4 ms·

Not bad for about $12-$16B in total actual revenue. net income probably: $1.5B – $3B P/E:500-1000 Of course people will trip overthemselves to buy it up.

arealaccount 6mo ago
According to commentators on other threads people with any index funds will be automatically buying, no need to trip over ourselves
- elevation 6mo ago
  Any funds you'd recommend that would preserve the legacy 1 year watch period?
  - dmoy 6mo ago
    The float adjustment probably handles this for you? The tiny amount of float of that $1.75T means that for any large total market or s&p or whatever fund (VTI, SPY, etc), SpaceX is going to be a minuscule fraction of the fund. Apple has a float of >99%. SpaceX is going to come out with 3-4% float. Since all big serious total market / whatever index funds are float adjusted, this means that SpaceX will be treated more like a company with $45B market cap, not $1.5T or whatever. If you're buying most index funds, you should literally not care about this. If you buy VTI, then SpaceX is going to be like what, <0.1% of the fund? That is noise.
    - spprashant 6mo ago
      I am not smart with stock legal-ese but I pasting something I found in a different article here. > To balance index integrity and investability, Nasdaq proposes a new approach for including and weighting low-float securities (those below 20% free float). Each low-float security’s weight will be adjusted to five times its free float percentage, capped at 100%. Securities with more than 20% free float will continue to be weighted at full, eligible listed market capitalization, while those below 20% free float will be weighted proportionally to preserve investability. > The rule reportedly includes a 5x float multiplier for low-float stocks, which would require passive vehicles to treat SpaceX as if it had significantly more tradable shares than actually exist, essentially forcing funds to chase the price. It sounds to me like a way to increase demand for low float stocks by treating the float higher than it actually is. Glad to hear the explanations about this.
      - dmoy 6mo ago
        That's just nasdaq though, yea? VTI follows CRSP, not nasdaq. SPY doesn't follow nasdaq. Etc etc I guess figure out whether QQQ is going to do the 5x float thing?
    - danny_codes 6mo ago
      Which is how Elon gets away with fleecing the retails. Someone with 100k in VTI is giving $100 to Elon at a p/e of 1000. You have to hand it to him, he’s the best grifter we’ve seen in years.
    - conductr 6mo ago
      > If you're buying most index funds, you should literally not care about this. Disagree. Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Granted, I’d be more concerned if the fund manager was buying it without a requirement to. The issue still remains about why are we paying so much for this stock? Make it make sense?
      - gruez 6mo ago
        >Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Right, but the whole point of index funds is that you're letting the market decide what's worth investing/buying (via market cap/free float weightings) and at what price. If you're making calls on what's "waste" or not, then you're no longer a passive investor and you're just picking stocks.
        conductr 6mo ago
        Fiduciary responsibility in this context is a large umbrella of responsibilities. They should be fighting the new nasdaq rules on behalf of us. As you mentioned, this forces them to participate in fleecing the passive fund holding public and undermines the whole point of index funds. I don’t see how a fund manager could just blindly take this rule change and not make a ruckus about how it’s forcing him to break their fiduciary obligations Following the rules of the fund and being index is one thing. Sitting silently as this pump and dump is designed to fleece your clients, is something entirely different. > Starting May 1, 2026, Nasdaq rules allow large IPOs (e.g., top 40 market cap) to join the Nasdaq-100 Index within 15 trading days. This forces index-tracking funds to buy new shares, often at inflated valuations shortly after listing, a "fast entry" rule designed for mega-IPOs like SpaceX or OpenAI
        dh2022 6mo ago
        The market will not drive index fund purchases of SpaceX - the 5x multiplier of the floating shares will. And that’s the rub.
    - NoLinkToMe 6mo ago
