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

Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 208 posts

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#111

Post by started_green »

Musk fanboi here.

If the bait and switch of xAI quotas continue, I would not expect their inference services to succeed.

Before getting SuperGrok I had a premium subscription.

After forking over $300 payment (annual) for SuperGrok, my quota was drastically cut immediately. As soon as I paid. This is for going from premium ($8 / month) to Super; the way cheaper premium counterintuitively had a much higher quota. Much. Versus $30/month, SuperGrok has a much lower quota and it’s been getting worse, even as xAI has surplus inference capacity to sell to Anthropic. I want Premium back, but I fear they have cut it back. To talk numbers: 35 videos every 90 minutes in premium versus after paying $$, around 30 videos per DAY in “Super” lol Grok. Granted a paltry 10 or so… it varies… of the videos are higher resolution than premium but that doesn’t matter because premium had unlimited upscaling, now gone. I’ve complained. Silence.

Do not, do not, subscribe to xAI services.

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#112

Post by baobabKoodaa »

outside2344 wrote: post #8
Sidio wrote: post #3

As is the case with Elon's companies (and a bit of the market itself), it feels like any logical valuation has no impact on the actual stock price.

The market can stay insane longer than you can stay solvent. In the short term the market is a popularity machine but in the long term it is a weighing machine.

You're repeating tired quotes without even understanding what they mean. The quote "longer than you can stay solvent" refers to short selling. Here you are using it in the opposite context: to describe a long position. It makes no sense. How exactly would a non leveraged long position get margin called?

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#113

Post by ssorallen »

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #45
jbverschoor wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Idk… The original “revenue thesis” was that SpaceX, with landing orbital rocket boosters, can undercut all competitors and essentially have a monopoly on payload-to-orbit, and that their lower prices would massive increase the market. Seems a fine business. But then a couple years ago they say “actually with this brand new technological edge we can spin up a monopoly on an entirely NEW industry, Space Internet” and w…

79.6% of SpaceX’s Total Addressable Market is listed under “Enterprise Applications” of AI. This is in the S-1 itself. SpaceX is not planning to make its money in space or in broadband - SpaceX claims it’s an AI company.

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#115

Post by jfyi »

megaloblasto wrote: post #38
Forgeties79 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just make your point. You think it’s appropriately valued or undervalued, right?

Personally I think the valuation is detached from the company itself. In theory Tesla's valuation is too high, but it doesn't seem to be coming down any time soon. Plus there seems to be ways to manipulate stock prices when you control such a highly valued company, to the extent that the stock price reflects actions taken in the stock market more than the underlying assets and balance sheets.

[dead]

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#117

Post by stefan_ »

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #45
jbverschoor wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Idk… The original “revenue thesis” was that SpaceX, with landing orbital rocket boosters, can undercut all competitors and essentially have a monopoly on payload-to-orbit, and that their lower prices would massive increase the market. Seems a fine business. But then a couple years ago they say “actually with this brand new technological edge we can spin up a monopoly on an entirely NEW industry, Space Internet” and w…

Except that whole payload-to-orbit business turned out to be a dream of SciFi readers, very prevalent on HN, not so much a real massive business. Which is why Starlink is still the biggest "customer". It's probably most interesting for governments, which is also of course why China & co. will have their own SpaceX, not this one.

And then meanwhile the whole thing got merged with the corpse of Twitter and the failed xAI. With the latter nobody can quite explain why it continues to employ extremely overpaid 20 year olds when it has meanwhile pivoted to selling energy to its biggest competitors, an absolute turd of a business.

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#119

Post by andsoitis »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #84
andsoitis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2025 VOO returned 17.82% vs VOOG returned 22.11%. XMAG’s trailing 1-year return through late 2025 was around 9–15% depending on the measurement date, as the Mag 7 dragged badly in early 2025. VOOG has returned 18.28%/yr over 10 years vs 15.63%/yr for VOO, a meaningful gap driven almost entirely by Mag 7 dominance. XMAG has no 10-year track record.

Certainly, you have done well over the last ~18-24 months if you have exposure to the AI investment exuberance (VOO), just as you did well if you had exposure to certain securities during ZIRP or the pandemic. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Since its September 2010 inception, VOO is up +816% in nominal total return, or +15.1%/yr annualized.

The 10-year total return is 327%, and the 15-year average annual return is 14.4%.

Hard to beat.

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#120

Post by stuxnet79 »

Sidio wrote: post #3

As is the case with Elon's companies (and a bit of the market itself), it feels like any logical valuation has no impact on the actual stock price.

> As is the case with Elon's companies (and a bit of the market itself), it feels like any logical valuation has no impact on the actual stock price.

Has this type of phenomenon been studied or formalized in any way by economists? I mean specifically how a cult of personality develops around a single individual causing the market to lose its shit. Or the increasing meme-ification of financial instruments.

These are both uniquely 21st century phenomena. But I'm not familiar enough with finance / economics to know what to read up on to understand what is going on.

Post reply on HN