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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
It’s another misdirection.
Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is absolutely ridiculous.
Do you mean low? AAPL has a ps of 10.
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.
A few segments of the economy are known to have low revenue/investment ratios, and companies there get P/S up to 7 or so.
Then, very few companies have people betting on their growth so much that their P/S get as high as 15.
And then you have literally about half a dozen exceptions on the ones S&P tracks that get higher than that.
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.
And anyway, the rule change is truly the only reasonable way they can react to the current situation.
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.
Without the proposal, you'd have outrage out the other side that it wasn't included (especially if it shoots off like, well, a rocket).
And if they miss out on part of a runup, and the companies later enter the index, what is the long term "harm" if any??
But if they're "right" it makes the competing indices look weak.
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.
It’s and interesting point. I’ve done a bit of searching and am also empty handed.
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.
>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
Are you planning to substantiate this conspiracy theory in any way?
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.
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.
You claim this to have been engineered somehow
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.
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....
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?
For example, yesterday I posted a link to the Nasdaq faq about the change, and my comment was flagged hah!
They are
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.
S&P: no changes.
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.
Pushed by whom? Can you link some reporting on this topic?
> Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders.
"asking price" lmao, buyers decide the prices they'll buy at.
Edit: I wonder, why is pointing out that this apparently massive conspiracy hasn't been covered by a single credible news outlet worthy of so many downvotes?
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.
I’m not going to cite sources for a major financial news story that is being extensively covered in the financial and general press.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind...
Perhaps you can provide a single counterpoint? I can't find the columns you refer to.
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.
Who are "They"? Did you maybe forget the ((())) or are we just supposed to guess? I don't know if you intended it that way, but using the vague nudge-nudge wink-wink "they" like this sure comes across as an antisemitic dog whistle.
> That is one of the columns. The headline makes my point succinctly
Regardless of how you choose to interpret the headline, the actual column seems to say the very opposite of what you claim.
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.
It’s clear you aren’t interested in a good faith conversation. Thanks for the discourse either way.
Also, you're getting the most basic details wrong. Nasdaq didn't change their listing requirements. SpaceX has been eligible for listing under their rules for years.
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).
Would you agree with that?
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
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.
Passive index investing was once the best strategy, perhaps is still. But in the face of such apparent malfeasance perhaps no longer
The big pension funds do have governors, they are mostly diligent and can change course
that will mitigate but not eliminate the downsides to this nonsense
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.
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.
>index providers will have to decide: Are they in the business of giving passive investors exposure to all the stocks that the market thinks are good, or to all the stocks that the index committee thinks are good?
>There’s only one plausible answer.
Can you explain why your theory is better than the one widely believed by people who actually work in the financial industry?
My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play.
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.
Yet, somehow, no journo covering the world's leakiest industry has been able to break this massive-if-true story.
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.
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)?
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.
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
At those scales, that’s absolutely massive, and more computing capacity than most governments have.
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.
Not at all surprising that the US in 2026 has degenerated to the point of turning the equity market itself into a bucket shop.
e.g. with https://www.nordnet.dk/kampagner/ipo/spacex for Denmark.
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."
Yeah, if a ridiculous premise is given you'll reach a ridiculous result.
xAI has such a shitty AI, that he makes more profit renting his Compute instead of making profit directly from it as the companies doing who have better AI then him.
Space-X is a limited business and he tries to make it unlimited by selling stories of Mars and dyson spheres (literaly), no one will ever finance or need as long as we have still desserts everywhere. In parallel his Starlink business gets competition left and right and despite this, he only has 10 Million customers AND increased prices for STarlink just last month or so.
And the payload, most payload increase is only Starlink. He has to sell us a story, that suddenly even with Starship, he can send so much payload up there to make Space-X this mega trillion company.
He can't even scale Starlink. Its expensive. The satelites work for 5 years and have limited capacity. He NEEDS Spaceship to be able to send up Starlink Server v3 and he hasn't even prooven he can get his ship back which he needs for the payload price.
Twitter/X? Yeah he tanked that one.
Optimus? When did you see the latest non faked demo? And while he works on it, we already have the market cornered here.
Go argue with the entire market. I'm just the messenger.
The only thing which increased the payload is starlink itself.
Fine he might send his competition in space. Amazon and Leo.
And then?
You need companies actually wanting to send stuff up there.
Musk and K2 Space are desperate for customers and the fact, that they talk about datacenter in space, which doesn't make sense (for at least the next 30-50? years), should tell you everything you need to know.
