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

141–150 of 301 posts

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#141

Post by arjie »

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?

If SpaceX is very successful he will spend everything on a mission to mars. He's pretty up front about this. If it costs a lot and the company runs at a loss then it costs a lot and the company runs at a loss. Read the S-1

> We believe that our current space efforts will catalyze transformative breakthroughs that could reshape terrestrial industries and lead to the emergence of new trillion-dollar markets on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In particular, we believe our goal of establishing a lunar presence will enable terawatt-scale annual AI compute growth, support deeper space exploration and industrialization, and serve as a stepping stone to establishing a civilization on Mars.

There is no secret about this. If this scares you, do not invest. Mars is mentioned 60 times in there. That's what he's going to spend the money on if it comes to it. If you don't want to lose your money on a Mars mission then the guys who are saying they're going to spend your money on a Mars mission are not the guys for you.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#142

Post by tyre »

lenerdenator wrote: post #95
nickff wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The voting issue is problematic, but the limits on shareholder class-actions seems like a good idea. Do you know of any shareholder class-action lawsuit that actually benefited the shareholders? They only ever seem to benefit the plaintiff lawyers pursuing the case.

That's because they often don't go far enough, and that's because of limits on things like shareholder class-actions. If you haven't wiped out their corporate savings and sent the stock price tumbling, you haven't really done anything to get the needed recompense and to discourage the behavior in the future. Right now, many companies are effectively sole proprietorships or partnerships with window dressing made to lo…

But that’s the thing. In that case, the shareholders are the ones who were harmed and now they’re winning by…making their investment worth far less?

What you really need are lawsuits against individuals to be held accountable, otherwise it’s a lose-lose for shareholders.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#143

Post by numpad0 »

kldavis4 wrote: post #10
m-hodges wrote: post #2

> Even at $63 per share, we give SpaceX a lot of benefit of the doubt in two of the three scenarios, in which we assume the company can achieve a rapidly reusable Starship rocket enabling multiple launches per week and successfully commercialize data centers in space. > In our downside scenario, orbital data centers won’t work or offer any advantage over terrestrial ones. We surmise that the company, having invested…

The orbital data center thing is really strange. Without some kind of massive technological breakthrough the physics of an orbital data center make no sense. Napkin math for a single data center including solar panels, radiators, compute and structure is somewhere on the order of ~6500 tonnes. Let's say Starship can put 100-150 tonnes into orbit per launch, that is somewhere between 40-65 launches for just one single…

There are people arguing it has to be a signal processing backend for a realtime radar system based on Starlink Direct-to-Cell antennas.

IMO, that lines up with a weird remark from Musk around stealth jet obsolescence few years ago, and makes sense.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#144

Post by bulbar »

Laremere wrote: post #121
redox99 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Reminds me of 'Open'AI. All for the benefit of humanity, of course...

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#145

Post by tyre »

arjie wrote: post #141
redox99 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If SpaceX is very successful he will spend everything on a mission to mars. He's pretty up front about this. If it costs a lot and the company runs at a loss then it costs a lot and the company runs at a loss. Read the S-1 > We believe that our current space efforts will catalyze transformative breakthroughs that could reshape terrestrial industries and lead to the emergence of new trillion-dollar markets on the Moon…

> Mars is mentioned 60 times in there. That's what he's going to spend the money on if it comes to it.

And yet the vast majority of addressable market they list is enterprise AI apps lol

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#146

Post by Teever »

WalterBright wrote: post #131
ElProlactin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's no law that says prices must be based on standard financial analysis. You and I and a million other people might run away from Tesla's valuation but that doesn't mean that the market must. I think it's very obvious that the historical norms that governed and explained pricing in the stock market no longer apply, for better or worse. Between the massive manipulation of the markets by central banks to the r…

People grossly undervalued the IPOs of Amazon and Microsoft.

“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” -- Carl Sagan

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#147

Post by dilyevsky »

SwellJoe wrote: post #48
pryce wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like we are going to relive the hyperloop-decline with the specs of proposed orbital datacentres. But the hyperloop was in one regard a success, in that it built temporary hype. Maybe it was even named after that.

It also achieved Musk's actual goal: derailing and delaying mass transit initiatives, the California High-speed Rail project, in particular. He knew it was bullshit. He's dumber than most people realize, but he's not dumb enough to actually believe all the bullshit he spouts.

Pinning CAHSR jobs program as hyperloop's fault is pretty funny. Maybe he did intend to upset it but since both turned out to be massive boondoggles doesn't seem like it worked - they managed to delay it themselves just fine.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#148

Post by tyre »

Hansenq wrote: post #112

You can absolutely level this claim against Tesla too. When deliveries dropped a year ago, the stock price didn't go down. Tesla's stock is disconnected from the fundamentals and every stock investor today knows this. Why would SpaceX be any different? If anything it would be even more disconnected from the fundamentals than Tesla is, given how much more control it gives Elon. SpaceX stock is a bet on Elon, full stop…

Yeah you can’t go into this with any expectations or later complaints. Everyone knows at this point that he’s going to do whatever the fuck he wants. If you give him money, that’s what it’s for.

I say this entirely neutrally. Some people want to invest in that—and he’s made a boatload of money for those who have thus far!—while others find it insane.

But you don’t get to buy into this and complain.

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#149

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

credit_guy wrote: post #77
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 50 rocket launches seems hard to make cheaper than a building.

Why? It seems to me to be much cheaper than a building. Musk's aim is for the cost of one Starship launch to be under $10 million in the long run. 50 rocket launches would be less than half a billion dollars. Can you get a datacenter built on the ground for half a billion dollars?

The comparison isn't half a billion for a datacenter, it's half a billion for a big shed (and some solar panels). The problem of space based data centers is that the only effort they save you is building a big shed to put the GPUs in (and potentially cheaper power at the cost of more expensive cooling)

Re: We Think the SpaceX IPO Is Overvalued

#150

Post by andai »

Hansenq wrote: post #112

You can absolutely level this claim against Tesla too. When deliveries dropped a year ago, the stock price didn't go down. Tesla's stock is disconnected from the fundamentals and every stock investor today knows this. Why would SpaceX be any different? If anything it would be even more disconnected from the fundamentals than Tesla is, given how much more control it gives Elon. SpaceX stock is a bet on Elon, full stop…

He seems pretty good at figuring stuff out.
Post reply on HN