      We should differentiate two matters here. 1. are your finances going to be screwed from overpaying for SpaceX IPO shares through your index fund? No because as you say, it's a small fraction of typical index funds. 2. Is this a form of financial malfeasance? I think yes. The average 401k has about $150k in it. Even if just 0.5% goes to SpaceX, that's $750 per American. That's a few hundred billion. It's serious cash. If that's going to overpaying Elon 3x or whatever it is for these shares, that's a travesty. Even if for each individual it's a tiny blip that doesn't show up in the annual ROI graphs, it's a form of corruption. Like the programmer infamous Salami slicing stories at banks. If the SpaceX IPO is wildly overpriced, even if you have just 300k in your account, yo
- heyitsmedotjayb 6mo ago
  I remember when this happened with Nortel!
ddp26 6mo ago
Yeah, it's wild. But it's not like the P/E should be 30, what do you think would be fair? That's the thing about SpaceX, some businesses are real businesses that can be modeled in normal ways, like the government launch contracts, and to some degree starlink. Others, like ~all of xAI, and the starship stuff, are being valued completely independent of revenue. I predict the IPO investors will generally follow the analysis consensus today with those eye-popping numbers.
- Noaidi 6mo ago
  I mean, shouldn’t the price to earnings ratio be 1? Anything higher or lower is just speculating or other words, gambling.
  - daedrdev 6mo ago
    I actually dont think the world will collapse by next quarter so am willing to bear the risk of doing so by having higher P/E.
  - lotsofpulp 6mo ago
    At the extremes, taking the next step is speculating because you might trip and fall and hit your head.
  - cheschire 6mo ago
    I remember in the 00’s when people would complain about how ridiculous a 30 PE was for tech stocks, and how no other stock was at that ridiculous price point except tech. Guess that starship has sailed.
  - fastball 6mo ago
    Of course not. If the P/E was 1, every single public company would be immediately gobbled up by Private Equity firms, who would make their money back after a few years of operation and the rest would be pure profit.
    - Noaidi 6mo ago
brentm 6mo ago
It's hard to imagine this turn into 50-60% short term banger starting from a $1.75T market cap, I wonder if people will actually trip over themselves to buy. I had been thinking I wanted to jump on it to flip but at that price and the macro environment it may end up cratering before a pop. Seems like a sketchy buy.
sfblah 6mo ago
I just don't think space is as useful or profitable as people think. Time will tell.
- Bombthecat 6mo ago
  As long as we don't find a new it energy to get stuff up, I don't think so.
- pilgrim0 6mo ago
  You could argue that space is highly useful for creating profitable narratives. You could even argue that this is the whole game.
- jayers 6mo ago
  Profitable remains to be seen, but it is undoubted that the potential resources in the solar system are (pun intended) astronomically valuable. Getting at them is "just" an engineering problem.
- NoLinkToMe 6mo ago
  I'm also curious as to what the moat really is? It's 24 years old with 16 billion revenue. Suppose you had a warchest and had the option to buy SpaceX at 1750 billion, or to spend a fraction of that to replicate its technology. Could you? I've seen estimates that SpaceX spent less than $50-60 billion in cash during its lifetime. That's in the range of its cumulative revenue + capital raised, too. I just don't really see how this couldn't be replicated, if the market was big enough. But it seems to me that Space isn't that useful yet, and the market isn't that big yet, to the point that it doesn't warrant lots of competitors like the thinking on AI.
  - verzali 6mo ago
    Even the SLS cost less than $50bn to develop, which is a lot, but only a fraction of what SpaceX is apparently worth. Developing a new rocket like the Falcon 9, even a reusable one, would cost a private investor less than $10bn. It would take time, that is the hardest part. But in terms of cash, it is a fraction of this valuation. Then a constellation like Starlink - again, we are talking $10-$15bn. Once you have the rocket, the satellite design is not going to cost much. The challenge is getting the regulatory approvals and getting the launch rate up. Then developing something like Starship, again a few billions, certainly far less than $50 bn. A crew capsule too, that would be a few billion, but probable <$5 bn. For a trillion dollars you could probably throw in a space station (the ISS was about $100bn), a few advanced orbiting telescopes, a human mission to Mars, and maybe an intensive exploration of Europa. Heck, why not land something on Pluto just for kicks.
lxgr 6mo ago
But consider that they will eventually own the entire observable universe excluding Earth! /s

