This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX.
Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%.
SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns 5% of SpaceX, so they make 50 billion dollars. Google spends 10 billion and makes 50 billion, $40 billion profit.
The even better part is that because of this deal, SpaceX is now profitable. The S&P requires companies to demonstrate 12 months of profits before they can enter the S&P 500 index. SpaceX lobbied to have this profitability requirement removed, but S&P said no and refused to rewrite the rules.
Now with this incredible deal, SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules, and they get to join the index next year without a rule change.
But Google loses $11 billion per year, and they gain $50 billion... in stock?
As far as I know they really will be paying $11 billion annually in liquid cash to SpaceX (not a small ask) starting this year, and all they get in return is more money on paper?
What incentive do they have to help SpaceX out like this at great cost, if they're not actually buying something valuable? Why are they incentivized to do this if it's just an empty deal and financial engineering? Genuine, good faith question: what are they getting out of this?
The contract has an exit clause, either side can terminate the agreement with 90 days notice. I do not expect this contract to last the full 3-year term.
And this deal protects Google's investment. Google owns close to $100 billion of SpaceX stock. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by 30%, and pushes SpaceX into profitability. With this deal, SpaceX is eligible for S&P inclusion. Assuming $6-7 trillion in S&P 500 tracked funds, and a 1% SpaceX weight after a year, this is $600-700 billion in demand for SpaceX stock. It means Google now has someone to unload its position off to. This play directly protects Google's investments.
SpaceX announced $26B/year in compute deals with Anthropic and Google in the past week. The margins on both deals are incredibly high, Google is paying around $11.75/hour per GPU. Infrastructure costs are far below that, SpaceX likely has 70-90% margins. These two deals are around $20B/year profit. In the preliminary S-1, SpaceX reported a $5B loss in 2025. Combining these numbers, that's a $15B profit, assuming losses are constant. Likely expenditures will increase, but even if losses double, that's a very healthy $10B profit.
Where did you get your costs and margins from? I have direct experience in this business and I can tell you they’re usually not that high. These machines are also not cheap to power, cool, and house.
As a comparison point, CoreWeave’s most recently reported operating margin was 16%.
That's what I'm saying though. They must be getting something out of this deal, otherwise why would they be going through with it?
The explanation that this is just financial engineering (which to me, means neither Google nor SpaceX is getting anything out of this other than looking better on paper) doesn't make sense to me. How does this financial engineering benefit Google?
Even if they have an exit option, why is Google (a private, separate, self-interested firm) giving a single dollar to SpaceX if the deal isn't mutually beneficial?
They’re getting compute. There was a free for all period when xAI did one smart thing and that’s build like there’s no tomorrow. Because tomorrow is today, and today jurisdictions are racing to pause datacenter construction.
This deal can't just be financial engineering, since that wouldn't make sense. They must be getting something out of this, i.e. compute.
Google is buying compute because they need it. That explanation works a lot better to me than one where Google is doing this purely for unrealized future gains on a minority stake in SpaceX.
the ironic thing is if the parties involved were bullish on xAI winning or near term ODCs undercutting compute costs this deal wouldn't have been attractive. But as it is, Google probably only slightly overpays for boring ground-based datacenter space they actually need to hit internal goals, and it looks even better if IPO investors in a stock they hold pick up some of the the tab.
That $5 return doesn't actually materialize the way you're framing it.
Even if your 94x multiple held perfectly (a big if), Google's "return" here is unrealized appreciation on an illiquid, minority stake. They can't spend it. And if they try to sell post-IPO, the act of selling a large block would push the price down, shrinking the very gains you're describing.
Meanwhile, the $11B/year in cash going out the door is very real and liquid and hits Google's income statement immediately. So the actual trade is: guaranteed cash expense now, in exchange for speculative paper gains later on a stake they can't easily exit. Even if you assume bad faith on Google's part here, no CFO in their right mind would see this situation as an easy 5:1 return.
The simpler explanation is the one Google gave: they need bridge compute capacity because Gemini Enterprise demand is outrunning their own datacenter buildout, and SpaceX has 110K GPUs available now.
So you think Google is going to spend $11B in hopes it will boost the value of the SpaceX stock, while pretending to public investors it's a multi-year thing, and then after 1yr sell off their SpaceX stock after the value rises while also ending the contract early?
they're spending $11B on compute because they need the compute and that's the market rate for it. it's the same price Anthropic is paying to spacex for compute.
but if they boost the spacex stock for the right amount of time, they can get that compute for free instead of for $11B. Google's own announcement of the deal frames it as a short-term agreement while they scale up their own datacenter capacity.
They also get compute, which has real value. If you are going to spend 11B on new data centers or rental, better to spend with a a company you are about to ipo.
Either way, 500% return on the spend would be amazing
I sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94.
Off the top of my head, there is a very well established business involving buying expensive things and leasing them to the companies that intend to operate them so they can sell services: aircraft leasing.
AER is the biggest player and they have a P/E ratio of, drumroll please, 6. And I expect that GPUs, despite currently looking like an appreciating asset, will actually depreciate faster than aircraft in the long run.
Why "unwilling"? That's a weird wording. S&P Dow Jones Indices decided to not go through with their rule change after it became a political issue. Obviously they were willing, the proposed rule change originated from them!
Please provide some support that the rule changes were proposed from within. Given the fact they tried pulling this nonsense on 3 indices, it seems very unlikely the rules changes originated from within.
Quatsch. The indices will say whatever benefits their power the most, regardless of truth. The fact that they are bending now to pressure is proof enough for me.
We live in an age proving that valuation is just a manipulation.
This whole story is just like the BaM situation: the people with more money feel emboldened to pull every dastardly trick they can to tilt the table towards their pockets, away from the honest participants. SpaceX and the AI IPOs are just the latest and most grand scheme. I’m guessing you were surprised by the collapse of lehman brothers back in the day.
I don't know how I could? The indices have already provided their reasoning for these rule changes, but that's just summarily rejected by the conspiracy-minded.
To laymen this appears to be a grand conspiracy. Rules are being changed to accommodate big companies, that's usually bad.
To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli. The indices exist to reflect the market, these IPOs are going to be big enough that the 90s-era rules will/would result in untenable divergence.
the explanation what i heard from some financial analytics is that small float with large valuation would create a dog pile/short squeeze type situation among the funds trying to reflect the SpaceX valuation vs. the whole index valuation - 1.8T vs 70T ratio would be 50B of float vs. 2T where is total of index funds is much larger than 2T, and that is even without accounting for retail investors and other, non-index funds, who will buy a part of float too thus reducing further the float available to the index funds. Such squeeze situation would lead to stock price rise leading to valuation rise, ....
>To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli.
of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them.
>to reflect the market
the described above squeeze is hardly a way to reflect the market
>of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them.
Are you planning to substantiate this conspiracy theory in any way?
Where do you see a conspiracy theory? I've shown the numbers, it is simple arithmetics.
