5 ms·
Tesla is profitable, as a matter of public record. And SpaceX is, by all accounts, extremely profitable.
by kakapo5672 5mo ago
Tesla is profitable, as a matter of public record. And SpaceX is, by all accounts, extremely profitable.
- boshalfoshal 5mo agoSpaceX is _not_ profitable by most reasonable measurements of accounting. If you discount rocket depreciation costs and R&D, then yeah its profitable from starlink revenue.
- geertj 5mo agoSpaceX reuses its boosters 20+ times. Surely the depreciation is tiny when compared to the revenue of 60M+ per launch?
- computerex 5mo agoWhat about the R&D costs of blowing up vehicle after vehicle?
- jdross 5mo agoThey have over 300 falcon 9 launches in a row now, just in case you’re not caught up on the latest
- metabagel 5mo agoC'mon, you know they're talking about Starship.
- inemesitaffia 5mo agoIt's less than the yearly cost of ground stations (just under 1 million/year per installation) 5 million over 5 years capex+opex. Mostly opex It's also a troll post
- hooloovoo_zoo 5mo agoThey also have to replace 20%+ of their satellite network every year.
- jgord 5mo agowhy is that ?
- tverbeure 5mo agoBecause they fall back to the ground…
- hawaiianbrah 5mo agoThe operational lifetime of their satellites is about 5 years.
- FlyingAvatar 5mo agoThey are low earth orbit satellites. Generally, the lower the orbit, the faster they decay. You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement.
- kibwen 5mo ago> You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement. No, having the option to replace technology at your leisure would be a benefit. Being forced to replace your technology because it's destined to become aerosolized aluminum in less than five years is a detriment.
- darth_avocado 5mo agoThe entire space launch market is about $20B with multiple competitors in 2025. And by the most generous estimates it is going to be $80B by 2035. They can reuse the rockets as much as they like, the company isn’t worth $1.7T.
- chatmasta 5mo ago3x growth in ten years is the “most generous” estimate?
- darth_avocado 5mo agoYes because outside Starlink and govt contracts, there isn’t that massive of a demand growth in the sector. There a limit to how many satellites can be in orbit at a time and land based telecom infrastructure makes it so that satellite based infra isn’t necessary unless you’re in remote areas.
- inemesitaffia 5mo agoStarlink is already most of the revenue. What's the point of the except? The main problem is the AI stuff.
- Dig1t 5mo agoHow can you say “The company isn’t worth X”? Isn’t the company worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for its shares? I don’t personally think Google is worth $4T but the share price says otherwise.
- darth_avocado 5mo agoYou’re comparing a publicly traded company where the supply demand economics have established a price to a company whose financials are not public, and is valuing itself at $1.7T and forcing everyone’s 401Ks and pension funds to fund it. Not the same thing.
- scuff3d 5mo agoDepreciation isn't the only thing that matters. R&D, manufacturing, maintenance, fuel, launch, support staff, and I'm sure there are countless others. I'm not saying they aren't profitable. I don't know, but it's definitely not a given.
- inemesitaffia 5mo agoThey did report FCF before xai and also invested at least $1B before they merged xai
- scuff3d 5mo agoGiven that it's one Musk company giving a mountain of money to another, and the only numbers floating around regarding SpaceX seem like marketing fluff, I don't think any meaningful conclusions can be reached until we get some real numbers giving a full look at the finances.
- inemesitaffia 5mo agoWe have real numbers for both the launch and Internet business. We know how much was spent by Xai too. You can wait for Godot if you wish.
- jordanb 5mo agoThey haven't released a 10k yet so we don't know, but from what I understand SpaceX+X.ai is not GAAP profitable.
- sroussey 5mo agoSpaceX was, but SpaceTwitter is not. xAI is hoovering all the money out of SpaceX.
- brightball 5mo agoBetween launches alone, Starlink and Starshield, SpaceX will likely be a money printing machine for a long time.
- bragr 5mo agoIt is less about profitability and more about dilution of ownership. He seems to have a pattern of diluting the ownership of his profitable companies by folding in his less profitable/failed companies. You still own a share of a profitable company, but a smaller share, to his benefit.
- solarkraft 5mo agoAs was Enron
- raw_anon_1111 5mo agoTesla’s profits and market share has been declining for the past few years and it’s basically an overpriced meme stock.
