Everybody is focused on revenue.

Last time I checked the important metric in business is revenue - cost of goods sold

If they are approximately the same you are just running a big operation, not a profitable business. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, being at the helm of a big operation feels great and gives the master of the ship a lot of meaning, but it's not a profitable enterprise.

Even SaaS, bio-tech and platforms feel the pain and the anxiety every minute they spend without being profitable.

Despite what the CEOs say, it's like being underwater, you can be optimistic about your ability to swim towards the surface, but still you got to get there.

It's all about future growth potential. A company that is growing it's revenue at 50% y/y is going to get much higher valuation than a profitable saas growing at 10-15% y/y.

If you are not Saas , biotech or a tech-platform then revenue growing isn't as of itself a good news.

You need both revenue growing and costs staying flat or just slightly increasing

Only the SaaS, biotech and platforms get a free pass, because the rationale is that once you become the dominant player , drive everybody out of business and kill competitors in the cradle thanks to your strategy aimed at acquiring marketshare...you'd then be able to sweep the market because you'd found yourself in a monopoly or quasi-monopoly regime, thanks to the network effects and a huge first mover advantage.

No matter what Musk says : cars and rockets aren't tech-platforms.

Of course you can bet on his ability to convince people other than yourself that they are, but that is a social engineering bet, on the charisma and the salesman ability of mr. Musk, it's not an enterprise or a business bet.

Nothing wrong with social engineering bets, they are the most profitable ones and you can ride on the way up and all the way down, like Thiel and Robert Mercer did with Trump for example.

It's not like they believed he'd Make America Great Again, they believed he could convince people other than themselves that he'd do so.

Facebook, Microsoft, and Google are so valuable because their marginal costs are 0. SpaceX Won't be worth 10x revenue. Companies in capital intense industries with high variable costs have caps less than 5x revenue, with 2x being common.

I am guessing you aren’t a big crypto investor :). You are making an assumption that the other investors are all rational and use the same criteria when buying stocks. That is becoming less and less true every day.

Well if that's the case we can all go home, welcome our quant finance overlords with grace and hope they are magnanimous towards us mere mortals.

Reading other people's minds is not yet possible :( , for everything else there's AQR, RenTech and D.E. Shaw.

My point is that some stocks people are buying with their hearts and not as much with their brains. They believe in the future and they buy no matter what the price. Revenue multiples are not considered. Spacex will almost certainly be one of these stocks when it goes public.

that is the same as my point. You have to be able to read the emotions of all the other market participants

Furthermore, $650 billion is spent on advertising each year and growing. That's a huge TAM for ad-tech companies like Google and Facebook.

What is the global spend on space launches annually? $5 billion maybe? And not growing very quickly, if at all. And most of that market is inaccessible because many of the biggest space agencies prefer to keep things in-house, even if it means a worse product at a higher cost.

It’s 33x 2021e revenue, is it not?

It is not obvious that Starlink is not a liability. I have seen people make convincing economic arguments that Starlink will eat money not make money.