The situation is similar with mortgage CDS back then - no conspiracy theory/whatever, they just found a way to make AAA bonds out of junk. It was a simple arithmetics too. Everybody knew the arithmetics and was doing it.
Now is the same - they talked about that expected float/valuation squeeze even on NPR - this is where i heard it, i'm not that into finance markets to come up with it myself :)
You are presenting a theory that an unidentified group of people is engaged in a conspiracy to change the rules of the major indices for corrupt reasons.
That's a conspiracy theory. It might be true, but so far nobody can come up with any evidence in support of it.
The simplest possible explanation is that the indices are supposed to track the market, they can't do that if they exclude these IPOs.
The simplest possible explanation is basic statistics so the top 20% of those bonds supposed to fit AAA criteria. No conspiracy. No "unidentified group of people". No corrupt reasons, just legitimate profit seeking and extraction.
It just naturally happens that that legitimate profit seeking and extractions benefits from the actions like "the indices are supposed to track the market, they can't do that if they exclude these IPOs", and i described the natural simple arithmetics how it happens. No conspiracy. Just arithmetics. You can verify it.
> It will absolutely be untenable to keep Anthropic , OpenAI and SpaceX off the S&P 500 with them also being the highest valued companies on the market.
Following the rules of passive indexes is the whole point.
Mēh! The passive indexes (biased to a momentum strategy, so not really passive - they are too big) may have had their day. The blatantly corrupt move to change the rules was clearly an attempt to game them, and even with out the rule change they will squeeze themselves through the rule gate with financial engineering
This will always be the trend in finance, the powerful manipulate the system to their benefit, the rest of us do what we can to survive....
>Following the rules of passive indexes is the whole point.
The whole point of these indices is to represent the market, the rules are unsustainable if they cause too big of a divergence from that goal.
> The blatantly corrupt move to change the rules
Why do you think nobody in the financial press is reporting on this blatant corruption? Is it because this conspiracy also includes all of the news media?
There’s too much anti AI/Elon emotion to have discussions around this issue at this point. HN is usually pretty good about rational discussions, but AI has really triggered people on both sides.
For example, yesterday I posted a link to the Nasdaq faq about the change, and my comment was flagged hah!
No it isn’t. They put rules out for consultation and declined adopting them. Nobody was responding to political anything. If management had a say, they would have probably pushed to adopt the changes.
Then a bunch of influencers turned the whole thing into a conspiracy theory and a shocking number of smart people bought the pitch and churned their retirement accounts.
FTSE 100 / Russell: changes happened. 5 days from IPO to inclusion.
NASDAQ 100: Changes happened: a) Allow inclusion in 15 days post-IPO rather than 3 months. b) Allow inclusion of companies with very small float. c) allow valuation (index proportion) to be 3x float rather than enterprise value.
Passive investors and retirement accounts are heavily in on automatic indexing.
This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules.
The accusation is that these changes were made so that index funds will buy this stock automatically far earlier than they would have previously. Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders.
> retirement accounts are heavily in on automatic indexing
Majority are not. A minority are, mostly towards the S&P. Most assets remain actively managed, including in retirement assets (which covers 401(k)s, IRAs, pensions, et cetera).
Way outside of my area of expertise, but a quick search suggests that exact numbers probably depend on exactly how you define the question, but it would be broadly reasonable to say that the balance is about 50/50 +/-5%, and trending towards the passive side over time.
Yes. But I’d caution to not conflating passive investing with indexing to a popular index. They sound similar. But most passive assets index to one of a variety of indices, many of them built in-house by various asset managers. (Vanguard, for example, is famous for doing this.)
And just because yesterday's rules were "invest in S&P500" does not mean the governors of many (not all) funds cannot change the rules to dodge such blatant fraud
The managers of huge funds are not complete idiots- far from it- and they will do what they can, most of them, to fulfill their duties
> just because yesterday's rules were "invest in S&P500" does not mean the governors of many (not all) funds cannot change the rules to dodge such blatant fraud
There are no governors. The assets that automatically follow the S&P 500 are like individual IRAs. If a fund has a governing body, they're generally not indexing to a single narrow index like the S&P 500. They're going for a set of total-market funds, or they're building a custom benchmark.
For the assets that do follow the S&P 500, virtually nbody would be expected to react to these kinds of rule changes. If anything, you'd just create a higher-fee fund that anyone who is upset about this can switch into that equal weights or won't include SpaceX. This is what some RIAs I know in the Bay Area have done, and this entire shitshow has just been a moneymaker for them.
> managers of huge funds are not complete idiots
Zero hedge funds automatically follow the S&P 500, or any other public index, like that. That's sort of the point of being a hedge fund–you're delivering something different.
> Do you have any sources to share in support of this claim of malfeasance?
Not here, this is a casual discussion not a scientific seminar.
But use Occam's Razor and modern history
Point 1. Corruption has penetrated the highest echelons of USAnian politics. The president is unabashed in his corruption and has corrupted (is corrupting) the financial regulators (I follow Molly White who has been particularly good on this)
Point 2. Space-X is valuing itself at an astonishing value that is not anchored in its business activities. This has been covered a lot in comments here but also see Patrick Boyle's excellent commentary.
Point 3. The purveyors of these IPOs have been doing their best to get the rules changed (because reasons blah blah blah), the change will mean that managed funds, if they follow their usual practice, will feel compelled to buy in at the offer price - a massive inflow of capital that will make many people incredibly rich.
Putting all this together - a culture of corruption that has reached the pinnacles of the financial system, outrageous valuations and open conspiring to change the rules in favour of the whole scheme leads me to the conclusion that I am looking at the biggest (what is effectively the) fraud in history
I hedge my comments "effectively the" as I cannot be sure that this is conscious theft, or whether it is a confluence of powerful people facing juicy incentives who going with the flow are heading to a massive wealth transfer from working people (via pension funds) to elite capitalists
I do not think that this is not apparent to the governors of these huge pension funds. Those that have not tied themselves to an index following strategy will opt out I am sure - they are smart, studious and dutiful people by and large. So the people perpetuating this fraud may well be unable to pull it off.
But these are very worrying times. Especially for the USA.
>Point 1. Corruption has penetrated the highest echelons of USAnian politics. The president is unabashed in his corruption and has corrupted (is corrupting) the financial regulators (I follow Molly White who has been particularly good on this)
Sure, but indices are really not a heavily regulated space. The government doesn't have any obvious, direct influence here.
But uh, do you genuinely believe that the Trump admin would pull this off without the story leaking? It's an incredibly leaky administration, now supposed to be exerting influence over the most leaky industry in the world.
>Point 2. Space-X is valuing itself at an astonishing value that is not anchored in its business activities
If SpaceX is overvaluing itself, they'll look really silly at IPO! This is a very strange complaint.
>Point 3. The purveyors of these IPOs have been doing their best to get the rules changed (because reasons blah blah blah), the change will mean that managed funds, if they follow their usual practice, will feel compelled to buy in at the offer price - a massive inflow of capital that will make many people incredibly rich.
