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

We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

morningstar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 301 posts

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#121

Post by Laremere »

redox99 wrote: post #54
oldfuture wrote: post #15

And the prospectus says it plainly: "Mr. Musk will be able to control the outcome of matters requiring shareholder approval." Musk holds over 85% voting power through Class B super-voting shares (10 votes/share). Public investors combined will have 15%. What Musk Controls: - CEO removal = his consent. You can't fire him even if he destroys the company - Take business for himself. SpaceX gets a rocket deal? Musk can s…

I think this is a very big issue. If SpaceX is very successful, will he pay out dividends, or will he spend everything on a mission to mars at a massive loss or something like that?

SpaceX has gotten reduced cost engineering since its inception, due to telling their employees that the entire purpose of SpaceX is to put humans on Mars. Everything was about making money while developing the technology to do, and then using that money to achieve that goal. Going public in this way fundamentally creates a conflict there. Given that Musk has already used SpaceX to bail out his Twitter acquisition, it feels like both investors and hopeful engineers are going to lose.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#122

Post by laichzeit0 »

andyst wrote: post #27
hparadiz wrote: post #12

I want some shares purely as a novelty. Don't really care about the price. It's not about making money. It's about owning a piece of the future.

well the good news is, you are exactly who they are looking for! you could just buy some merch though, which has the same effect otherwise using ROIC or CAGR might be more optimal way to evaluate your investments

Hey, I’m doing the exact same as OP and so is everyone at work I know who has a memefolio of shares. You never bet against papa Musk.

You guys are looking at these IPOs all wrong. Nobody is looking at valuations. It could open at $200 a share it would make no difference.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#123

Post by actuallyalys »

killingtime74 wrote: post #11
p-e-w wrote: post #6

If SpaceX is indeed overvalued (which I have no opinion on), it above all else demonstrates how unimportant spaceflight still is. SpaceX has been the only game in town for quite a while now, to such an extent that the intelligence agencies of foreign governments have no alternative but to launch with SpaceX. They now do more orbital launches than the entire rest of the world combined. If they really are worth less th…

I think you are conflating mattering and making money. You can matter a lot, generate a lot of social good and not make money. This article is just about the making money part.

I think this is right. For example, GPS is tremendously useful, but you can use it for free. Similarly, while there are commercial weather services, a lot of people access the ad-supported versions[0] or get it from their government’s weather agency.

[0]: which obviously provide some revenue, but much less than the value provided.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#124

Post by jaimex2 »

oldfuture wrote: post #15

And the prospectus says it plainly: "Mr. Musk will be able to control the outcome of matters requiring shareholder approval." Musk holds over 85% voting power through Class B super-voting shares (10 votes/share). Public investors combined will have 15%. What Musk Controls: - CEO removal = his consent. You can't fire him even if he destroys the company - Take business for himself. SpaceX gets a rocket deal? Musk can s…

Tons of people are already buying you don't have to sell it to them.

I'll happily take Musks proven and superior leadership with guarantees over letting the company decline chasing short term sugar hits that destroy it long term.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#125

Post by ncallaway »

mrcwinn wrote: post #7

>However, we assign this scenario, in which both Starship is reusable and scaled orbital data centers are highly successful, a 7% chance of happening I may agree with their overall sentiment, but I think this sort of formulation is just silly nonsense from analysts who build models instead of companies.

Okay, but if someone is going to invest money into companies they need some way of deciding what they think a company is likely to do in the future.

Are these kinds of reports mostly a lot of window-dressing around a gut-feel about what might happen in the future? Yea, of course. But, there's not really other options. Pretty much all the other options for predicting how much money a particular company is going to make in the future will also boil down to a gut-feel.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#126

Post by naet »

GMoromisato wrote: post #92

A lot (everything?) hinges on orbital data centers. If they don't work, SpaceX is overvalued. SpaceX plans to launch 120 kW satellites, each weighing 1.7 tons. Let's be conservative and say it ends up being a 100 kW satellite massing 2 tons. Let's be conservative and say Starship can launch 50 tons to orbit for $20 million ($5 million more than a Falcon 9 launch). 50 kW per ton x $400K per ton = $8,000 per kW = $8 mi…

I think starlink made intuitive sense; we already use satellites to transfer data for phone service and TV channels, a satellite can "see" a large area to service, the technology was there already, etc. Starlink provides a service you can't really get without going to space (coverage in remote areas).

The space data center doesn't make intuitive sense to me. Why put it in space? Wouldn't it be better just... on the ground? The technology doesn't feel like it's there either, and there would be significant competition from existing or new data centers that don't have all the drawbacks of orbiting the planet.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#127

Post by darth_avocado »

themafia wrote: post #78
darth_avocado wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the fact that it doesn't matter and won't impact demand for shares illustrates how increasingly and dangerously untethered the stock market is from reality. Part of the reason for this demand is the fact that index tracking funds like QQQ will be forced to buy up massive volumes of shares. Not only that but other non index tracking funds that track large cap stocks will also have to buy. Vanguard large cap for…

Does this not follow from the basic 401k structure in this country? Most people will be defaulted into a fund like Vanguard and from what I can gather from my co-workers, none of them are particularly wild about taking their retirement money and playing the day trading casino to try to increase their performance. It's better than what preceded it but we still manage retirement wealth poorly.

You could argue either way. This funnels retirement money into private pockets by forcing a listing at ridiculous valuations.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#128

Post by jaimex2 »

redox99 wrote: post #54
oldfuture wrote: post #15

And the prospectus says it plainly: "Mr. Musk will be able to control the outcome of matters requiring shareholder approval." Musk holds over 85% voting power through Class B super-voting shares (10 votes/share). Public investors combined will have 15%. What Musk Controls: - CEO removal = his consent. You can't fire him even if he destroys the company - Take business for himself. SpaceX gets a rocket deal? Musk can s…

I think this is a very big issue. If SpaceX is very successful, will he pay out dividends, or will he spend everything on a mission to mars at a massive loss or something like that?

Its going to Mars. You can't play the oblivious share holder victim with this stock and try and sue later saying you didnt know.

Thats always been the plan.

Post reply on HN