arealaccount 6mo ago

According to commentators on other threads people with any index funds will be automatically buying, no need to trip over ourselves

elevation 6mo ago
Any funds you'd recommend that would preserve the legacy 1 year watch period?
- dmoy 6mo ago
  The float adjustment probably handles this for you? The tiny amount of float of that $1.75T means that for any large total market or s&p or whatever fund (VTI, SPY, etc), SpaceX is going to be a minuscule fraction of the fund. Apple has a float of >99%. SpaceX is going to come out with 3-4% float. Since all big serious total market / whatever index funds are float adjusted, this means that SpaceX will be treated more like a company with $45B market cap, not $1.5T or whatever. If you're buying most index funds, you should literally not care about this. If you buy VTI, then SpaceX is going to be like what, <0.1% of the fund? That is noise.
  - spprashant 6mo ago
    I am not smart with stock legal-ese but I pasting something I found in a different article here. > To balance index integrity and investability, Nasdaq proposes a new approach for including and weighting low-float securities (those below 20% free float). Each low-float security’s weight will be adjusted to five times its free float percentage, capped at 100%. Securities with more than 20% free float will continue to be weighted at full, eligible listed market capitalization, while those below 20% free float will be weighted proportionally to preserve investability. > The rule reportedly includes a 5x float multiplier for low-float stocks, which would require passive vehicles to treat SpaceX as if it had significantly more tradable shares than actually exist, essentially forcing funds to chase the price. It sounds to me like a way to increase demand for low float stocks by treating the float higher than it actually is. Glad to hear the explanations about this.
    - dmoy 6mo ago
      That's just nasdaq though, yea? VTI follows CRSP, not nasdaq. SPY doesn't follow nasdaq. Etc etc I guess figure out whether QQQ is going to do the 5x float thing?
  - danny_codes 6mo ago
    Which is how Elon gets away with fleecing the retails. Someone with 100k in VTI is giving $100 to Elon at a p/e of 1000. You have to hand it to him, he’s the best grifter we’ve seen in years.
  - conductr 6mo ago
    > If you're buying most index funds, you should literally not care about this. Disagree. Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Granted, I’d be more concerned if the fund manager was buying it without a requirement to. The issue still remains about why are we paying so much for this stock? Make it make sense?
    - gruez 6mo ago
      >Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Right, but the whole point of index funds is that you're letting the market decide what's worth investing/buying (via market cap/free float weightings) and at what price. If you're making calls on what's "waste" or not, then you're no longer a passive investor and you're just picking stocks.
      - conductr 6mo ago
        Fiduciary responsibility in this context is a large umbrella of responsibilities. They should be fighting the new nasdaq rules on behalf of us. As you mentioned, this forces them to participate in fleecing the passive fund holding public and undermines the whole point of index funds. I don’t see how a fund manager could just blindly take this rule change and not make a ruckus about how it’s forcing him to break their fiduciary obligations Following the rules of the fund and being index is one thing. Sitting silently as this pump and dump is designed to fleece your clients, is something entirely different. > Starting May 1, 2026, Nasdaq rules allow large IPOs (e.g., top 40 market cap) to join the Nasdaq-100 Index within 15 trading days. This forces index-tracking funds to buy new shares, often at inflated valuations shortly after listing, a "fast entry" rule designed for mega-IPOs like SpaceX or OpenAI
      - dh2022 6mo ago
        The market will not drive index fund purchases of SpaceX - the 5x multiplier of the floating shares will. And that’s the rub.
  - NoLinkToMe 6mo ago
    We should differentiate two matters here. 1. are your finances going to be screwed from overpaying for SpaceX IPO shares through your index fund? No because as you say, it's a small fraction of typical index funds. 2. Is this a form of financial malfeasance? I think yes. The average 401k has about $150k in it. Even if just 0.5% goes to SpaceX, that's $750 per American. That's a few hundred billion. It's serious cash. If that's going to overpaying Elon 3x or whatever it is for these shares, that's a travesty. Even if for each individual it's a tiny blip that doesn't show up in the annual ROI graphs, it's a form of corruption. Like the programmer infamous Salami slicing stories at banks. If the SpaceX IPO is wildly overpriced, even if you have just 300k in your account, yo
heyitsmedotjayb 6mo ago
I remember when this happened with Nortel!