According to whom? The consensus in serious financial medias seems to be that indices are doing the rule changes to avoid divergence. I've tried to look, but I can't find any reporting suggesting that the "purveyors of these IPOs" had anything to do with this.
These companies are already among the 20 biggest in the US, it's genuinely going to be a big problem for e.g. the S&P500 to keep them out.
>But these are very worrying times. Especially for the USA.
I agree! However, not everything that happens in the USA is related to Trump.
Not if they're index funds. They buy at the price it is, until they've satisfied their holdings represent the appropriate share of the market. Which, pre-IPO and early-days-after-IPO, is likely to not be accurate to the long-term price.
It has been covered extensively. The change of nasdaq rules has been covered by Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, and most others who have reporters on the Wall Street beat. Columnists at all three of those publications have called it out as a possible play on institutional indexing money. I don’t need to tell you who like it’s some big secret either. It was Elon Musk on behalf of spacex. The changes were openly part of the ipo.
I’m not going to cite sources for a major financial news story that is being extensively covered in the financial and general press.
Here's Matt Levine from Bloomberg saying something along the lines of "lol, obviously the indices have to do this, they'll look like fools if they don't because these will be the biggest companies on the market". He famously spends much of his time making fun of Musk, but seems to reject the idea of his influence here.
That is one of the columns. The headline makes my point succinctly. Your paraphrase of the column misses the crucial point. A Nasdaq index fund doesn’t buy a company unless it is in the Nasdaq. Under the old rules SPCEX was ineligible for listing. Now Nasdaq index funds all have to buy. Index funds by nature do not selectively buy stocks, if the stock is in the index, they buy, that’s their mandate. That’s the game, to be included in as many indexes as possible that force institutional investors to buy. That’s hundreds of billions worth of funds that now have to buy in, that previously wouldn’t have had to if it wasn’t listed on the Nasdaq.
The SP500 did not waive the rules, and that made above the fold news this week, because it is a major blow to the big IPOs happening this month since they are valued so high. It will be harder for them to move stock if the massive index funds aren’t buying automatically. The big IPOs this month are asking for prices that demand hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of liquidity. Index funds are automatic liquidity, but only if you are on the index.
They didn’t ask them to change long standing rules for shits and giggles.
No where did they say anything antisemitic, but you further diminishing the meaning of that word—just like BB has already—only enables actual antisemitism. I frequently see that label being weaponized, especially against other Jews. I see it be used when people merely report on what the President has said, or against the Pope calling for peace. At some point, I'm inclined to believe people constantly making these false accusations do so knowing it delegitimizes the word.
> I'm inclined to believe people constantly making these false accusations do so knowing it delegitimizes the word.
I’d say it’s 50/50. Half of them try to delegitimise the word while the rest use it to silence dissent against what amounts to be a genocide and a land grab.
In the context of my message it is very clear that they is SpaceX. This isn’t a secret. Nasdaq has said that they are changing the rules specifically for this listing.
It’s clear you aren’t interested in a good faith conversation. Thanks for the discourse either way.
NASDAQ and the NYSE competed heavily for the SpaceX IPO. NASDAQ was willing to do more for SpaceX, so NASDAQ won. One of the concessions NASDAQ made was to put spacex on the Nasdaq 100 index (QQQM) early.
You use your back channels and good ole boys club connections to try getting the rules for inclusion changed. Maybe collude would be a better verb than design? Is that your objection?
Common sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation?
Lol, the dude asking for reporting to justify his oligarch dickriding dismisses patrick boyle in his chat history as just a youtuber while using paywalled links to support his position.
My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play.
Criticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg.
newly created alt because apparently my main account has hurt too many feefees to allow me to respond to a discussion I'm having. "posting too fast" my swingin dick...
I'm not criticizing bloomberg, i'm criticizing you for posting paywalled links to support your position in an open discussion.
Given I'm bailing on this convo now because hackers news is a shite application getting in the way of people trying to talk, let me respond to our sibling thread with the closet thing my opinion has to evidence: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH. IMO we remain at an all time high of financial flimflammery as a portion of our GDP and there have been a number of recessions triggered by the financial sectors malfeasance during my lifetime because of it.
and you assume these people don't have family offices filled with very well paid competence.
There was a 3 month gap between Matthew Lee raising the flag about unethical accounting practices at lehman brothers and the firm's collapse. My opinion is that we haven't hit the analgous moment yet but we will.
Generally < 1 is low, between 1 and 3 is in the middle ground, and > 3 is high. However, that all depends on margins, which is why people generally use P/E or forward P/E rather than P/S to compare multiples. Issue here being that P/E is nonsensical for unprofitable companies or companies with very low margins. Spacex's P/E after Google pushed them into profitability by a slim margin would look absolutely stupid.
I would also like to point out, that on a forward P/E basis, AAPL is quite overvalued compared to historical norms, but basically every tech company is right now.
Number like this might appear when a company is expected to create a revolutionary thing that upends multiple markets. I would consider a number much larger than 3 in SpaceX’s case, but 94 feels, indeed, excessive.
It’s almost like the future we were promised in the 1960’s would immediately materialise the moment launch costs drop. Starship will be revolutionary if it pans out the way we expect (as the shuttle would have been, had it kept the low cost promise), but that’s not enough to warrant that 94 number.
SpaceX may well revolutionize multiple markets. But I really don’t see the sub-business of building large datacenters and leasing them out, hopefully at a profit, as revolutionizing anything. Also, SpaceX has no particular competitive advantages here — the list of competitors is huge.
Yeah, only a small portion of SpaceX's revenue actually comes from Space (payload delivery). At this point they are basically an ISP (Starlink) and a datacenter/leasing company.
It's not clear if Musk (SpaceX/X.ai) is really pursuing AI any more - I expect he hasn't necessarily given up on it, and he hasn't said he has, but it seems he's rented out almost all of his GPUs to Anthropic and Google, so that's not going to be much of a revenue generator, at least for time being.
It was in the news not too long ago that Musk was looking to use Samsung to fabricate "AI chips", presumably either for X.ai and/or Tesla, so perhaps he's basically put X.ai on hold until he can reboot his efforts with his own chips (& perhaps a new datacenter)?
According to their IPO S-1 draft they are 93% an AI company and 4% a space company. Its the remaining 3% of the company that is profitable, the Starlink stuff.
As I recall isn't Starlink revenue at least 3x Space revenue, so not sure how they are characterizing that 3:1 ratio as 3% vs 4% !
The "93% AI company" is also a huge mischaracterization since this isn't AI business - it's datacenter/GPU leasing business which their 2 customers can pull the plug on with 90 days notice.
Yeah, Starlink is about 3.5x the space launch revenue but still only about 0.5x in terms of profit. Falcon 9 is as optimized as a rocket could be, and absolutely owns the market. Starlink is a mostly rural service with global consumer pricing where average monthly rates in poorer countries drag the average down. Starlink government and commercial business, however, is growing quickly and I expect that soon Starlink will be ahead of launch, in terms of income, probably by the end of this year.
