... is probably not great. I mean it might be a ton of fun, I just would

> Get a job at SpaceX The equity upside at hire # 12,001, when the market cap is $150B... is probably not great. I mean it might be a ton of fun, I just wouldn't do it for the 100x returns.

hef19898 3y ago
Hold on, they have an evaliation of 150 billion, more than 30x the revenue?
- justrealist 3y ago
  That's pretty modest for a company with 100% y/y growth on revenue already in the billions.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Assuming rocket launch demand continues to grow exponentially, which I kind of doubt. Also, I'd love to see how Starlink is accounted for.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >Assuming rocket launch demand continues to grow exponentially The issue here is the market doesn't know where we are on the S curve. If we've looking at space shuttle prices, we are at the end of the curve. If SpaceX pulls off reusability with the starship, then I'm going to make guesses we are much lower on the curve then most expect. If they can get 'cheap' launches of 100-200T to orbit then a massive number of new possibilities open up and SpaceX won't sit around as just a cheap transport monopoly, they expand horizontally into other space based markets.
    - Vecr 3y ago
      Not if the Space Development Agency and SDI have anything to say about it, though I actually doubt they will get funding.
  - orwin 3y ago
    They can only capture the demand for orbital launch. The Russia aggression in 2022 helped a lot, as SpaceX took 'free' market share, and their superior (or rather, inferior) costs gave them the majority of commercial launches from every country except Russia/China, and they will also probably get most Nasa and US allies (except EU) launches. I'll say they will cap at 8-10B revenue (+inflation). But this year, SpaceX will
    - justrealist 3y ago
      Using the market size at $2700/kg to LEO to size the market is ridiculous when they are working on trying to get it to $100/kg to LEO. If the only launch vehicle was the SLS, the market size would be $0. That's not meaningful!
      - orwin 3y ago
        Why would you compare it to Sls, that makes no sense. SLS is meant to replace Saturn 5 launchers, no? It will have like max 20 launches. The market size is limited, because, well, why would you send stuff up there? GPS, telco, science (iss). I guess if you make it cheap enough, high class hostels? (doubt it, and you have to have human rated spacecraft). Until space mining is a thing, and in that case you should rather invest in mining companies, the market size is limited.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  The current P/E ratio for the S&P 500 (growing far more slowly, obviously) is ~25. By many historical metrics, the stock markets are insanely overvalued these days. Far too much cash in the system, bidding up the "values" of anything that remotely resembles an investment.
  - justapassenger 3y ago
    P/E is price to earnings, not revenue. SpaceX is insanely overvalued.
    - cryptoz 3y ago
      Some amount of the value baked-in assumes that SpaceX will earn money on any of the thousands of revenue sources possible in the creation and running of the first large-scale city on Mars. Maybe you think it isn't going to happen - and sure there is some risk (!) - but in the successful case, SpaceX should be worth many trillions. At least.
      - justapassenger 3y ago
        It’s amazing that after hacker community got to see how full of shit guy making those promises is, with Twitter, some still believe that in other areas he’s not lying.
      - angiosperm 3y ago
        Hint: Starship cans are comically inadequate to support a martian colony. They might be just adequate to maintain a lunar outpost -- if they turn out to work at all. We don't even know if humans can survive, long-term, in 0.3g; zero g, anyway, is right out. Life in centrifuges on Mars would be even less fun than in cans. If some follow-on vehicle were ever developed adequate to support a martian colony, and lunar gravity were to turn out to suffice, getting any actual value return from such a vehicle is hard to imagine. You might try to use it to support automated mining of platinum-group metals from asteroids, but it is far from clear how that could be made to work out. That it seems possible in principle is usually not considered a sound basis for investment. Musk certainly understands all of the above. He will cash out long before it is demonstrated to all be a pipe dream.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  4X Revenue and 25 percent profit margin gets you there. Or 8x and a 50% likelihood of getting there. A gamble for sure In my opinion, the more interesting part is the valuation in light of no tangible exit strategy. I wonder what time frame investors are looking at in order to realize their gains.

