Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A look into the finances of SpaceX

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 397 posts

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#201

Post by jandrese »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #169
wddkcs wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is pricing in future growth. You can say the market is incorrectly evaluating the potential return, but it's hard to argue that Tesla and SpaceX aren't going to cash in on that potential. How else should the market be treating companies with obvious high growth potential?

It is very possible, even probable, that Tesla's glory days are already behind it. Their margin are contracting, and it's actually probable they will loose money in Q3, Q4 this year. They don't have any significant advantage on competition anymore, and China's competition is already well ahead Tesla. Elon himself suggested Tesla is worthless as a 'car making company' and it's value will come from solving autonomy wit…

> it's actually probable they will loose money in Q3, Q4 this year.

This doesn’t jive with their investor guidance, nor the sales figures. I’m curious where this prediction is coming from.

Maybe it is due to the capital expenditures from all of the new factories being built?

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#202

Post by avmich »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #154
pfdietz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rational return to the moon program that had to choose between Falcon and SLS would choose Falcon.

Falcon rockets can't get to the moon. You need a lot more fuel to do that. That's why SLS and Starship are both being developed.

In 1990's Dan Goldin, the NASA administrator at the time, was looking for ways to return to the Moon for cheap. One of the least expensive variants which was presented included launching multiple Protons and assembling lunar exeditionary complexes on LEO. The quoted number at that time was $1 billion to put boots on regolith again.

Falcon-9 is about as capable in terms of payload as Proton. And even without inflation the launch price is comparable. So, Falcon-9 is quite capable to get people on the Moon. It isn't really considered because there are other options and some additional requirements.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#203

Post by penjelly »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #175
penjelly wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my search says falcon has launches humans twice. Am i mistaken? that doesnt qualify as "regular basis"

Crew-1 to Crew-6, DM-2, Inspiration 4, Axiom 1, Axiom 2 10 missions A crewed mission to the ISS every 6 months plus a handful of commercials. Your numbers are way off.

thanks, thats what i get for asking bing instead of looking myself

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#204

Post by ryandrake »

mgolawala wrote: post #188
htss2013 wrote: post #140

Isn't it amazing that you can become the richest person in the world by building companies that lose money? By lose money I mean all money ever put into the company versus profits made. The idea of creating a profitless company that somehow makes you personally rich used to be thought of as a fluke. Yes it's possible but it shouldn't happen and aside from extreme luck it won't. Something has changed. Losing money and…

The valuation of the company has little to do with the equation of how much profit has been made in the past. It is focused on the companies profit potential in the future. This has always been the case. Sears or Ford may have produced a ton more in profit than was, as you say, put into the company. But the current valuation is based on what profit the market believes it will produce in the future.

I think what amazes OP is that "convincing people that profit will happen in the future" produces better stock value than actual profit happening today. We all know that's how it works but it's still amazing. The market is clearly showing that a bird in hand is worth less than two that might be in the bush 10 years from now.

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#205

Post by elitan »

nabla9 wrote: post #173
htss2013 wrote: post #140

Isn't it amazing that you can become the richest person in the world by building companies that lose money? By lose money I mean all money ever put into the company versus profits made. The idea of creating a profitless company that somehow makes you personally rich used to be thought of as a fluke. Yes it's possible but it shouldn't happen and aside from extreme luck it won't. Something has changed. Losing money and…

He is a socialist hero then? Wages before profits. His companies has paid worker salaries from day one and continues to pay wages for over 127,000 people every month. /s

Great take!

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#206

Post by d136o »

htss2013 wrote: post #140

Isn't it amazing that you can become the richest person in the world by building companies that lose money? By lose money I mean all money ever put into the company versus profits made. The idea of creating a profitless company that somehow makes you personally rich used to be thought of as a fluke. Yes it's possible but it shouldn't happen and aside from extreme luck it won't. Something has changed. Losing money and…

I am not a finance professional but…

Say you make $1 of profit, does that translate into $1 your company can control for its benefit? If kept as profit part of that dollar flows out of the company, to other companies and possibly to the government as taxes (god forbid).

If the company reinvests then it fully benefits from its would be $1 as opposed to someone spending it elsewhere.

IMO Accounting is the only reason many companies don’t turn an external “profit”

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#207

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

electriclove wrote: post #168
dabeeeenster wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this is being upvoted. They are launching mass into space at between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude lower cost than anyone else. The R+D costs on that is insane. And they are almost profitable. I 100% agree that du-jour saas companies raising 300MM on limited revenue is one thing, but this is not the same.

There is a lot of hate on anything Elon does. The market is valuing his companies based on exactly what you stated. If people read the mission statements of these companies and listen to what Elon says, it is pretty clear on what his goals are. And contrary to what most believe, it is not to make himself tons of money. These companies are going to make money as a means to accomplish their goals. The control could shi…

> > read the mission statements

Musk has been making mission statements ever since the days of Paypal. It's been 30 long years.

And he has never delivered tangible quality of life improvement for the avarage American

You can hate on Gates and Bezos and Zuck, tell you what, I will be joining you in that fight. But the products and services that they signed off are everywhere in society and if you disappeared them you'd have chaos if not outright civil war by the end of the month. (Note that I said 'signed off' not 'built')

Disappear Tesla and SpaceX and you'd have the manbun and big latte crowd throw a tantrum on ExTwitter and not much else. Life will go on as usual, for all practical purposes it's like you disappeared Tiffany&CO

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#208

Post by exodontist »

busterarm wrote: post #183
electriclove wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of hate on anything Elon does. The market is valuing his companies based on exactly what you stated. If people read the mission statements of these companies and listen to what Elon says, it is pretty clear on what his goals are. And contrary to what most believe, it is not to make himself tons of money. These companies are going to make money as a means to accomplish their goals. The control could shi…

TDS has evolved into MDS.

By TDS do you mean people disgusted by the 4x indicted rapist ex us president? And that that disgust has somehow morphed into a dislike for a south african immigrant who became the wealthiest man in America?

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#209

Post by [deleted] »

resolutebat wrote: post #126
reso wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare falcon to SLS because Falcon cannot do what SLS does. You can't compare SpaceX's figures to NASA because NASA has many, many more reporting obligations than SpaceX. Every report on Falcon 9 costs has made this mistake forever. SpaceX does not release their full costs. What numbers we have for them are PR releases. Meanwhile, NASA's budgets are public and comprehensive, and they have legal parameters…

At time of writing, it's the opposite: Falcon is launching humans into space on a regular basis, something SLS has entirely failed to do to date.

[deleted]

Re: A look into the finances of SpaceX

#210

Post by Dig1t »

htss2013 wrote: post #140

Isn't it amazing that you can become the richest person in the world by building companies that lose money? By lose money I mean all money ever put into the company versus profits made. The idea of creating a profitless company that somehow makes you personally rich used to be thought of as a fluke. Yes it's possible but it shouldn't happen and aside from extreme luck it won't. Something has changed. Losing money and…

SpaceX is investing a ton of money into Starship/RnD.

Those investments will basically be a money printer by lowering the cost to orbit drastically below any possible competitor.

It’s a long term play and it’s very smart.

Post reply on HN