That's in the IPO documents. Starlink had $11.4 billion in revenue and $4.4 billion in operating profit in 2025. Falcon9 had ~$4 billion in revenue, so they didn't cheat by subsidizing starlink with Falcon9.
For SpaceX it’s critical to maintain a steady cadence. If they don’t, they lose institutional knowledge. If the cadence drops below a point, their effectiveness at reusing rockets will also drop, defects will creep in, and they’ll have higher fleet churn.
Yes. Amount is actually irrelevant, since if they underprice it SpaceX loses launch revenue, and if they overprice it Starlink looks less profitable.
The more important takeaways are that SpaceX's near-monopoly launch business is profitable but not nearly as big as Starlink, and Starlink is a good business but not one to justify a trillion dollar valuation
The profit center, to the extent any division makes money, is Starlink, yes, but what we have always known as SpaceX is just a tiny side project in the combined company.
Maybe they'll become an AI company again after they've abused their privileged access as hardware providers to reverse-engineer Google and Anthropic's weights and operations.
I’m pretty sure he’s just trying to become the world’s first trillionaire at this point, these deals are obviously gimmicks to boost the SpaceX share price and his less-than-critical-thinking fanbase will happily oblige.
> I sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94.
It will very likely be valued much, much higher. The SpaceX IPO is, in itself, a marvelous piece of financial engineering (requiring co-operation among multiple actors) which has been a long time in the works.
- Right out of the gate nearly all retail investment platforms have dramatically reduced requirements for purchasing an IPO, most notably Fidelity, which previously required $500,000 in your account to participate in an IPO reduced (on Friday) this amount to $2,000
- Retail investment, despite being quieter in the post-WSB era, is at all time highs.
- Reports are that the SpaceX IPO is already highly oversubscribed, meaning there are many more retail investors interested than there are shares available.
- SpaceX has a wildy low float of only ~4% which means price discovery will be much slower then normal, especially with aforementioned demand
- All of these retail platforms enforce some sort of "soft lock-in" whereby you're excluded from future IPOs if you sell your shares within 15-30 days. So if you want to get out you're not going to be able to participate in Anthropic/OpenAI IPOs in a few months.
- Coincidentally, most of the major indexes (thankfully excluding the S&P 500) have adjusted their rules to require only 15 days post-IPO before inclusion and have no profitability requirements. Many also adjusted the rules so that low float IPOs have their weight multiplied despite the low float.
- Many retirement accounts, in one way or another, are required to track these indexes and will be forced to buy these SpaceX shares at a very likely frenzied price and further drive the price up.
SpaceX will very likely open with far more retail demand than shares, the insiders (VCs, employees etc) will still be legally locked from selling, retail investors are penalized if they sell, and so the demand will be high and supply very low.
If they can keep this demand hyped for just 3 weeks, price will still be elevated when retirement accounts are forced to buy... roughly the same time retail investor start seeing the penalty for selling expiring (meaning it is not irrational at all to be in the IPO, but it is irrational to sell before being listed in an index).
Fun fact: the other fascinating thing about this IPO is the terms for insider lock-in. At first earnings (Jun 30) inside investors unlock and can therefor liquidate 20% of their shares... but if the stock performs well, they can unlock and additional 10%. There are additional rules for continued unlocking of more shares depending on performance as time goes on. So everyone on the inside has a very vested interest in a spike in stock prices: not only will their stocks be worth more, but they can realize that value faster.
I would be surprised if SpaceX price doesn't explode in the first few weeks because for everyone involved this would make sense. It's only in August that we'll start seeing the really interesting things start happening.
> Right out of the gate nearly all retail investment platforms have dramatically reduced requirements for purchasing an IPO, most notably Fidelity, which previously required $500,000 in your account to participate in an IPO reduced (on Friday) this amount to $2,000
Not at all surprising that the US in 2026 has degenerated to the point of turning the equity market itself into a bucket shop.
Strangely, these limitations don't seem to have been present on the European platforms. (Although I've never bought shares in an IPO myself, so I'm not certain about this.)
The minimum is 1 share (~$135), the FAQ on "when can I sell" says "Once trading begins in SpaceX, you can sell your shares at the current market price, which can be both higher and lower than the IPO price."
Comparing SpaceX to an aircraft leasing company seems more foolish to me than a 94x multiple.
I understand the gist here, but come on. This is a generational company. It’s the only relevant space launch business, and has its tentacles deep in AI infrastructure as well. Maybe the AI bet is foolish — I don’t know — you should short it!
I am comparing SpaceX’s datacenter-and-GPU leasing business to aircraft leasing.
It’s possible, and common, for one large company to have multiple business lines, each worthy of a very different P/E multiplier. In principle you end up with a weighted average of some sort.
edit: Matt Levine has some great articles about this phenomenon and how some companies try to juice it.
I would short xAI but the market can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent. Plus all the foolishness to prop it up with other businesses just seems like bad accounting.
I don't think you can short it before the IPO happens. Well, unless you've got a few millions and go to a bank and have them make a product for you specifically. But for normal people, for now, not happening.
All of Musks business stuff highly depends on first mover advantage.
If people now selling it as a 'generational company' than it becomes even more stupid.
He didn't invent an unkown solution he is hiding to transform something into gold, he only put a lot of money into rockets.
And the rockets right now don't even have enough payload to have unlimited potential. If Space-X knows how to build a rocket very efficient, 10 years later other companies can do that too.
> All of Musks business stuff highly depends on first mover advantage.
Do they? Out of all of them, I think only one of them really depends on, or even benefits from, first mover advantages: Starlink.
Tesla famously gave away all their patents, and is also being overtaken by Chinese companies with cheaper batteries because batteries are the expensive bit; SpaceX rockets are theoretically well protected because national security regulations >> patent law, but even there lots of Chinese clones popping up; TBC and Neuralink and SolarCity are going nowhere fast; Grok wasn't even the first in its field; Twitter/X is not only in heavy decline but was also always trivially cloneable and the clones are now an open source ecosystem of semi-distributed alternatives; xAI has shown ability to make data centres while pissing off locals but the market for those data centres is other AI companies who also commission their own data centres but found themselves scaling much faster than xAI did.
(Starlink's first mover advantage is "this orbit already contains a satellite").
Tesla did not gave away its patents. It only says that if you want to use Tesla patents, we can use your patents.
Tesla won a lot of by being the first mass produced electric car.
Yeah the fact that China overtakes Tesla is a huge problem with Tesla and forces them to spread out. From all Musks hussles, only Tesla Cars and Space-X Starlink make money.
These two business are good running businesses, given. But these are not Trillion Dollar valuation companies.
Without the hype for these two things, nothing else would be possible.
> SpaceX is trading at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then the single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars.
That final number doesn't make sense: if you're trading shares at $X revenue, increasing the revenue by $Y multiplier doesn't increase the share price by the same multiplier.
