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.

'generational company'? Are you on drugs or so?

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.

He can’t do with rockets what he says SpaceX has to do to meet its goals, and he isn’t raising enough money to get the job done either.

It’s another misdirection.

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.

P/E is price to earning. Price to revenue is P/S. AER's P/S is like 3, so the discrepancy is much worse than you think.

Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is absolutely ridiculous.

> Sidenote: 3 is actually high.

Do you mean low? AAPL has a ps of 10.

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.

Most companies have a P/S of 1 or 2, almost all have it bellow 4.

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.

Nothing about Apple is representative of a normal business.

It’s an interesting phenomenon: being Apple is one of their key sales drivers. The brand is worth more than the business itself.

You're arguing with people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Who's arguing?

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.

The question on my mind is-is this IPO designed to rip off recreational passive investors and those of us that invest in retirement accounts?

With the Nasdaq rule changes, almost certainly.

Those rule changes aren't happening.

My understanding is that the s&p 500 were the only ones unwilling to change their rules.

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.

It is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say, so the burden of proof to prove otherwise must fall on you.

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.

If I were the DJI I would have proposed the change, simply so that we could get some outrage flowing and shut it down.

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).

But why? Won't that just make it far more awkward when they're inevitably forced to go through with very similar changes in the end?

Because now they can say "we considered it, there was strong opposition, and we didn't change the rules and what happened happened".

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.

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.

So you don't actually have any evidence to support your claim? This just seems like a matter of faith at this point, that's fine.

I don’t think you have either?

It’s and interesting point. I’ve done a bit of searching and am also empty handed.

>I don’t think you have either?

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 :)

> Where do you see a conspiracy theory?

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.

> of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money

You claim this to have been engineered somehow

Ok, use another word. "Came up with". Or whatever process was used which resulted in the new rule of inclusion of those IPOs into the indexes.

> It is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say

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.

> 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!

Yep, almost all of my comments questioning this conspiracy theory have been flagged, with many being set [dead] by them moderators.

> Why do you think nobody in the financial press is reporting on this blatant corruption?

They are

Why is nobody able to link this reporting? Google doesn't find it either.

They became effective last month.

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.

S&P: no changes.

How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?

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.

>This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules.

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?

It’s been covered extensively and is common knowledge. One example after a 5 second google: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/may-jobs-report-stock-marke...

Where does your link describe this claimed external pressure?

> buyers decide the prices they'll buy at.

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.

Index funds don't buy at any "asking price" set by SpaceX.

This, of course, is why it's wise to wait a while after an IPO for the market to figure out how it values a new stock before it joins the index.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

It's not my fault their conspiracy theory is awfully similar to popular long-running far-right conspiracy theories.

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.

The idea that SpaceX would have to ask Nasdaq for anything is preposterous.

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.

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.

> 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.

Would you agree with that?

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.)

Yes.

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.

I said and I mean "huge", as in "very big"

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

> But in the face of such apparent malfeasance perhaps no longer

Do you have any sources to share in support of this claim of malfeasance?

> 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.

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?

Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory?

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?

Common sense and rationality says this: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind...

>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?

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.

You assume far too much competence from the supposed conspirators. If what you're claiming was truly happening, it would have been leaked and widely reported.

Yet, somehow, no journo covering the world's leakiest industry has been able to break this massive-if-true story.

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.

Common sense and rationality go out the window in corrupt, unregulated environments with perverse incentives.

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.

given that SpaceX is choosing what price they're charging starlink, there's a reasonable argument that starlink isn't profitable either

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.

Does Starlink pay SpaceX for launches?

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

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.

They have to say this because we know how to value a satellite and space company (aka at 1/100th of their offering price).

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.

That doesn’t seem beyond Elon’s capacity to rationalise.

Given the amount of compute rented I doubt there’s anything meaningful left for the people there to do any AI.

They can use still every spare minute that’s contracted but not actually used.

At those scales, that’s absolutely massive, and more computing capacity than most governments have.

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.

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.

Yeah, then next move may be to have SpaceX buy Tesla with it's inflated stock, before it collapses.

> 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.)

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."

But growth rates could make that a bargain. If the market has taught us anything since 2009, it’s don’t underestimate growth

I don’t think earnings have much to do with any of Elon’s projects’ market caps.

China just entered the chat, so that 94 multiple will get slashed in the year to come, hence the rush to offload onto retail