It is very easy to just lay down energy cables and fiber somewere and build a datacenter. This datacenter can get upgraded hardware without any further big investments, is running for years without issues, can be maintenanced and the origianl infrastructure gets cheaper every single year.
Someone said Space-X is a generational company. Like wtf? Every normal datacenter on earth will always be cheaper on the ground than in space. The only advantage you have in space is solar energy efficency and these prices are still dropping on earth and you don't need to send these panels up in space. And batteries will have a fast RoT.
In space, you have to first even build and solve fundamental issues like "how do i cool reliable a lot of energy", "how do i send big payloads reliable to space", "How can i build datacenter hardware/rebuild datacenter hardware to be space stable".
And why are they doing this because they have to not because its more cost efficient.
Leo orbit is a lot better than what we had before with 30km but your mobile phone can't suddenly do realtime and low latency internet just because starlink sells it like this. The current starlink mobile phone service is still slow and they need to even prove they can do it. For this they need starship because the starlink v3 satelites, they need, are to heavy for falcon 9.
And it doesn't make it better for Space-X if they already have other companies who also want to do this as it lowers their margin and they need to recup their R&D.
Space-X Starlink satelites are the main driver of payload increase in the last few years. Starlink itself!
There are plenty of reason for space data centers the big one would be: the public is moving against data centers. So plenty of space up there that isn’t regulated. Cooling is not impossible, the ISS does it. It’s not out the realm of science, just needs to be solved. And they are already sending up startlink satellites, why not just make them bigger with the right cooling equipment and then not be concerned about longevity, just let it burn up when it’s of no use.
Elon Musks Colossus 1 datacenter (the small one) has 1500 Racks.
For a small datacenter, you already have to send up the equivilent of 26000 Starlink server (which is doable, to be fair, they have send 12000 up there so far since 2019).
V3 is only at 20 kWh and we have not seen V3 in space yet.
But one single rack normally has a high speed interconnect between itself and the other racks. Which means that you either have a very reliable very fast interconnect between satelites or that you have to make one satelite very big to house all of that.
Now because one Rack is 17x bigger and needs that much more energy, one GPU Rack Satelite solar area has to be 17x bigger from a area point of view.
You can't even send this payload up there without Starship btw.
So he has to solve:
- stable Operations of highend components, which are not build for space;
- Building Starship and getting it with payload into orbit
- Has to be able to send Starship up there for over 390 times to just being able to install one small datacenter
- IF Starship fails once for the 390 times, he has to rebuild Starship and the cost saving nose dives
- Needs to prove first that Starship can actually send payload up there high enough
- Needs proper groundsstations to send A LOT of data up there (Machine Learning data is a lot)
- Normally one rack has storage for tempdata and training runs; If you accept this, you still need to make sure somehow that your data is shared across full compute racks OR you need to send up a whole new Storage layer (if you mimic current datacenters) which increases everything I wrote above by 10%
Soooooo is it technical possible? Yes of course. No issue, its rocket science and we have enough technology right now to just do it besides Starship and verification that a GPU cluster can actually run for long enough in space etc.
But lets be honest here, how long do you think it will even take for Space-X to build a working Starship, enough Starships and the whole infrastructure to send 2-10 Starship up in space every single day?
This will not be more cost effective than a normal Datacenter on Earth for a very long time.
And even if you recupe some texas dessert, install massive amount of battery storage and solar and new very long (100km) fibre, this investment will be easier, cheaper and actually will stay were it is for 20-80 years without refresh.
If you estimate a lifetime of 5-10 years for a satelite setup like this, you have to send up thousends of Starships every year to just install more than once small datacenter AND to upgrade existing ones.
Btw. you do not want to now burn all of this hardware every day into our atmosphere. Its not 'free' garbage disposal.
1. you can't recylce which means we literaly burn metal away despite us having already resource issues
2. these metals actually do something with our atmosphere
Your points about whether or not some aspects are sound or safe are valid and worth bringing up but it doesn’t change the nature of how these technologies are and will be developed.
Quite the abstraction.
So yes, ridiculous things like that happen and markets are very often not rational at all (short and medium term at least).
Nortel, Sun, AOL, Cisco were all very innovative and rapidly growing companies. Until reality kicked in.
I don’t know if I would put Cisco or Nortel in that category, either. They were like gold rush pickaxe companies. The pickaxes themselves weren’t particularly innovative in their case.
A lot of the innovative companies from the dot com era are still around.
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 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!
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
Passive funds dominate ow, don't they?
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
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.
