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

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

futuresearch.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 214 posts

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

#101

Post by malfist »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30
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.

> 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.

A broader index that tracks the NASDAQ tracks the NASDAQ 100 and is impacted by this rule.

You buy VTI, you're impacted.

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

#102

Post by fastball »

kibwen wrote: post #85
daedrdev wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like imagine how much better the James web could have been with such a large and cheap launch vehicle.

That's not how this works. The JWST was limited by the size of its faring, but increasing the size of the faring doesn't mean they'd ship a less complex telescope with the same functionality; they'd ship an equally-complex telescope with more functionality. Better for science, yes, but that doesn't translate to more expenditure that could be captured by the launch company. And that still relies on a government that g…

> that doesn't translate to more expenditure that could be captured by the launch company.

Of course it does. With Starship, SpaceX could've charged NASA/ESA more to launch a bigger JWST than the cost to launch with Ariane 5, with huge profit margins.

On top of that, with a much larger fairing, you could almost certainly simplify the telescope and increase capability. A significant part of the JWST's complexity is the unfolding sequence, which could be simplified with a fairing that is more than double (triple? quadruple?) the volume.

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

#103

Post by Octoth0rpe »

bobtheborg wrote: post #50

Having never really looked at valuations, my ignorant mind can get from Starlink's 10M subscribers to a $380B valuation. If you make $100/mo/user that's 12B/yr and that with a higher 50x P/E ratio is 60B. If you go to 100x, that's $120B.

Starlink's maritime, roving, airplane, and military options are all much more than $100/mo/user. Not sure how much that closes the gap, but it's _something_.

Source: https://starlink.com/business/aviation ($250->$10k/mo)

https://starlink.com/business/maritime ($250/mo)

https://starlink.com/business/mobility ($65->$540/mo)

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

#104

Post by oa335 »

malfist wrote: post #11
yandie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I need a fund that will honor a year of price discovery rather than 15 days. Any recommendations?

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

Not legally, only by contract/specification. Funds could get sued for deviating from the index, but funds generally have a decent amount of discretion in my experience in how they handle rebalancing.

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

#105

Post by malfist »

compiler-guy wrote: post #56
tliptay wrote: post #51

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.

These premises may or may not make sense, but the thing that matters is capturable revenue. Humans being interplanetary would be an amazing technical tour de force. But relatively speaking, there isn’t much revenue there.

These premises may or may not make sense, but the thing that matters is capturable revenue.

European settlers being on the north american continent would be an amazing technical tour de force. But relatively speaking, there isn't much revenue there.

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

#106

Post by WalterBright »

dmurray wrote: post #82
charcircuit wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What law prevents someone from choosing to buy stocks from the NASDAQ 100 however they want for a fund?

Actively managed funds like that charge around 0.5% to 1% a year. E.g. [0] The most prominent Nasdaq ETF, QQQ, charges 0.2% [1] Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2]. If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your…

> the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average.

Of course some do. After all, that's what makes an "average".

Some people are taller than average, too!

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

#108

Post by scythe »

gruez wrote: post #67
taurath wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

Who's "they"? Billionaires? Wall st? SpaceX insiders and investors?

The unknown subject is a valid construction in language. It is not necessary to be able to answer "who's they?". It is semantically equivalent to saying "I knew the rules would be changed."

There are also perfectly ordinary situations in which this pattern is used to imply the influence of an unknown party. "They built a bridge over the river." Clearly the speaker does not believe that bridges over rivers construct themselves. She doesn't need to know who built the bridge.

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

#109

Post by darth_aardvark »

Noaidi wrote: post #96
fastball wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not. If the P/E was 1, every single public company would be immediately gobbled up by Private Equity firms, who would make their money back after a few years of operation and the rest would be pure profit.

Of course they would! If the P/E of a company is 1.1 it is overvalued by definition so why would anyone buy an over valued company? So you have to be a complete idiot to but stock in a company with a P/E of 500!

> Of course they would! If the P/E of a company is 1.1 it is overvalued by definition so why would anyone buy an over valued company?

This is obviously untrue. Would you sell a box that spits out $1 million dollars a year for 1 million dollars?

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

#110

Post by WalterBright »

malfist wrote: post #105
compiler-guy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These premises may or may not make sense, but the thing that matters is capturable revenue. Humans being interplanetary would be an amazing technical tour de force. But relatively speaking, there isn’t much revenue there.

These premises may or may not make sense, but the thing that matters is capturable revenue. European settlers being on the north american continent would be an amazing technical tour de force. But relatively speaking, there isn't much revenue there.

Jamestown was a failure.

The Pilgrims starved their first year.

Post reply on HN