Live data from Hacker News

Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake

wsj.com

131–140 of 344 posts

Re: Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake

#131
post #110

Alphabet is the modern day berkshire hathaway. Alphabet’s investment holdings (eg, spacex, anthropic..) are worth in the same order of magnitude of BRK’s (~$300B) The track record of google’s M&A is pretty good. Except for search and cloud, many of Google’s important products were from M&A - Maps, Docs, android, doubleclick, youtube , deep mind, etc.

The companies you listed have great synergy with Google's core business. What's Google's play with SpaceX? Data centers in space?

starlink cellular connection for android in future

Re: Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake

#134
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excluding all the capex from AI this last quarter has been one of their best.

> Excluding But you don´t get to to that. Would be like "Excluding my business costs, my company profits are the same as my revenue".

EBITDAI

Re: Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake

#135
post #49

This investment has never been secret. Google (now under parent company Alphabet) invested roughly $900 million as the majority of a ~$1 billion funding round alongside Fidelity Investments. This gave Google an initial equity stake of about 7–7.5% in SpaceX at a valuation of roughly $10–12 billion.

Remember this was also when SpaceX was actually about space, instead of mostly AI and Twitter. Long-term shareholders that were sold on the space, have to be thinking about how to get out once their lockups expire.

[deleted]

Re: Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake

#136
post #126
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember this was also when SpaceX was actually about space, instead of mostly AI and Twitter. Long-term shareholders that were sold on the space, have to be thinking about how to get out once their lockups expire.

I don't think companies expanding their business should be the only reason to sell. Apple was a desktop and laptop computer company when they released the iPod. Nokia was a company making rubber products when they started making cellular equipment in the 1970s. Amazon was a ecomm company when they released AWS. Etc. Sure, I'm cherrypicking the success stories but I don't think it's the only signal people should use.

[dead]

Re: Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake

#137
post #110

Alphabet is the modern day berkshire hathaway. Alphabet’s investment holdings (eg, spacex, anthropic..) are worth in the same order of magnitude of BRK’s (~$300B) The track record of google’s M&A is pretty good. Except for search and cloud, many of Google’s important products were from M&A - Maps, Docs, android, doubleclick, youtube , deep mind, etc.

The companies you listed have great synergy with Google's core business. What's Google's play with SpaceX? Data centers in space?

One would presume connectivity and services in space as industry and services spread there. Asteroid mining, on orbit manufacturing, space colonies/tourism, data centers in space, centers for working outside traditional government jurisdiction.

Re: Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake

#139

I am short both Google and SpaceX RN; SpaceX's IPO smells foul. Google is an AI-bubble short; Anthropic and OpenAI haven't IPOed yet.

from your list, I think only Google has moat and something I would short least. Google has hardware, software ecosystem, mobile ecosystem, controls browser, has access to 2B+ users, has talent to come up with ideas - perfect spot for AI

Microsoft is in a better position (as their b2b ecosystem can realistically be made LLM-agnostic), but Google will be fine.

Re: Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake

#140
post #126
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember this was also when SpaceX was actually about space, instead of mostly AI and Twitter. Long-term shareholders that were sold on the space, have to be thinking about how to get out once their lockups expire.

I don't think companies expanding their business should be the only reason to sell. Apple was a desktop and laptop computer company when they released the iPod. Nokia was a company making rubber products when they started making cellular equipment in the 1970s. Amazon was a ecomm company when they released AWS. Etc. Sure, I'm cherrypicking the success stories but I don't think it's the only signal people should use.

Companies laundering their CEO's other failing companies is certainly a reason to sell.
Post reply on HN