What evidence do you have that these rule changes are motivated by "creed" or corruption?
What evidence do you have that 9/11 was not an inside job?
> please justify your position
I'll cite Matt Levine from Bloomberg:
>1. In the next few months, SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI will all probably go public at massive valuations.
>2. They will be fast-tracked into the major stock indexes, because those indexes are designed to reflect the stock market, and reflecting the stock market, in 2027, will absolutely require big allocations to those three companies.
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
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.
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.
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.
I'm sticking to the facts, shove your ideological struggle up your ass or go pollute a different website.
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.
But there are things to say about your point too. I’ve commented on that in other threads.
SpaceX could rise to be a major winner that makes people a lot of money. And then what? You missed out and underperform the whole market.
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...
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.
About what precisely?
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.
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". :) )
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.
And the bigger play is this deal pushes SpaceX over the finish line for S&P 500 inclusion. That's worth tens of billions for everyone involved.
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)
Surely Google can "make compute go" for $1b/month. Nice way to avoid holding the bag, maybe?
This deal is part of that revenue growth. So the new revenue would be already partially or even fully priced-in.
Perhaps it reduces uncertainty around the growth rate, but expectations were already sky-high, as shown by the multiple!
The wrinkle is that they are planning to deploy those GPUs in space. That’s what people are most skeptical about, I think!
Like fsd, will take decades to figure things out.
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.
Permitting. And the main drawback is cooling. If you want to sell a company to SpaceX, build a better radiator.
I’m not saying the math maths. But it isn’t fundamentally fucked in the way a lot of armchair commentary has been making it out to be.
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.
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.
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).
But your point stands, ain't no way xAI competing in that game.
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?
Google’s investment in SpaceX is completely orthogonal to the analysis. Equity investments aren’t revenue.
Google's purchase sends cash to to SpaceX, which they report as revenue, and which they earn a profit from.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Indeed. But the OP did not claim that either.
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.
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
So at most they lose like 200M each month. Peanut compares to the potentially gain of the IPO.
Would you really expect a company to increase proportionally in value when they increase their revenue?
Same thing they used to say about Lehman.
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.
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).
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.
> 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.
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?
AI is really a pioneering engineering field
Simple, money.
When Billions of $ are in the picture, people really don't care about ethics.
assuming google sells, the stock tanks, nobody wants to buy next year
is this masterful? more like a scam
Didn't they also run up against a "minimum free float" rule?
Love how we assign positive adjectives to unethical practices by corporates
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.
> 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.
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
Not brilliant meaning something actually positive for humanity in any respect at all.
Apart from the peasants of course.
You seem to have ignored the 50% float rule. SpaceX is proposing to go public with about 5% of the float, but S&P requires 50%.
Do we think that the market will absorb the release of 45% of the shares? I'm dubious.
And while SpaceX is IPOing with 4% float, after the 6 months lockup many more shares will release and float will increase to 40-50%.
So after 12 months, SpaceX meets the S&P inclusion requirements.
And gets a datacenter.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/01/alphabet-to-raise-80-billion...
What is the alternative?
I have never before heard that term in regards to the economy.
Everyone has always wanted maximum growth now, future be dammed.
> 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.
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 is a huge claim for which we have no evidence.
$920mm/month at 30% datacenter margins yields $3bn in gross profit. Less in net income. That doesn’t cover SpaceX’s losses.
==> Those facilities are being leased because Grok is failing.
Space X does not want to lease away it's competitive advantage to a primary competitor.
It'd be like Tesla leasing factory space to Toyota and Ford.
'GPUs, Energy and Data Centres' are a hugely critical resource in the AI race and SpaceX is now leasing it away.
Will it make money? Sure.
But this is 'Strategic Fumbling'.
The cash flow happens to help them leading up to IPO - that's a side show.
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'.
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?
Perhaps they only need to pay $11B, or $16.5B, before exiting the contract.
Plus, instead of getting nothing for these $11B/year, they surely get some compute power that should have some value.
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 fact that Google owns a stake in SpaceX doesn't hurt. But the multiple math is specious, and profitability math plain wrong.
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.
This site is turning into conspiracy central
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.
from the linked article
>After this year, the agreement can be terminated by either party provided they give 90 days’ notice.
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 over the profitability edge. 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.
You keep saying this even though you don’t present any evidence that it will make SpaceX profitable. Where are your numbers?
As a comparison point, CoreWeave’s most recently reported operating margin was 16%.
Either way, 500% return on the spend would be amazing
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?
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.