I rreally dislike how big corp figured out that the can sell stuff to each other without actually moving some good. Looking at you, Nvidia... I have a feeling that the ordinary people will again pay for that.
It all was many years ago after the great depression, and similar. Then people kept voting in republicans who's life mission is to gut the SEC and all related regulation keeping them from doing things like this.
The problem described isn't companies buying goods and services. It's buying from an entity they partially own and then profiting as that entity becomes more valuable because of the purchase.
If the parent comment is true, it seems the problematic aspect is the leverage created by the P/E ratio more than the percentage of ownership. What a weird situation.
Yes, if it's done with an intent to defraud the general population, which could be the case here. Effects and intent really matter when deciding actions.
Except the regulators first outlawed what is generally considered to have caused the great depression (savings banks allowed to invest, which translates to very, very rich people being allowed to take massive risks with poor people's money) ... then re-legalized it.
So not only are the regulators not going to allow things that cause another great depression, they're allowing the things that caused the first great depression too. They must want a rerun.
(Because if you don't allow this you're effectively demanding the extremely rich make good investments to stay rich ... and not even France, otherwise pretty socialist, dares to go that far)
I mean, we all understand that this is some sort of circular financial play, but at the end of the day Google is paying SpaceX $1 billion for compute. This is no different from AWS or Azure.
SpaceX's S-1 says they're going to make more than $320bn by 2030 at a 74% expected profit margin. That implies they're going to succeed at selling high-value AI services, not compute, which is a competive business with typical profit margins at or below 30%.
As an ignoramus to these things.... there are only just so many Googles though. Having made a significant jump, are they really expected to continue that growth?
The bet is that demand for AI tokens will continue to grow exponentially. And that SpaceX will be able to deploy and rent out GPUs to serve those tokens faster than anyone else.
The wrinkle is that they are planning to deploy those GPUs in space. That’s what people are most skeptical about, I think!
Space data centers need years of time to design, build, and deploy, 5-10 at least, and that's after they solve their multiple very difficult or impossible problems. How will they cool them? There are just simple ideas like giant structures to radiate the heat away, but you say you need to put lots of mass in orbit?
Well yes it will be hard, and hence maybe not economical, and that’s why many people are skeptical of the business case (myself included btw).
But satellite cooling already exists (Starlink v2 satellites dissipate heat at over a kilowatt I believe), so that’s why other people find it plausible.
They also need Starship at minimum, which is now a 10+ year old project still exploding regularly.
Starship is at minimum a 2030 project at this point.
And even producing the volume of chips needed for the type of growth space data centers would need to have to justify this would be another decade if construction started now on those fabs.
I don't see how: Starship is a very long running project at this point, and progress has been incremental. Productionizing the basic logistics systems like turning around re-usable launch vehicle took years for Falcon 9, and Starship's haven't even done that yet.
By the end of the year if it's not landing intact yet, now you're 2027.
I'd say 2030 is optimistic (the 2028 moon landing with Artemis straight up isn't going to happen IMO).
Cooling in space does not seem like a hard problem to me. You absorb a certain amount of energy in a given time in the form of solar energy, you should be able to emit that. On top of that, in LEO you are only in solar orbit roughly 50% of the time
It is in fact very hard, and LEO is not "solar orbit". You want your datacenters in sunlight 100% of the time, to not need heavy batteries, which is possible, but cooling is in fact very hard
SpaceX already has 10,000 satellites on orbit that are basically preview versions of space data centers. They've already paid 5 years of that 5-10 year timeline you outlined.
the math doesn't work. a starlink satellite has ~10kw power consumption. A single ai optimized server rack (GB300) is 140kw. Starlink works because you get a massive benefit from putting networking in space for rural users. no one has made a convincing case as to why putting a data center in space is a benefit that can come anywhere near the drawbacks (inability to service, launch cost, cooling etc)
Even permitting isn't a clear win. You are changing from land permitting (where you can pick the location to be wherever you want) to launch permitting (where you have to coordinate with the federal government for airspace and water closures). Not to mention that with the current regulatory status, a rocket explosion can easily lead to a multi-month mandatory safety review that blocks all new launches.
> changing from land permitting (where you can pick the location to be wherever you want) to launch permitting (where you have to coordinate with the federal government for airspace and water closures)
One of these is orders of magnitudes longer and more complicated than the other. Land permitting always involves multiple layers of government. And most of them are causing months- to yearslong delays. (Power hook-up is another source of delay.) Launch permits are predictably issued by, essentially, a single regulator.
> a rocket explosion can easily lead to a multi-month mandatory safety review that blocks all new launches
Which is equivalent to a regular permiting delay.
The tradeoff is between the cost to launch radiator mass and the delays local and state governments cause in permiting. The first is mediated through launch costs. The latter through interest rates. And right now, the former is going down and the latter going up.
Plenty of world to jurisdiction shop beyond the US, most of which also has cheap land and plenty of sun, and for better and worse much of that world is less regulated than launch (and FCC spectrum licensing if you want your data back) and easier to skip the queue with comparatively small amounts of money. Hell, if you like your unit economics to be dependent on solving physics problems most of the earth's surface doesn't need permits at all...
Google and friends continue to see increased demand for their wares. The bet is probably that SpaceX is one of the best-placed companies to deliver incremental compute. They've shown they can build data centers fast.
A cynic might wonder given Musk's implausible trajectory and questionable associations whether the X project is primarily a grift and/or money laundering project that happens to do high-profile tech, and the primary aim is to pump the stock and hope some other opportunity to pump it further arrives in the future.
Otherwise a dump works too. There's plenty of money to be made from carefully timed shorting.
The entire AI field has been plagued by circular financing deals, so this is not new. But it's new in aerospace, and the market institutions appear complicit.
Otherwise, why is this IPO getting such unique treatment on such flimsy fundamentals?
> SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars.
This isn’t how valuations work. The PE ratio isn’t fixed. It doesn’t scale with revenue. It’s based on projected future growth. This kind of deal is expected, meaning this deal likely won’t move SpaceX’s market cap much. Certainly not by anywhere close to $1T. That’s +60% of the entire pre-IPO market cap.
Google is doing this because they need more compute and TSMC is booked out for years.
> this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars
That's not how valuations work. Also, it is not unlikely that SpaceX's valuation drops post-IPO (tech was 6.65% in the most recent trading session) due to its very rich valuation and a long tenured investor based that is probably looking to get liquid.
Google is renting compute from SpaceX because they need GPUs and SpaceX owns a huge supply of them and has excess capacity bc no one uses Grok. Google has stated that this is a temporary arrangement while they continue to build out their own capacity.
>> I wouldn't call it brilliant. It's like cancer cells celebrating how fast they're growing.
> Isn’t that the entire point of a capitalist economy?
> What is the alternative?
If the point is to be cancer, then the alternative is to kill it.
