Starship: zero competitors & potentially makes humans inter-planetary.
Seems crazy if investors put more value on Grok.
51–60 of 214 posts
Starship: zero competitors & potentially makes humans inter-planetary.
Seems crazy if investors put more value on Grok.
> Starship at $170B is pure option value on technology still in advanced testing. The argument that Starship is somehow an experimental/unproven technology that might fail to materialise was absurd but plausible sounding before flight 1, there were many new technologies simultaneously being deployed to a single launch system in one go. But after 3 tower catches of the booster demonstrating centimetres of guided preci…
The question is not even whether or not Starship works. Starship is, in theory, designed with the idea of getting many, many payloads to Mars. However, getting payloads to Mars is not currently something that anyone is paying for; even NASA isn't going to focus on Mars for at least another decade (likely more). And in the meantime, it's not like we don't have rockets capable of getting payloads to Mars (the Saturn V…
This is only true because we are so completely beholden to the tyranny of the rocket equation with the current status quo. With the $/kg (and payload volume) that Starship would unlock, the entire ELO/GEO/Interplanetary/Deep Space market looks very different.
Labs in space. Hotels in space. Weapons in space. Much more interesting satellites in space. More government science missions. Privately funded science/research missions. etc
The xAI piece is the one that stands out to me. $258B for a lab that's burning $1.46B/quarter against $430M revenue, valued almost entirely on a merger anchor from four months ago.
But as you say, going back to the xAI + SpaceX merger, analysts consistently seem to value it as if it is, so I predict the public will too, at IPO time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What law prevents someone from choosing to buy stocks from the NASDAQ 100 however they want for a fund?
You can make a mutual fund or ETF with any stocks you want, you just can't call it a NASDAQ 100 fund if you're not tracking the NASDAQ 100 index.
Not bad for about $12-$16B in total actual revenue. net income probably: $1.5B – $3B P/E:500-1000 Of course people will trip overthemselves to buy it up.
Grok: lots of competitors & my 4th choice in LLM models. Starship: zero competitors & potentially makes humans inter-planetary. Seems crazy if investors put more value on Grok.
Humans being interplanetary would be an amazing technical tour de force. But relatively speaking, there isn’t much revenue there.
Not bad for about $12-$16B in total actual revenue. net income probably: $1.5B – $3B P/E:500-1000 Of course people will trip overthemselves to buy it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any funds you'd recommend that would preserve the legacy 1 year watch period?
The float adjustment probably handles this for you? The tiny amount of float of that $1.75T means that for any large total market or s&p or whatever fund (VTI, SPY, etc), SpaceX is going to be a minuscule fraction of the fund. Apple has a float of >99%. SpaceX is going to come out with 3-4% float. Since all big serious total market / whatever index funds are float adjusted, this means that SpaceX will be treated more…
Disagree. Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Granted, I’d be more concerned if the fund manager was buying it without a requirement to. The issue still remains about why are we paying so much for this stock? Make it make sense?
> Starship at $170B is pure option value on technology still in advanced testing. The argument that Starship is somehow an experimental/unproven technology that might fail to materialise was absurd but plausible sounding before flight 1, there were many new technologies simultaneously being deployed to a single launch system in one go. But after 3 tower catches of the booster demonstrating centimetres of guided preci…
The question is not even whether or not Starship works. Starship is, in theory, designed with the idea of getting many, many payloads to Mars. However, getting payloads to Mars is not currently something that anyone is paying for; even NASA isn't going to focus on Mars for at least another decade (likely more). And in the meantime, it's not like we don't have rockets capable of getting payloads to Mars (the Saturn V…
Well, they are going to live with multi-customer payloads if Starship can do it for a tenth of the price. There's already a large market for ride-sharing and it's only going to get bigger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally, any fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 must follow the rules set by NASDAQ, so you'd want something that is neither a total market index, nor tracks the NASDAQ. Something like an S&P500 index would work
What is an example nasdaq 100 fund that isn't float adjusted?
AFAIK the problem is that they're lobbying the nasdaq 100 index provider to add a 5x multiplier for free float for spacex. Otherwise it would be far less controversial.