6 ms·
SpaceX stock drops to a new low and loses $1T in value in a month
- int32_64 3mo agoAnybody that has traded crypto knew how to trade the SpaceX IPO. The IPO was just a low float/high fdv shitcoin launch. It's free money.
- WalterGR 3mo agoPast month: 38 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48948435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48948435 - "Short sellers notch $8.7B profit as SpaceX shares dip to IPO price" - reuters.com | 71 points | 3 hours ago 281 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48933344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48933344 - "SpaceX stock erases all its gains and slides below IPO price in intraday trading" - latimes.com | 306 points | 1 day ago 603 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48920181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48920181 - "SpaceX bond worth 10% less than issue price – heading for junk bond status" - ft.com | 561 points | 2 days ago 98 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48639057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48639057 - "SpaceX sheds $400B in market value as debut rally hits reverse" - ft.com | 77 points | 24 days ago 66 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48634931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48634931 - "SpaceX Drops 14% in One Day, Price Now Below IPO Launch" yahoo.com | 62 points | 24 days ago 21 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48598558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48598558 - "The average SpaceX buyer post-IPO is almost under water after two-day slide" - cnbc.com | 40 points | 28 days ago Bonus: 149 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48604186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48604186 - "Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings" - theguardian.com | 253 points | 27 days ago 94 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48576113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48576113 - "With Wall Street’s help, you’re about to be forced to buy stock in SpaceX" - paulkrugman.substack.com | 114 points | 29 days ago
- jaggs 3mo agoBiggest scam in history! :)
- jmclnx 3mo agoNot the biggest but I am sure it is in the top 10. FWIW, I say the top 7 scams occurred in the past 2 years.
- lardosaurusrex 3mo ago[flagged]
- moezd 3mo agoI doubt it will ever become a $1T company ever again.
- vidarh 3mo agoIt's market cap is still closer to 2 trillion than 1.
- m463 3mo agoso was the comment that it wouldn't grow, or wouldn't shrink. :)
- hx8 3mo agoSpaceX is still a $1.6T company measured by the sum total paper value of all of its stock. Its stock would have to go down another 40% from today's value before it is not "a trillion dollar company." It could grow, it could shrink, but it seems like the root comment misunderstood the headline by thinking it's current market cap is <$1T
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- reverius42 3mo agoYou could also read it as "it will never go down as low as $1T again".
- axus 3mo agoThe market might remain rational longer than Elon Musk can stay solvent.
- verzali 3mo agoCurious that Tesla stock fell in price at the moment of the Starship abort. For what possible reason would a failed rocket launch affect the fortunes of an electric car company?
- bonesss 3mo agoInvestor sentiment, including talk of a potential acquisition.
- owebmaster 3mo agoDo you think the fact they are both led by the same nazi lunatic is a possible reason?
- B-Con 3mo agoI can see them as a shared fate for a couple reasons: * the obvious one is Elon - both valuations are largely propped up on belief in Elon. Whenever he falters, his companies that are speculation-based (all of them) will take a hit * Elon pitched SpaceX as an AI company. Tesla needs better AI because they keep sending signals that they won't be at L5 anytime soon, and Tesla's valuation is still very speculative[0]at least in part due to the race to L5 autonomy. i.e. Tesla will need better AI , and SpaceX is that natural fit (on paper, at least, I'm not sure SpaceX has any useful AI for any use case, let alone self-driving). [0] Tesla's PE ratio of is still 30x massively out of line with it's actual earnings and ~30x the American automotive industry.
- Animats 3mo ago> Tesla needs better AI because they keep sending signals that they won't be at L5 anytime soon. China now insists that self-driving cars be "SAE level 3.5" if they let the driver take their hands off the wheel. "If the driver fails to respond within the specified timeframe or is physically unable to take control (e.g., due to unconsciousness), the system must automatically initiate a Minimal Risk Manoeuvre (MRM). This includes the ability to change lanes and park the vehicle safely in a location that does not obstruct traffic, while minimising risks to passengers and other road users."[1] That takes effect in China July 1, 2027. Mercedes Drive Pilot is close to this level. Tesla, not even close. That's probably the right answer in the assisted self driving space. [1] https://www.electrive.com/2026/02/26/china-introduces-new-regulations-for-autonomous-driving/ https://www.electrive.com/2026/02/26/china-introduces-new-re...
- casey2 3mo agoSpaceX insiders have so many shares, once they can they are going to dump hard, get ready for another -$1T. Morningstar says $780 billion. Clown show: Raymond James - $800 Morgan Stanley - $300 Deutsche Bank - $255 JPMorgan - $225 Goldman Sachs - $205 Citi - $200
- hx8 3mo ago$200b seems very low for a company with this level of capital investment. They did 167 launches last year. It's one of the few industries where US is outproducing China. We have both more launches and heavier launches. Put another way, the US spent $250b~ (inflation adjusted) dollars on the shuttle program, and we get much more output from SpaceX than we did for Shuttle.
- lukeschlather 3mo agoSpaceX's annual revenue is estimated at $40B for 2026. A comparison might be Lockheed Martin, with annual revenue of $75B in 2025, and a market cap of $120B. So I wouldn't say $200B sounds low at all, even if their revenue doubles (twice, since $40B is actually a projection where they were doing $20B last year, though it's apples and oranges with the acquisition of Musk's failing companies.)