- parineum 5mo agoTheir market share of EVs in the US went from 40.9% in Q3 2025 to 58.9% in Q4 2025. You may not have noticed because positive Musk related news doesn't seem to make headlines anymore.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- darth_avocado 5mo ago> Their market share of EVs in the US went from 40.9% in Q3 2025 to 58.9% in Q4 2025. You’re not wrong factually, but it doesn’t mean what you’re suggesting it means. Their share went up because EVs aren’t selling as much anymore. All companies including Tesla are selling fewer EVs. They just have a bigger share of the smaller pie, which isn’t exactly a success when you only sell EVs, but your competitors also sell non EVs.
- parineum 5mo agoI'm aware of the reason. Their market share is, nonetheless, up. That's still good for Tesla, their sales remained constant while people stopped buying other EVs. Edit: Constant is the wrong word. Resilient or consistent is what I was trying to say. Competitors leaving the market means less competition which is a good thing for Tesla. If the market for EVs returns in the future (if, say, the next administration reimplements the incentives), Tesla will be there to reap the benefits.
- darth_avocado 5mo ago> their sales remained constant while people stopped buying other EVs. Their sales did not remain constant.
- fraggleysun 5mo agoThey had like $16B in revenue last year, half from Starlink. That’s just money in the door and the underwriters seem to think the business is worth $1.75T.
- darth_avocado 5mo agoIf underwriters think it’s worth $1.7T with a $16B revenue (not profit), they’re doing the same thing as the credit agencies did in 2008 by giving underwater mortgage backed securities a AAA rating.
- Dig1t 5mo agoDo you have any evidence or analysis to back that up? How are those similar?
- jamiequint 5mo agoIt's not the same at all. Do you know how an IPO roadshow works at all or are you just spouting bullshit?
- darth_avocado 5mo agoIf roadshows guaranteed accurate valuations, pets.com wouldn’t liquidate within a year of IPO. Again, not debating that SpaceX isn’t a legit company or that it’s profitable. But underwriters agreeing with high valuations to stocks that collapse once they go public isn’t unheard of. Edit: and I will concede that I should’ve phrased my initial thoughts better. Credit rating agencies and underwriters do very separate things, just like IPOs and MBS are two very separate things.
- jamiequint 5mo agoYou said: "underwriters ... doing the same thing as the credit agencies did in 2008 by giving underwater mortgage backed securities a AAA rating" That isn't what is happening at all. In an IPO the underwriters and the company collaborate to set the price based on approximate demand and what they want the quality of the holders to look like. In the roadshow, the company is very constrained as to what they can say or disclose outside of the scope of the S-1. They can't include MNPI, forward looking financial projections, etc. Underwriters are also prohibited from sharing MNPI, or publishing marketing disguised as research. So I guess if you're saying the SpaceX S-1 is completely full of shit and there's hidden risk in it, than it could be similar to 2008, but in this case nobody is manufacturing a rating, and those material misrepresentations would constitute securities fraud. Investment banks and ratings agencies aren't the same thing at all, and the buyers of marginally profitable IPO stocks are (hopefully) different than those of AAA MBS.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- noncoml 5mo agoGenuine question, how do you know that without a 10K? Have the filed any document that shows their finances?
- TurdF3rguson 5mo agoSpaceX was profitable before the xAI thing happened. Now I imagine they're way in the red.
- cramsession 5mo agoTesla has a P/E ratio of 364.981. It's blatant fraud.
- sethops1 5mo agoNobody is forced to buy shares of any company. Even automatic 401k investment plans let you specify what to buy if you so choose. Perhaps you could make the argument Elon makes false promises to boost the stock price, but at the end of the day, individual investors must decide what they believe in no matter the CEO's antics.
- darth_avocado 5mo agoIm also profitable as an individual. I made a $100 this week, which makes me worth at least $30M.
- lovich 5mo agoHow much of that profit was due to public subsidies of the sort that he killed for other companies but not for himself during his tenure as a special government employee?
- oska 5mo agoPretty decent video released today by Wall Street Millennial that looks at the profitability of SpaceX (as part of looking at 'Terafab') : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSJi1oQFQzs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSJi1oQFQzs
- ycui1986 5mo agojust because a bunch of rockets went up without blowing up, does not mean they are profitable. it cost money to shot rocket, and it is very expensive, reusable or not. most launches are internal launch without external paying customers.
- pythonaut_16 5mo agoSpaceX was surely more profitable before it was used to bail out Elon's xAI which was used to bailout his purchase of Twitter.
- dgb23 5mo agoHave you looked at their latest report? They are only profitable because of subsidies. Pretty much 1:1.
- utopiah 5mo agoIn part thanks to SpaceX purchase of CyberTrucks.