471–480 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory?
Common sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation?
Google renting infra from xAI, I did not see that coming. My understanding of what computers are doing, what companies are doing and what governments are doing seems to be getting worse day by day.
Financial shenanigans aside, xAI seems to be buying hardware at breakneck speed. So why not? https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/musks-xai-is-being-sued-ov...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Common sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation?
[flagged]
My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play.
> 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.
So yes, ridiculous things like that happen and markets are very often not rational at all (short and medium term at least).
Nortel, Sun, AOL, Cisco were all very innovative and rapidly growing companies. Until reality kicked in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google renting infra from xAI, I did not see that coming. Actually that seems to be fairly logical? Hardware is what xAI has , and it's in great demand. So sell what makes you money. The real story here is that that xAI hardware is going to be running Gemini and not Grok. Which is to say: Grok basically failed as a frontier AI and they need to pivot to a business model which makes money. Obviously not everything Mu…
Could you please describe the other satellite launch services whose prices are competitive with SpaceX?
That being said, ISRO focuses more on research and scientific world as compared to the commercial world but they were the least expensive option out there before SpaceX and the only differential which causes the pricing is actually re-usability aspect of SpaceX rockets/launchers and ISRO is actively working towards that too.
And another thing as brainwad said here but Space part of SpaceX is just 10% of the claimed business according to their S-1
Since the S-1 filing, xAI has taken over and is likely the largest share of revenue. I would estimate that ~95%+ of xAI revenue, and 100% of its profit, is from renting their datacenters. This is a datacenter REIT bolted onto a social media company bolted onto launch business bolted onto a niche ISP. The expected price to sales is ~100x. The best datacenter REITs trade at ~10x and pay a dividend, which SpaceX does no…
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.
It is a way to distribute the money to the investors, that their tax system favors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you come to this conclusion? All it means is that spacex has compute and google does not. Suppose tpus were theoretically a million times better, but cannot be produced due to supply chain constraints, this action would still be rational. My personal take is that this really shows how bottlenecked the entire supply chain is. For such an important commodity there are shockingly few players ready for scale.
It's a very long contract (till 2029) for just covering themselves for supply.
Since the S-1 filing, xAI has taken over and is likely the largest share of revenue. I would estimate that ~95%+ of xAI revenue, and 100% of its profit, is from renting their datacenters. This is a datacenter REIT bolted onto a social media company bolted onto launch business bolted onto a niche ISP. The expected price to sales is ~100x. The best datacenter REITs trade at ~10x and pay a dividend, which SpaceX does no…
TSLA has a forward PE of ~200x. That is probably the most logical comparison with SpaceX. Proof that the market can stay irrational for quite a long time. It fills me with a bit of dread about the future of the market. I am 10 years out from retirement, have a bit over 1M sitting in that market, and I wonder if it will implode in the meantime. I am fairly committed to the "invest like a dead man" (i.e. index funds, n…
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…
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…
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…