- FloorEgg 3mo agoComparing revenue, without at least also comparing revenue growth rates and leverage ratios is really nonsense financial analysis. It was the same thing with Tesla. Everyone screaming when Tesla had. $20bn market cap how they were extremely over valued because their car sales revenue paled in comparison to the other car manufacturers and yet their market cap was in the same ballpark. It was such a joke and so obviously unprofessional / dishonest. The traditional automakers were all nearly insolvent (tens to hundreds of billions of debt) and had stagnant growth. At the time Tesla had no debt and was growing consistently ~70% a year. Anyone willing to actually analyze and see the truth and not just read headlines and repeat them could have seen it.
- Bluescreenbuddy 3mo agoShorties having a field day with it!
- BrenBarn 3mo agoGreat. We can only hope it goes to zero.
- __MatrixMan__ 3mo agoWe can do more than hope.
- kklisura 3mo agoI wonder what does it all mean for possible SpaceX Tesla merger.
- synergy20 3mo agomorningstar said the fair price is $62
- SwellJoe 3mo agoThey're being generous.
- LorenDB 3mo agoInvestors clearly aren't familiar with rocket launches. SpaceX scrubbed their Starship launch last evening so they could fix an engine issue. SpaceX stock immediately crashed. Even worse, Rocket Lab, an entirely unaffiliated company, had its stock plummet after the SpaceX scrub.
- hangonhn 3mo agoI wonder if some of that can be attributed to automated trading systems that interpreted the news related to SpaceX and performed sentiment analysis and then traded based on that.
- Gys 3mo ago> Investors clearly aren't familiar with rocket launches. That is exactly what Musk was counting on. Reality is boring and no fun. People want promises, stars and dreams.
- bloomingeek 3mo agoYou just described the political situation in the States. My homeland is truly stuck in an alternate universe.
- notahacker 3mo agotbf people familiar with how much of a non-event launches being scrubbed are could buy into the stock, if they didn't think it was still overvalued...
- reverius42 3mo agoNot sure why investors should be familiar with rocket launches when rockets are only representative of like 5% of the market value of SpaceX (per their S-1 filing to go public, 90%+ of their value comes from xAI/Grok).
- sega_sai 3mo agoSpaceX stock price has nothing to do with rockets. The majority of the supposed 'valuation' is associated with AI.
- Zsfe510asG 3mo agoGermans are getting an existential crisis if VW's profit is "only" $8 billion and unprofitable companies in the US are initially sold at $trillion market cap. SpaceX is not a growth stock. The launch business is limited and circular with Starlink, Twitter is a loss and xAI's hardware rental business is being entered by Meta and others.
- throwaway13337 3mo agoAre there any reasonable analyses of the practicality of data centers in space? I know Dwarkesh Patel was interviewing Elon and brought up the fact that power cost for data centers is only 20%. The number I could find is 7-18%? GPUs are the majority of the cost. I don't think Elon responded directly to that. There's the argument that licensing to build these things is cheaper in space. But earth has a lot of space in the middle of nowhere that no one would object to. That seems cheaper than space. And the heat dissipation argument against it seems like a good one but I don't know if it's actually just a small engineering problem that can be solved cheaply or more fundamental. On the plus side, you could say there is better connectivity in orbit. But if you're running inference, you'd probably want to talk to the same server that has your context cached. As it whips around earth, your latency would vary a lot, right? I'd love it if someone could point me to a better analysis. It's an interesting question in general. Not just because one of the highest valued companies in the world is based entirely on its feasibility.
- cyanydeez 3mo agowhen the billionaires trigger a nuke fest, I assume they want their AI overload safe.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- notahacker 3mo agoThis has been done on HN a few times. The heat dissipation argument is a solved problem with known physics, it's just that pointing out the inefficiency of radiative cooling is the correct response to the daft claim that "space is cold" (the solution is "launch lots of additional mass into space every 5 years" which isn't exactly cheap). Though that claim is still better than Elon trying to tell idiots that SpaceX's ODCs are "much simpler than a Starlink satellite"... Good coverage of the relevant problems are here https://peraspera.us/realities-of-space-based-compute/ https://peraspera.us/realities-of-space-based-compute/ Perhaps an understated one is chip obsolence. With a terrestrial datacentre you replace chips when they're uneconomical due to how much faster alternatives are or when they reach end of life; with an orbital datacentre you replace them on fixed cycles depending on how much propellant you launched with. But nobody doubts you can build them, it's just hard to imagine a scenario in which a terrestrial equivalent isn't cheaper, more flexible and more reliable. Actual good reasons for adding compute capacity in space are, ironically, the latency: for some edge cases like autonomous control systems that matters more than the attractive unit economics of sticking computers in a building. Still, the economic case for ODCs [eventually] is more compelling than the case for the value of that revenue stream to SpaceX exceeding current US GDP in the not too distant future...
- abeppu 3mo agoBefore the IPO there was much concern that the changes in rules to allow fast inclusion in indices like Nasdaq-100 and Russell 1000 would mean that there would be an artificially elevated price. Was that effect just over-estimated? Or should SPCX have dropped even further without that support?
- pandaman 3mo agoIt's not an estimated effect - it's pretty evident as any long index position is automatically long $SPCX and yes, it would have been even lower without these forced buys.
- xnx 3mo agoMy hope is that the scales will fall from people's eyes in relation to SpaceX and this newfound knowledge will also transfer to Tesla's overvaluation.
- oblio 3mo agoTesla will fall once they start going more into the red when: * their products are recalled (just as for "legacy" manufacturers, because making cars is hard) * Chinese brands take over every market where they're not outright banned * FSD doesn't materialize because it's a decades long project that requires more types of hardware than just simple cameras * robotaxis can't be rolled out because of no FSD and no approvals * the robots go nowhere for decades Basically, it turns out that despite the desperation, Tesla will slowly turn into a boring car manufacturer with just 2 car models for sale.