This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX. Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%. SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns…
Brilliant meaning clever, like a well thought out scam.
Not brilliant meaning something actually positive for humanity in any respect at all.
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…
Yeah, only a small portion of SpaceX's revenue actually comes from Space (payload delivery). At this point they are basically an ISP (Starlink) and a datacenter/leasing company. It's not clear if Musk (SpaceX/X.ai) is really pursuing AI any more - I expect he hasn't necessarily given up on it, and he hasn't said he has, but it seems he's rented out almost all of his GPUs to Anthropic and Google, so that's not going t…
The profit center, to the extent any division makes money, is Starlink, yes, but what we have always known as SpaceX is just a tiny side project in the combined company.
Yeah, only a small portion of SpaceX's revenue actually comes from Space (payload delivery). At this point they are basically an ISP (Starlink) and a datacenter/leasing company. It's not clear if Musk (SpaceX/X.ai) is really pursuing AI any more - I expect he hasn't necessarily given up on it, and he hasn't said he has, but it seems he's rented out almost all of his GPUs to Anthropic and Google, so that's not going t…
According to their IPO S-1 draft they are 93% an AI company and 4% a space company. Its the remaining 3% of the company that is profitable, the Starlink stuff.
As I recall isn't Starlink revenue at least 3x Space revenue, so not sure how they are characterizing that 3:1 ratio as 3% vs 4% !
The "93% AI company" is also a huge mischaracterization since this isn't AI business - it's datacenter/GPU leasing business which their 2 customers can pull the plug on with 90 days notice.
> $920 million per month from October 2026 through June 2029 for access to “approximately 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, CPUs, memory, and other related components. That's about $8,400/month per "component" is that in the ballpark at all with what a month of dedicated/exclusive access to an NVIDIA GPU would go for?
> If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier Yeah, if a ridiculous premise is given you'll reach a ridiculous result.
It's not that ridiculous considering these are the current facts on the ground.
See also: "The Madness of Crowds"
On Wall Street,people think they are betting on the fin performance of Companies, when in fact you are betting on the crowd's perception of a company's performance.
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…
This makes no sense. Why doesn’t the “underlying value” of tulips change? “Underlying value” is a meaningless word btw
Things don't have any inherent value. It is priced at a level that a buyer thinks it is worth.
A gallon of oil can be $3 or $6 depending on whether someone is willing to pay. It can also be $10 but only if people are willing to buy it at $10 if not "prices will come down to match the demand" - another way of saying it would be $9..$8...$7...$6 until it matches a buyer at which point gas is $6.
This is a masterful piece of financial engineering by Google and SpaceX. Google purchased 10% of SpaceX over a decade ago. After dilution they probably own around 5%. SpaceX is valued at a whopping 94x revenue. This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. If SpaceX maintains this revenue multiplier, then this single deal boosts SpaceX's valuation by 94 x 11 billion = $1 trillion dollars. Google owns…
> masterful piece of financial engineering Love how we assign positive adjectives to unethical practices by corporates
I wouldnt class 'masterful' as a positive adjective personally.
EDIT: Downvotes? Not sure why. I would say Darth Vader is masterful of the force, and even that Donald Trump is masterful at being provocative. Masterful is not definitively positive or negative, it just describes being very good at something.
Why would it ever be more economical to put datacenters in orbit, rather than on some dirt cheap land?
I am surprised how many people say that there is no reason to put data centers in orbit, when, at the same time, data centers are becoming the hated thing du jour all over the US and politicians left and right (but mostly left-of-center) are touting bans and restrictions to their electorates. It is definitely to escape most political pressures on Earth. They will never be able to sidestep the US feds, but aside from…
People don't want to live near data centers. But companies find it logistically cheaper and easier to keep proposing to build them near existing towns and infrastructure, and then deal with regulatory fights rather then picking an isolated area and running an extension of high voltage lines out to them.
Which tells you something about why space data centers makes no sense.