Things are getting so out of hand, this former-libertarian is getting to the point were he'd support any market regulation that makes libertarians cry.
I don’t think your math is correct. Profit is revenues minus expenses. Unless Google’s purchase of compute brings SpaceX’s revenues into profit territory (such that their total revenues exceed their expenses), SpaceX still won’t be profitable. This is accounting 101.
Google’s investment in SpaceX is completely orthogonal to the analysis. Equity investments aren’t revenue for the issuer. (Gains on sale would be revenue to the investor, in which case, this would be Google, not SpaceX.)
SpaceX cannot report Google’s investment as revenue on its balance sheet. Full stop. Equity investments are reported as shareholder equity. If you don’t believe me, read FASB ASC 605-606, ask your friendly neighborhood CPA—or, perhaps so you’ll earn a valuable lesson about confidently spreading bullshit about subjects in which you are clearly uneducated (or, at best, superficially educated), try it yourself in a public company and go to jail.
You don’t know what you’re talking about and are way out of your lane. Stop now. In fact, you should retract your parent comment and apologize to the community for leading them astray.
Did you even try to ask even ChatGPT or Claude about this first?
> Under the terms of the deal, Google will pay SpaceX $920 million per month from October 2026 through June 2029 for access to “approximately 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, CPUs, memory, and other related components.”
That part is not equity - that's revenue for services rendered. But a commitment for nearly $1B/mo in revenue will likely increase SpaceX's share price, and Google owns some of those shares, so their holdings will increase in value.
Additionally:
> In Comments
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Yes, the appreciation will accrue to the investor, in this case, Google (and every other shareholder). But it is not revenue for SpaceX, which is the error OP made.
I’m aware of the guidelines. Another guideline should be “check yourself for accuracy before you reach for the keyboard”—especially since it’s easier than ever. Giving false information that, if practiced and not disclaimed, could land someone in jail is irresponsible.
But the OP very clearly did not write anything of that sort. Their claim was:
> This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year.
And that is pretty obviously correct. This deal is Google is buying a service from SpaceX for $920M/month, not investing in SpaceX. And that is revenue for SpaceX. I don't know why you're so insistent it isn't.
The false—or at least highly questionable and unsubstantiated—claim is “Now with this incredible deal, SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules” simply because Google bought $11B of compute from SpaceX. It depends on how much it costs SpaceX to provision and operate the compute, and it depends on what other expenses and revenues they have.
A quick peek at their S-1 filing shows a $5B annual loss last year. Unless SpaceX is selling compute to Google at a 50% margin (unlikely but possible), they’re not going to turn a profit because of this deal. Any profit that does result will be small.
Google’s equity investment and P/E multipliers are irrelevant and have no bearing on SpaceX’s profitability. It should also be noted that when there are no earnings (i.e. net profit), the P/E ratio is NaN. There are no “securitized profits” when there are no profits.
And I have no idea why the OP responded to my response about the math not making sense the way they did. I said “equity investments aren’t revenue”. The response strongly implied that they believed equity investments in a company are revenue. Perhaps I read that wrong, and if so, I owe OP an apology.
If there’s financial engineering going on with SpaceX, it’s not merely because they have customers who are also equity stakeholders in a company. This is as common as the day is long. The top level comment is just a red herring.
Oh, if that was your objection, why did you identify the issue as "But it is not revenue for SpaceX, which is the error OP made"?
> A quick peek at their S-1 filing shows a $5B annual loss last year. Unless SpaceX is selling compute to Google at a 50% margin (unlikely but possible), they’re not going to turn a profit because of this deal. Any profit that does result will be small.
The cost of AI data centers is almost entirely the capex (10% opex, 90% depreciation), so the costs aren't meaningfully affected by whether the DC is idle or operating at full load. They're renting their DCs to Anthropic and Google for a combined $25B/year. The loss of the AI division is about $2.5B/quarter. The math is pretty obvious.
> Google’s equity investment and P/E multipliers are irrelevant and have no bearing on SpaceX’s profitability.
> why did you identify the issue as "But it is not revenue for SpaceX, which is the error OP made"?
It was an error by implication. They responded with something that appeared to disagree when I responded that any profit SpaceX earns under GAAP solely depends on the revenues and expenses, and is not dependent on Google’s investment.
> The cost of AI data centers is almost entirely the capex (10% opex, 90% depreciation)
The operating costs might not vary much, but these boxes are not cheap to power, house, and cool. Not sure about the 10% opex claim, but am happy to see real world numbers.
I feel like you are missing the difference between cash out the door and the market cap value of a business. One is a real tangible thing, the other is a function of the stock market.
I don’t think google would spend this money if they did not need this compute, and who know what will happen with SpaceX valuation over the course of a few yrs.
Most things like this are more straightforward than we want them to be - this feels like google paying market value for compute?
Maybe they just need compute. Isn't that the more obvious reason. It's good that they own part of them and that's a bonus but the idea that the senior brass is orchestrating this to increase the paper value of something some division in google owns strikes me as wrong.
For your math to make sense, Google would have to sell its stake this year
There may be more to it than buying compute but what you're saying does not make sense for Google. More likely Google wants a good relationship with SpaceX and possibly to buoy the stock, but it's a bad NPV trade
The company has been around since 2002, I'm sure plenty of insiders will cash out in the next calendar year to satisfy the minimum free float rule by the time they're eligible.
I think they're sacrificing short term terrestrial GPU advantage to fund their space GPU mega-advantage. It's a risky bet, but if it pays off then SpaceX will be one of the most powerful companies the earth has ever seen.
It's not that complicated, and the 'datacentres in space' is a myth.
They have rapidly depreciating assets in GPUs and they can't use them.
Because Grok is failing.
They are licensing out their unused capacity.
XAi is not strongly related to Space X - they were folded into one thing because XAi was losing money and failing (the Social Media part is worse).
XAi isn't really some kind of strategic advantage for Space X and even though revenues from the data centres may be positive - it's a 'stop gap' - it's probabaly not a 'net positive' thing to do.
The best thing for Space X would have been to never merge wht XAI.
The second best thing for Space X would have been to close XAi/Twitter lines of business a long time ago.
The 'Wrench in the Logic' is that by putting these things together, EM is able to dupe so many people into so many ridiculous concepts.
Data centres in space, 1M people on Mars, all sorts of crazy things.
It's a bit like Putin's and Steve Bannon's Media Strategy: 'Flood the Zone' with nonsense, and people speculate as to all kinds of things.
The Space X IPO is a 'retail push' meaning he needs to get all the Dentists in America and their Private Bankers to want to 'Hold the Bag' and then keep holding it for a long time.
Space X - at it's core - is a decent company, wrapped in layers and layers of hyperbolic nonsense.
All it takes is a bit of rational thinking to wade through what is plausible, and what is not, and we can see how overvalued this is.
Note: this is different than the other 2 AI IPOs which have some sketchy economics - but the premise is not far fetched, 'that people will want AI in large quantities'.
