4 ms·
SpaceX at $100 Would Imply Zero AI Value, Morgan Stanley Says
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- benoau 3mo agoIsn't that why SpaceX "acquired" xAI?
- downrightmike 3mo agoDuring the irrational slap-'AI'-on-everything to juice the stock. Their current plan is the same as that shoe company that tried to rent out their warehouse space for AI compute. Same plan as Meta, other than scammers using meta AI to scam our parents out of their money. (Meta makes billions off of this use case and really shouldn't)
- dnemmers 3mo agoRenting data center capacity to AI providers might be the best business model out there, currently related to AI. Surpassed possibly by hardware manufacturers.
- torh 3mo agoI'm not so sure. Is there really a demand for more AI data centers? Has anyone been turned down by OpenAI or Antrophic because they are out of capacity?
- benoau 3mo agoI think the demand is more about what's not using AI yet, plus half the world isn't really dependent on online services and platforms yet, two huge areas of growth.
- duskwuff 3mo agoThere's certainly demand for more data centers. Whether there's demand for the services those data centers would provide remains in question.
- Zigurd 3mo agoAny jackass <cough>Kevin O'Leary</cough> can announce a data center project. Then you have the pivoting crypto bros. The competent data center builders are the hyper scalers who have been building and running data centers for decades. Low margins, lots of garbage participants, and a few competent players who are likely to crush anyone less efficient. That doesn't look very remunerative.
- dlcarrier 3mo agoAt least there's a real aerospace company in there. The companies pivoting will have no value when the market corrects, but affordable aerospace launches will keep on keeping on. If anything, the anti-datacenter NIMBYism that the AI craze is generating will far outlast the AI craze, and NIMBYism is the only thing that would make launching datacenters into space cost effective, so Space X may get a long-term boost out of the whole ordeal, whether or not they have internal success in the AI market.
- downrightmike 3mo agoexcept you're forgetting that the taxpayers have subsidized it to this point and it can't stand on it's own. And then there's all the competition
- ben_w 3mo ago> At least there's a real aerospace company in there. The companies pivoting will have no value when the market corrects, but affordable aerospace launches will keep on keeping on. Perhaps, but the size of the launch market is still unknown at any given price point. Space hotels? Really expensive point-to-point 45 minute deliveries in a vehicle hard to distinguish from an ICBM on an early warning radar? High-value-low-volume free-fall manufacturing? All comes down to what the price tag is. (And right now, don't even look at Starship until that actually delivers, look at Falcon 9: SpaceX has had so little confidence in the Starship hardware that despite 13 launches it has yet to be given a circularised orbit, this suggests development is much slower and more difficult than Falcon was). > If anything, the anti-datacenter NIMBYism that the AI craze is generating will far outlast the AI craze, and NIMBYism is the only thing that would make launching datacenters into space cost effective, so Space X may get a long-term boost out of the whole ordeal, whether or not they have internal success in the AI market. Could be, but space is hard even compared to otherwise hard options like the middle of the Sahara, and solutions to cooling in space also work in the Sahara.
- kotaKat 3mo agoNext step is to "acquire" Tesla and give himself full control again.
- panny 3mo agoThere is such thing as negative AI value :)
- ferrouswheel 3mo agoYou'd think Morgan Stanley would understand stuffing debt from one failing company into another semi-ok company.
- jnwatson 3mo agoAnd it is likely going to happen a fourth time when SpaceX merges with Tesla. The first time was when Tesla bought Solar City.
- dlcarrier 3mo agoYahoo's total value was worse than the Alibaba stock they owned. Their web services had negative value.
- anon7000 3mo agoIt’s surprising to me that any investor in public stocks thinks share price is related to anything other than what investors are willing to pay. If everyone thinks price will go down, it doesn’t matter what underlying value exists, people will sell off. You hold on if you think investors will wise up at some arbitrary point in the future and buy it again. Which could theoretically be related to the value of AI, but is actually only about a monkey brain’s perception of value. There is no underlying fundamental reason that makes stock price match company performance or value. It’s a gambling market that sometimes happens to match real financials
- arealaccount 3mo agoYou’re not the only one saying this https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/buffett-tough-value-everyone-gambling-141934499.html https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/buffett-to...
- idiotsecant 3mo agoThe future of markets is a vibes exchange, where fortunes are won and lost based on social media engagement, viral media, and influencer CEOs. In the new world order the winners are not value investors and rational actors. The winners are the outrageous, the titillating, anyone who can capture a bit of attention span.
- jackb4040 3mo agoAttention matters when a stock is rising, fundamentals matter when a stock is falling.
- avaer 3mo agoIt's not surprising; anyone who thinks share price is something other than what investors are willing to pay has become someone's sucker. And the industry could not exist without a strong foundation of suckers.
- LorenPechtel 3mo agoStock price does not need to match company value *in the short run*. But company value exerts a tug on the share price, it won't succeed in pulling the share price to the correct value but it will in time correct the swings. Think of walking a dog on a long leash--the dog will wander but will end up where the human goes. Or even well-behaved dogs without a leash.
- expedition32 3mo agoI yearn for the days when companies were judged on profit. Not ideology. Vibes. Hypes. Tweets. White House visits. The goddamn singularity.
- hasbot 3mo agoWhen was that?
- mrloopex 3mo agoLate 80s. Back then my stock was actual paper certificates that I kept in a safe deposit box. My RIA lived in the town next to me and that was the only way I could make trades, and it took days to close and weeks to get your certificates. And I didn’t trade. I gave him money and he built my portfolio. The rise of online trading gamified the system that we have today.
- 4ndrewl 3mo agoIs it too late to pivot to Blockchain? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/long-island-iced-tea-micro-cap-adds-blockchain-to-name-and-stock-soars.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/long-island-iced-tea-micro-c...
- MadrasThorn 3mo agoI wonder where all of this money is going
- lostmsu 3mo agoNah, it might also imply 0 Grok value or 0 value in what Morgan Stanley says
- htrp 3mo agoxAI did lose all of their founders and they are rebooting the company because it was "built wrong"