ddp26 6mo ago

Yeah, it's wild. But it's not like the P/E should be 30, what do you think would be fair? That's the thing about SpaceX, some businesses are real businesses that can be modeled in normal ways, like the government launch contracts, and to some degree starlink. Others, like ~all of xAI, and the starship stuff, are being valued completely independent of revenue. I predict the IPO investors will generally follow the analysis consensus today with those eye-popping numbers.

Noaidi 6mo ago
I mean, shouldn’t the price to earnings ratio be 1? Anything higher or lower is just speculating or other words, gambling.
- daedrdev 6mo ago
  I actually dont think the world will collapse by next quarter so am willing to bear the risk of doing so by having higher P/E.
- lotsofpulp 6mo ago
  At the extremes, taking the next step is speculating because you might trip and fall and hit your head.
- cheschire 6mo ago
  I remember in the 00’s when people would complain about how ridiculous a 30 PE was for tech stocks, and how no other stock was at that ridiculous price point except tech. Guess that starship has sailed.
- fastball 6mo ago
  Of course not. If the P/E was 1, every single public company would be immediately gobbled up by Private Equity firms, who would make their money back after a few years of operation and the rest would be pure profit.
  - Noaidi 6mo ago

brentm 6mo ago

It's hard to imagine this turn into 50-60% short term banger starting from a $1.75T market cap, I wonder if people will actually trip over themselves to buy. I had been thinking I wanted to jump on it to flip but at that price and the macro environment it may end up cratering before a pop. Seems like a sketchy buy.

sfblah 6mo ago

I just don't think space is as useful or profitable as people think. Time will tell.

Bombthecat 6mo ago
As long as we don't find a new it energy to get stuff up, I don't think so.
pilgrim0 6mo ago
You could argue that space is highly useful for creating profitable narratives. You could even argue that this is the whole game.
jayers 6mo ago
Profitable remains to be seen, but it is undoubted that the potential resources in the solar system are (pun intended) astronomically valuable. Getting at them is "just" an engineering problem.
NoLinkToMe 6mo ago
I'm also curious as to what the moat really is? It's 24 years old with 16 billion revenue. Suppose you had a warchest and had the option to buy SpaceX at 1750 billion, or to spend a fraction of that to replicate its technology. Could you? I've seen estimates that SpaceX spent less than $50-60 billion in cash during its lifetime. That's in the range of its cumulative revenue + capital raised, too. I just don't really see how this couldn't be replicated, if the market was big enough. But it seems to me that Space isn't that useful yet, and the market isn't that big yet, to the point that it doesn't warrant lots of competitors like the thinking on AI.
- verzali 6mo ago
  Even the SLS cost less than $50bn to develop, which is a lot, but only a fraction of what SpaceX is apparently worth. Developing a new rocket like the Falcon 9, even a reusable one, would cost a private investor less than $10bn. It would take time, that is the hardest part. But in terms of cash, it is a fraction of this valuation. Then a constellation like Starlink - again, we are talking $10-$15bn. Once you have the rocket, the satellite design is not going to cost much. The challenge is getting the regulatory approvals and getting the launch rate up. Then developing something like Starship, again a few billions, certainly far less than $50 bn. A crew capsule too, that would be a few billion, but probable <$5 bn. For a trillion dollars you could probably throw in a space station (the ISS was about $100bn), a few advanced orbiting telescopes, a human mission to Mars, and maybe an intensive exploration of Europa. Heck, why not land something on Pluto just for kicks.

lxgr 6mo ago

But consider that they will eventually own the entire observable universe excluding Earth! /s