So masterful that a random guy on HN can see right through it.
Let’s just call it what it is. It’s just basic fraud. They created a very temporary revenue injection right around the time of the IPO to defraud investors as much as they possibly can. Some businesses do this kind of thing just before they die because…why not?
Who benefits from all this brilliant deal making who doesn’t already have plenty of money? If we are going to invent money out of paperwork maneuvers, you’d think we could invent a way to fund healthcare and schools.
It only shows that Musk can't make xAI profitable and he needs to push numbers higher for the IPO which he needs for <i actually do not know> his ego? debt correction? Having enough money for Starship development?
The market should consider this a huge negative: SpaceX is renting out their compute because they have failed to make use of it themselves. This calls into question whether they have any talent in xAI at all.
> SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules
We'll need to see audited financials, but if this part is true people are going to be upset. I wonder if all the people who have been acting like the S&P rules came down from the mountain with Moses will start lobbying to change them to keep SpaceX out?
And to be clear, I think SpaceX is way overvalued and I wouldn't buy it stand alone. But there are a lot of companies in the S&P 500 I wouldn't buy stand alone, yet I still own a a lot of an S&P 500 ETF. /shrug
> Anthropic is paying SpaceX $1.25 billion per month (approximately $15 billion annually) to use the computing infrastructure at the Colossus and Colossus II data center clusters in Memphis, Tennessee. This massive infrastructure deal gives Anthropic access to over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs (mostly H100 and H200 chips) for large-scale AI inference.
In parallel to renting AI compute from SpaceX, Google ("Alphabet") is also doing an $80 billion public stock offering to raise funds for building more AI compute.
Except they’re paying $30b (the deal is signed for almost 3 years), there’s no reason to believe that SpaceX maintains revenue multiples and this deal creates a trillion in value, liquid cash is not the same as pre-IPO shares. And finally, the deal comes down to $11 per hour of h100 equivalent, which is pretty much within market which experiences a severe lack of supply.
Except for people who have pensions/investments in whole market class investments who become exposed to an over valued company with a propped up value.
If whole market means whole market, then such investments are exposed to companies who are fairly valued, companies who are massively overvalued, and companies who are massively undervalued, and the whole range in between.
If you want to start picking and choosing which companies are overvalued and which are undervalued, don’t invest in whole market funds. But most people are not good at that!
The Nasdaq 100 and FTSE Russell made a rule change that allows SpaceX to enter index without mormal time for price discovery. Most index funds have rebalance day just 5 days after IPO. S&P also made rule change for S&P Total Market Index and Dow Jones US Total Stock Market Index, but left SP500 intact.
Nothing wrong with SpaceX or Anthropic getting into indexes with fair rules, this rule change is pure creed+corruption.
I mean these rule changes have been a long time coming. SpaceX was just the straw that broke the camels back here. These major index's want to stay relevant and cutting out some of the biggest companies in the market just opens the way for a "true" NASDAQ 100 that is actually market cap weighted rather then some arbitrary rules cutting somethings out.
Musk is highly unpopular, and some conspiracy theorists linked financial arcanity to him in a way that sounds compelling and hidden. If you push back on the corruption claim, you’re in Musk’s pocket. The same folks who became armchair bank experts in 2023 now confidently make statements that middle 401(k)s and pensions, or the NASDAQ 100 (for whom this has probably been the most brilliant marketing move in their history, nobody talked about that index before) and the S&P 500.
At the end of the day, some RIAs in the Bay Area made bank on folks churning their retirement accounts. Some influencers got clicks. Otherwise, this is a nothing burger.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. There is no guarantee that they will be a big part of the stock market. It is not "absolutely" sure, for them or for any new public stock. That's why the indices have/had the the rules they (used) to have, to wait and see if a newly IPOed stock actually becomes a big part of the market before it becomes part of the index.
Why did they change the rules for these companies? That's what people want an explanation for. That's what is fishy about all this. I'm not asking you to explain something that seems normal. I'm asking you to explain something that doesn't make sense
Because the fundamental purpose of an index is to track the stock market. The S&P 500 benchmark was created in 1957 to benchmark the US stock market, decades before the first investment funds that copy it (by Vanguard, in 1976).
The primary purpose of an index is to track the market. If an index excludes a significant part of the market it claims to track, then the index no longer accurately reflects the market, and fails at achieving its purpose.
The S&P 500 tracks the 500 largest large-cap US stocks. All three of the major upcoming IPOs (SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic) are large-cap US stocks. Together these companies comprise ~5% of the total US stock market.
In previous decades, this was not an issue, since companies IPOed much earlier when valued at <0.1% of the market. It was fine to exclude these companies from the index for some time, since they were an insignificant part of the market.
Today we have companies raising enormous amounts of private equity, and going public as significant members of the market. All of (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI) are within the top 20 largest companies in the US.
This is why many are arguing for fast-track inclusion, so the index can add these companies quickly, and retain its ability to accurately track the market.
> This is why many are arguing for fast-track inclusion...
History will be the judge.
But using nothing more than Occum's Razor and recent corporate history as a guide the reason that "...many are arguing for fast-track inclusion" is that they are crooked.
> There is no guarantee that they will be a big part of the stock market. It is not "absolutely" sure, for them or for any new public stock
It's really hard to believe that you'd be writing this in good faith.
In reality, even without being publicly listed(!), these companies have already managed to become an absolutely massive part of the market. After the IPO? Hah.
Yes. There are probably a dozen or more across the SP500 and Russel 2000 that will 10-100x in the next 5-10 years. The trick is to be able to identify them!
Fun fact, both Enron and Lehman Brothers were in the S&P 500 when they went bankrupt. So yes, the whole market or even the market of the largest companies, includes some that may not be great companies. The beauty of the index is you don't have to know or care, since it'll take care of itself over time.
>The beauty of the index is you don't have to know or care, since it'll take care of itself over time
As long as there are active investors in the market conducting price discovery. Which there always will be, just pointing out that someone has to care, even if you don’t
Depends on what you consider passive, I think index funds specifically are only 20% but if you add other low cost ETFs it’s probably about half the market. I don’t think there’s any way to know for sure at what point passive funds become distortionary, but it should be self correcting to some degree. If active funds are able to provide a substantially better return than passive funds, even with management fees, people will migrate back to them.
At least until it doesn't. If this spacex venture succeeds because it got propped up by index funds, then that's a decent indicator that more will follow.
It stands to reason that active investing will be more valuable as a result
Laying the blame for the transparent financial manipulation we are observing at the feet of regular people (who are putting their savings into their pension funds, a system that we incentivize because of its pro social outcomes) and saying they should just opt out because they should know better, is at best callous, most people should not have to think about that issue at all.
Also, there’s a long history of companies that people yell about being overvalued being the drivers of index returns, because one of the major drivers is growth rate, whereas retail investors tend to look mostly at current state.
