401–410 of 1001 posts
380 dollars per second... Good to know I could afford my own data center for an appreciable fraction of a minute.
Why would you want to own your own giant datacenter? What would you do with it? Of course it's expensive to operate a datacenter that serves millions of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bet is that demand for AI tokens will continue to grow exponentially. And that SpaceX will be able to deploy and rent out GPUs to serve those tokens faster than anyone else. The wrinkle is that they are planning to deploy those GPUs in space. That’s what people are most skeptical about, I think!
Space data centers need years of time to design, build, and deploy, 5-10 at least, and that's after they solve their multiple very difficult or impossible problems. How will they cool them? There are just simple ideas like giant structures to radiate the heat away, but you say you need to put lots of mass in orbit? Like fsd, will take decades to figure things out.
Starship is at minimum a 2030 project at this point.
And even producing the volume of chips needed for the type of growth space data centers would need to have to justify this would be another decade if construction started now on those fabs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX is valued at that revenue multiple because of its expected revenue growth rate. This deal is part of that revenue growth. So the new revenue would be already partially or even fully priced-in. Perhaps it reduces uncertainty around the growth rate, but expectations were already sky-high, as shown by the multiple!
As an ignoramus to these things.... there are only just so many Googles though. Having made a significant jump, are they really expected to continue that growth?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do companies like Uber, Tesla, etc ever intend to pay dividends? If a stock never intends to pay dividends, the value of the stock is simply the price the next shumck is willing to pay.
The value of the stock is your share in the underlying business. Because underlying business changes over time (hopefully for the better) you are not simply hoping another shmuck pays you more, like with tulips, whose underlying value does not change with time. You own a portion of a concern that is improving its own fortunes. Furthermore, dividends are approved by the board once per quarter or once per year. A divid…
“Underlying value” is a meaningless word btw
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If whole market means whole market, then such investments are exposed to companies who are fairly valued, companies who are massively overvalued, and companies who are massively undervalued, and the whole range in between. If you want to start picking and choosing which companies are overvalued and which are undervalued, don’t invest in whole market funds. But most people are not good at that!
the problem: The Nasdaq 100 and FTSE Russell made a rule change that allows SpaceX to enter index without mormal time for price discovery. Most index funds have rebalance day just 5 days after IPO. S&P also made rule change for S&P Total Market Index and Dow Jones US Total Stock Market Index, but left SP500 intact. Nothing wrong with SpaceX or Anthropic getting into indexes with fair rules, this rule change is pure c…
But there are things to say about your point too. I’ve commented on that in other threads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grok is just DOA. No need to beat a dead horse. Even Musk got that thus the reason why he is renting the stuff it planned for Grok.
Grok has plenty of "non-woke AI" cred which will make it a preferred choice for lots of government-side and politically sensitive workloads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re both AI companies
All companies are now AI companies. Just like a while ago all companies were suddenly Ads companies. The entire tech sector is one big FOMO - once you reach certain scale you do exactly the same thing as everyone else.
I don’t think their models are competitive with Google, and Google obviously has the best distribution imaginable, but they definitely are a competitor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
P/E is price to earning. Price to revenue is P/S. AER's P/S is like 3, so the discrepancy is much worse than you think. Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is absolutely ridiculous.
> Sidenote: 3 is actually high. Do you mean low? AAPL has a ps of 10.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94. Off the top of my head, there is a very well established business involving buying expensive things and leasing them to the companies that intend to operate them so they can sell services: aircraft leasing. AER is the biggest player and they have a P/E ratio of, drumroll please, 6. And I expect that GPUs, despite cu…
Comparing SpaceX to an aircraft leasing company seems more foolish to me than a 94x multiple. I understand the gist here, but come on. This is a generational company. It’s the only relevant space launch business, and has its tentacles deep in AI infrastructure as well. Maybe the AI bet is foolish — I don’t know — you should short it!