> Get a job at SpaceX The equity upside at hire # 12,001, when the market cap is $150B... is probably not great. I mean it might be a ton of fun, I just wouldn't do it for the 100x returns.

hef19898 3y ago

Hold on, they have an evaliation of 150 billion, more than 30x the revenue?

justrealist 3y ago
That's pretty modest for a company with 100% y/y growth on revenue already in the billions.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Assuming rocket launch demand continues to grow exponentially, which I kind of doubt. Also, I'd love to see how Starlink is accounted for.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >Assuming rocket launch demand continues to grow exponentially The issue here is the market doesn't know where we are on the S curve. If we've looking at space shuttle prices, we are at the end of the curve. If SpaceX pulls off reusability with the starship, then I'm going to make guesses we are much lower on the curve then most expect. If they can get 'cheap' launches of 100-200T to orbit then a massive number of new possibilities open up and SpaceX won't sit around as just a cheap transport monopoly, they expand horizontally into other space based markets.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    Not if the Space Development Agency and SDI have anything to say about it, though I actually doubt they will get funding.
- orwin 3y ago
  They can only capture the demand for orbital launch. The Russia aggression in 2022 helped a lot, as SpaceX took 'free' market share, and their superior (or rather, inferior) costs gave them the majority of commercial launches from every country except Russia/China, and they will also probably get most Nasa and US allies (except EU) launches. I'll say they will cap at 8-10B revenue (+inflation). But this year, SpaceX will
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Using the market size at $2700/kg to LEO to size the market is ridiculous when they are working on trying to get it to $100/kg to LEO. If the only launch vehicle was the SLS, the market size would be $0. That's not meaningful!
    - orwin 3y ago
      Why would you compare it to Sls, that makes no sense. SLS is meant to replace Saturn 5 launchers, no? It will have like max 20 launches. The market size is limited, because, well, why would you send stuff up there? GPS, telco, science (iss). I guess if you make it cheap enough, high class hostels? (doubt it, and you have to have human rated spacecraft). Until space mining is a thing, and in that case you should rather invest in mining companies, the market size is limited.
bell-cot 3y ago
The current P/E ratio for the S&P 500 (growing far more slowly, obviously) is ~25. By many historical metrics, the stock markets are insanely overvalued these days. Far too much cash in the system, bidding up the "values" of anything that remotely resembles an investment.
- justapassenger 3y ago
  P/E is price to earnings, not revenue. SpaceX is insanely overvalued.
  - cryptoz 3y ago
    Some amount of the value baked-in assumes that SpaceX will earn money on any of the thousands of revenue sources possible in the creation and running of the first large-scale city on Mars. Maybe you think it isn't going to happen - and sure there is some risk (!) - but in the successful case, SpaceX should be worth many trillions. At least.
    - justapassenger 3y ago
      It’s amazing that after hacker community got to see how full of shit guy making those promises is, with Twitter, some still believe that in other areas he’s not lying.
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      Hint: Starship cans are comically inadequate to support a martian colony. They might be just adequate to maintain a lunar outpost -- if they turn out to work at all. We don't even know if humans can survive, long-term, in 0.3g; zero g, anyway, is right out. Life in centrifuges on Mars would be even less fun than in cans. If some follow-on vehicle were ever developed adequate to support a martian colony, and lunar gravity were to turn out to suffice, getting any actual value return from such a vehicle is hard to imagine. You might try to use it to support automated mining of platinum-group metals from asteroids, but it is far from clear how that could be made to work out. That it seems possible in principle is usually not considered a sound basis for investment. Musk certainly understands all of the above. He will cash out long before it is demonstrated to all be a pipe dream.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
4X Revenue and 25 percent profit margin gets you there. Or 8x and a 50% likelihood of getting there. A gamble for sure In my opinion, the more interesting part is the valuation in light of no tangible exit strategy. I wonder what time frame investors are looking at in order to realize their gains.