A company can have poor fundamentals compared to its stock price, and also have an enormous P/E multiple if it has committed investors. We've seen this with multiple meme stocks and Tesla. I have no doubt SpaceX will fly high for a while and people will make a lot of money, but I don't think the company is going to make $320bn/year in AI services (with 74% profit) by 2030 as the S-1 suggests. At some point the market price will coincide with real earnings.
> SpaceX could rise to be a major winner that makes people a lot of money
Based on "sane"/traditional metrics that and much more is already priced in into the IPO valuation.
e.g. Google had a many times lower P/S ratio at their IPO and was actually profitable (and software companies usually have higher valuations than capital intensive ones like SpaceX anyway). SpaceX is already valued at more than Google was 10 years after its IPO while barely making a tiny fraction of its revenue.
Alternatively you may want to be a passive investor using the current rules for index inclusion, rather than having them altered to favor this loss-making trashcan on fire.
Or you could mitigate the next dot-com style crash (which wiped out nearly 80% of the NASDAQ composite).
Back then, it was "day trading" that was one of the warning signs that a bubble was ensuing. There are certainly shades of the day-trading phenomenon in the "r/wallstreetbets" gambling, and wildly overvalued meme stocks like Tesla. And this mad rush to relax the guardrails for what appears to be wildly overvalued IPOs.
Bubbles, and their inevitable collapse, are generally not as big of a problem for younger passive investors, but they can be for older ones. (Hence why I've got a "bond tent", value tilt, and other diversification. I'm at the stage where "underperforming the market" is less of a concern than "mitigation". :) )
> Somebody will be left holding the bag eventually.
I think so too. I also thought that about Facebook: IPO around 40, swiftly down to 20 - I was laughing about stupid retail getting wrecked. Now it's around 600...
Maybe you are right, maybe not.. However Facebook as an example seems entirely irrelevant, though? It was valued 15 P/S ratio at IPO and went down to 10 a year after the IPO. You'd have a point if Facebook IPO at $400 instead of $40. But it took it 10 years to reach that.
SpaceX IPO price already has many years of extremely high growth priced in. Comparing it to Facebook's or Google's IPOs is like apples to oranges.
The key there is "whole market." This is still a tiny sliver of the whole market and most people's exposure to it is minimal. Still a wealth extraction move ultimately, but like many other such moves, the few pull just a little from each of the many. Nobody individually goes broke, but the whole class gets slightly poorer. It takes a village to raise a billionaire!
I don't think so, considering a substantial proportion of their comments on this site seems to be fanboying for SpaceX in particular and anything AI in general.
I wouldnt class 'masterful' as a positive adjective personally.
EDIT: Downvotes? Not sure why. I would say Darth Vader is masterful of the force, and even that Donald Trump is masterful at being provocative. Masterful is not definitively positive or negative, it just describes being very good at something.
Heres the way I understand it as a child could understand.
You are google. I am your friend who wants to sell lemonade.
You have invested in my stand and own a piece. You propose a deal, You'll buy $11 of lemonade from me every week.
Does my stand look like it sells way more lemonade, than it would in reality? And since you own a piece, your own piece has appreciated. You ran the numbers and that spending of yours helps appreciate it considerably more (feel free to plugin the actual spaces-google numbers here and change the analogy).
Are the people who invest in my business after you, on its new valuation, aware that you are the one buying most my lemonade? And are you going to keep buying or will stop buying soon (probably as soon as you can unload your investment on strangers). So the fraud and lie as you said, is the behavior is not as real as it looks.
Am I thinking this through wrong, what do you think?
Edit: my definition of fraud is simpler and different from yours. a "lie" need not be there. fraud is any intentional misrepresentation (i.e. misrepresenting income to the public).
Your time is better spent reading up and understanding the definition of fraud, rather than typing up hypothetical stories of what you imagine fraud is.
Fraud is:
* an intentional misrepresentation of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed;
* made by one person to another;
* with knowledge of its falsity;
* for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies;
* resulting in injury or damage.
Neither the Google/SpaceX situation nor your story constitute fraud. RTFM.
I said this:
>fraud is any intentional misrepresentation
Did you not read my post? It looks to very inline with what you stated fraud is in your many definitions. Clearly I read the definition, I was aiming to simplify to make dialog possible.
My definition still aligns with yours.
And I still see it as fraud, and so would others. Seems you don't. and thats ok.
To say I should read fraud as though I couldn't look up the definitions, and then copy/paste one that literally contains what I said is disingenuous and straw Manish & ad hominem (and hostile) don't you think? Maybe thats why you call something borderline unethical as though it's a feat of engineering. As though we can now reward & celebrate unethical acts.
No, your definition does not align with mine at all. All elements I listed must be present for it to constitute as fraud. You cherrypicked the first part of the definition and then ignored the rest. The legal requirement for fraud is far stricter than the one you came up with.
Ah I see. Okay. Sorry to have been guilty I see this:
> Fraud is:
> * an intentional misrepresentation of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed;
> * made by one person to another;
> * with knowledge of its falsity;
> * for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies;
> * resulting in injury or damage.
Mariam Webster defines Fraud as:
> specifically : an act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
I think maybe you're fixating and cherry-picking too, on "legal" and court-found fraud specifically for what would lead to damages in court found on the said companies.
I am not focusing on what would be legally enforceable and referencable in a court of law. If most people would look at a definition of fraud, and then look at whats happening here, and see it as fraudulent, that if I'm one of those people I'm to call it fraud. And in this case our sample size is just 2: you and I. So 50% is what I'm operating off of as my sample size (ah self selecting, all the biases etc).
Though since the reality we find ourselves is is one where large corporate entities get bail outs, get to set their own rules and bend the law anyway, I think maybe we should not bias towards whats "legally" proved as fraud in the court room.
Thank you for engaging me here. This has been fun and insightful. Please forgive my hasty generalizations and any hostility I inadvertently sent your way.
Utterly nauseating. Why would google help prop up this company and its figurehead? Maybe this is finally the straw that breaks the camel’s back for me and google.
It seems like Silicon Valley has decided on solidarity among tech billionaires and they're gonna take average Americans' wealth to keep themselves semi-relevant globally as China assumes global dominance. This is after insulting and demeaning the rest of the world, they plan to try to sell anemic services to other countries in whose politics they're also meddling. Circular agreements promising to purchase goods and services without the money in the bank, but you can show your promissory note to a guy with his own promissory note who then writes you a new promissory note based on your first one to take to another guy with his promissory notes, look at all the paper.
Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%.
SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns 5% of SpaceX, so they make 50 billion dollars. Google spends 10 billion and makes 50 billion, $40 billion profit.
The even better part is that because of this deal, SpaceX is now profitable. The S&P requires companies to demonstrate 12 months of profits before they can enter the S&P 500 index. SpaceX lobbied to have this profitability requirement removed, but S&P said no and refused to rewrite the rules.
Now with this incredible deal, SpaceX is now GAAP profitable under the existing rules, and they get to join the index next year without a rule change.
Truly a brilliant deal for everyone involved.