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

SpaceX files to go public

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 631 posts

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#121

Post by RealityVoid »

indoordin0saur wrote: post #113

SpaceX has reduced the cost of getting a ton of mass into orbit by a factor of 10 and with their new system (Starship) it's poised further reduce that to 100x. They launch, land and re-use their rockets so often now that what was considered impossible 15 years ago is now routine. They currently put more things into space than the rest of the world combined and by a huge margin. They also have the most advanced intern…

It has technical merit and it is impressive. But I doubt it's worth that much. I guess Musk has the talent of pushing and getting what he wants, so I guess we'll see how it plays out. I'm just afraid for the future is SpaceX in these crazy crazy times.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#122

Post by lokar »

dmoy wrote: post #110
lokar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Levine wrote (uh, yesterday?) that the Nasdaq 100 was adding it (not a full linear weighting....) right now to accommodate this scam.

Ok fair, I forgot that QQQ is as big as it is. Edit: wait, but QQQ is float adjusted? What are the biggest not-float-adjusted index funds?

I don't know about the funds, but it's really about the index. Both for the index funds that use the index, and the active mutual funds and index funds benchmark to that index.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#123

Post by bmau5 »

convexly wrote: post #120

I'm genuinely waiting to see at what the valuation lands at. The gap between what SpaceX charges per launch and what everyone else charges is so wide that the moat basically is the rocket. Hard to compare against anything even now.

Valuations are always more of an art than a science but in what world is SpaceX worth more than Meta today? Maybe the $1.75T is to find that world.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#124

Post by mrlonglong »

dang wrote: post #136

[stub for offtopicness] [All: please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. You don't have to like $Company or $Person, but when the banned accounts are posting more thoughtfully than the rest, that's... bad.]

If it goes public, does that means Musk won't own any of it? Can we rip it out of his filthy hands?

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#125

Post by nly »

mrlonglong wrote: post #124
dang wrote: post #136

[stub for offtopicness] [All: please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. You don't have to like $Company or $Person, but when the banned accounts are posting more thoughtfully than the rest, that's... bad.]

If it goes public, does that means Musk won't own any of it? Can we rip it out of his filthy hands?

Likely only a shameful % of the company will float.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#126

Post by [deleted] »

mrlonglong wrote: post #124
dang wrote: post #136

[stub for offtopicness] [All: please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. You don't have to like $Company or $Person, but when the banned accounts are posting more thoughtfully than the rest, that's... bad.]

If it goes public, does that means Musk won't own any of it? Can we rip it out of his filthy hands?

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#127

Post by [deleted] »

luke5441 wrote: post #118
indoordin0saur wrote: post #113

SpaceX has reduced the cost of getting a ton of mass into orbit by a factor of 10 and with their new system (Starship) it's poised further reduce that to 100x. They launch, land and re-use their rockets so often now that what was considered impossible 15 years ago is now routine. They currently put more things into space than the rest of the world combined and by a huge margin. They also have the most advanced intern…

I don't see how replacing mobile carriers with space based infrastructure is physically possible.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#128

Post by socialcommenter »

bryananderson wrote: post #55
michaelt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God forbid we participants in the stock market evaluate a business before investing in it, or do any sort of work to get the return we're promised. I, for one, much prefer to earn a 9% return without expending any effort or thought at all.

You may wish it were not so, you may find it inelegant and infuriating and unfair, but it is a fact that retail investors nearly all underperform the market over a long enough time horizon. Maybe you are built different but for most of us it is very rational to take the market return for “free”.

Do understand, though, that market return will struggle to achieve 9% for the coming decades. A 9% annualised return would put the US stock market at 50% of world GDP in 10 years (edit: 20) and something like 90% of world GDP in 30 years (edit: 50 years). Cost of goods, and your customer's money, both have to come out of global GDP too.

(The current value of around 25% of global GDP doesn't even include the 1.75 trillion SpaceX which alone would be another almost 1%...)

ETF expense ratios are small but still mean retail will underperform anyway. It's an unfortunate situation all around.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#129

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

dang wrote: post #136

[stub for offtopicness] [All: please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. You don't have to like $Company or $Person, but when the banned accounts are posting more thoughtfully than the rest, that's... bad.]

Bollocks valuation. There isn't that much demand for space and it's not that profitable.

Re: SpaceX files to go public

#130

Post by convexly »

bmau5 wrote: post #123
convexly wrote: post #120

I'm genuinely waiting to see at what the valuation lands at. The gap between what SpaceX charges per launch and what everyone else charges is so wide that the moat basically is the rocket. Hard to compare against anything even now.

Valuations are always more of an art than a science but in what world is SpaceX worth more than Meta today? Maybe the $1.75T is to find that world.

The valuation only makes sense if you price in Starlink becoming a top 3 telecom and Starship opening up entirely new markets. Possible, sure, but the launch business alone doesn't get you anywhere near 1.75T. They're betting the multiple on revenue lines that don't fully exist yet.
Post reply on HN