A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

Post by bitmasher9 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 6:25 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #76

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules I’m genuinely confused how a passive investor winds up tracking the NASDAQ 100 versus a broader index. Also, if you’re picking and choosing your exposures, you aren’t passive.

That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. Even passive investors need to pick some methodology of how to pick assets and how to relatively weigh them, and while you can make that as mathematically simple as possible, it's arguably an active decision. Or would you say that e.g. an ETF tracking MSCI ex-US is not a passive fund?

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 6:27 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #86

multiplegeorges wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many space telescopes better than anything we currently have can we put up when launch costs are A huge synthetic telescope in orbit with an aperture the size of the planet? How many private earth observation satellites? The market is huge when weight constraints largely go away and $/kg drops so hard.

The question is whether those markets are not already adequately served by Falcon 9. Once again, just because you have a jumbo jet that can fly 500 people from New York to London does not mean that everyone flying out of New York wants to go to London, and it doesn't mean that it's worth flying that jumbo jet from New York to Pierre, South Dakota with only one passenger on board.

Post by stouset » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

malfist wrote: post #3

An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules to favor Elon and his band of misfits. No longer will there be a year of price discovery for index funds, 15 days. Meaning index funds have to buy it at the peak of the hype cycle. Will be a huge wealth transfer from mom and pop retirement accounts to the ultra wealthy.

Post by fastball » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 6:29 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #86

multiplegeorges wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many space telescopes better than anything we currently have can we put up when launch costs are A huge synthetic telescope in orbit with an aperture the size of the planet? How many private earth observation satellites? The market is huge when weight constraints largely go away and $/kg drops so hard.

The question is whether those markets are not already adequately served by Falcon 9. Once again, just because you have a jumbo jet that can fly 500 people from New York to London does not mean that everyone flying out of New York wants to go to London, and it doesn't mean that it's worth flying that jumbo jet from New York to Pierre, South Dakota with only one passenger on board.

Post by ahahahahah » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

mikkupikku wrote: post #73

ddp26 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I wrote in the piece, I'm extremely skeptical that xAI should be valued as if it is a frontier lab. 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.

I assume "extremely skeptical" is you being generous, is there anybody other than Elon who says xAI/Grok are SOTA? The only thing anybody says about it is that it's only good for porn, but local models do porn too so xAI has no moat or edge at all as far as I can see.