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

121–130 of 208 posts

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

#121

Post by delecti »

downrightmike wrote: post #4
artwr wrote: post #2

That's going to be interesting to see if others follow this as an anchor or buy more into the hype. Regardless it's still a large multiple of earnings...

There's a finite supply of space before we lock ourselves in with trash

To take the opposite angle of the other reply, if we lock ourselves in with trash, then orbit will be fucked for everyone. That's not something that SpaceX could plant their flag in and then be the only one to use it. If Kessler syndrome happens, SpaceX would be just as worthless as any competitors they might currently have an edge over.

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

#122

Post by guidedlight »

altcognito wrote: post #96
moate wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If the guy with insider access to the Kleptocracy left would this thing be as valuable" is a resounding NO when you're selling exploding space ships and a 3rd tier AI, a service that consumers continue to find complicated at best.

SpaceX sells starlink. That's probably the most valuable part of SpaceX by far based on recurring revenue. While they've made spaceflight reasonably cheap and reliable for a particular category of payloads - clearly there wasn't phantom demand just waiting to be launched. Given the IPO, I suspect they're hitting the wall with regards to new starlink signups, and SpaceX is done growing. SpaceX has $6.6B adjusted EBITD…

There are competitors to Starlink arriving now.

For example, the Australian government has selected Project Kepler (now called Amazon Leo) to provide broadband services to the Australian Outback.

https://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/...

And geopolitical shenanigans in Ukraine with Musk and Starlink means that it may not be a reliable partner.

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

#123

Post by kklisura »

nonethewiser wrote: post #93
dstroot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additional concern is the push to get it added to indices immediately. Forcing it into our retirement funds, 401ks and IRAs.

>Forcing it into our retirement funds, 401ks and IRAs. Do you think people buying the SP 500 are forced to buy Apple? Dell? Workday? I see headlines like "401k holders forced to by SpaceX" and think "WTF, that is crazy." Then I look at the article and it just says its being added to the SP500. You may not like that it's being added to the SP500 but no one is saying you are forced to buy any other companies being adde…

WSJ article from February 2026 [1]:

> Musk advisers have reached out to major index providers seeking ways to secure earlier inclusion in market benchmarks to lift shares

> Advisers for the company, which recently merged with xAI, have reached out to major index providers, including Nasdaq, to discuss how SpaceX and this year’s other hot startups might join key indexes sooner than normal, according to people familiar with the matter.

> SpaceX hopes to skirt traditional rules in an effort to bring liquidity to its shareholders sooner as part of its planned IPO. SpaceX advisers have sought index policy changes that would fast-track its entry into major indexes for the company and benefit other highly-valued private companies, the people said.

This is simply not _companies being added to SP500, etc._ as you say. This is forceful change of the rules so these companies can reap benefits and it optics is that funds are being _forced_ to buy in.

[1] https://archive.is/es8U7

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

#124

Post by cmiles8 »

Eji1700 wrote: post #98
cmiles8 wrote: post #94

There’s simply no version of financial reality that values this company at over 1T. Even 780B is extremely generous based on the current financial picture and a very optimistic view of the future. The AI IPOs are broadly in the same ballpark, and if they IPO at less than the last private valuation (a real possibility absent a perfect setup) that triggers a whole bunch of other messes. The window to get all these thin…

> The AI IPOs To be clear, the Space X prospectus seems to claim it IS an AI IPO.

Indeed and it’s almost sad. The core of SpaceX is an amazing engineering company with real assets and a serious moat. Thats realistically maybe worth 250-400B-ish as a serious hardcore company.

Then there’s all this other hype and nonsense tacked on to make a franken-company that’s just making a circus of the core story.

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

#125

Post by ryandvm »

pandoro wrote: post #69

The other day I was thinking: "if Musk disappears tomorrow would the valuation still be in the same ballpark?". I don't think so at all. In this context, it feels like even 150 Billions would be a big stretch considering revenue and forecasts. The coming IPOs and numbers are completely detached from reality and we are all in for a crash that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Wild that the guy whose decisions are directly responsible for driving profitability into the ground is somehow the reason these companies have 300+ PE valuations.

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

#126

Post by remus »

nonethewiser wrote: post #88
pandoro wrote: post #69

The other day I was thinking: "if Musk disappears tomorrow would the valuation still be in the same ballpark?". I don't think so at all. In this context, it feels like even 150 Billions would be a big stretch considering revenue and forecasts. The coming IPOs and numbers are completely detached from reality and we are all in for a crash that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

>I don't think so at all. In this context, it feels like even 150 Billions would be a big stretch considering revenue and forecasts. How are you valuating SpaceX?

Not at >100x revenue, presumably.

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

#127

Post by kristjansson »

andsoitis wrote: post #37
toomuchtodo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best you can do is avoid the exposure with changes to your portfolio composition while everyone else gets grifted. It's regrettable.

I think this is poor advice. Its share of the index will be relatively small and if it is indeed a dud, the index will organically rebalance. If you’re a long-term investor, this would just be a temporary blip. On the other hand, if this is thr opposite of a dud, you’ll get the benefit of that.

Sure, it'll only be ~2% of the index if it opens where they want to. But in the downside case where it meanders long enough for significant amounts of its stock to make it in to public hands and then goes to 10x revenue (i.e. down 90%) , you've allowed a company to engineer dramatic changes in index rules resulting in a transfer ~1% of S&P 500 market cap from index funder holders to its bagholders^W privileged insiders^W^W investors.

Yes a -1% day should be nothing to a long term holder. Yes they're buying the market; if the market is wrong they shouldn't really have any recourse. But one can also understand that a -1% day that accrues ~entirely to the benefit a small group, who appear to have engineered that outcome has much more emotional valence than a typical down down. It doesn't feel like a bad day on the market, it feels like a heist.

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

#128

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

guidedlight wrote: post #122
altcognito wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX sells starlink. That's probably the most valuable part of SpaceX by far based on recurring revenue. While they've made spaceflight reasonably cheap and reliable for a particular category of payloads - clearly there wasn't phantom demand just waiting to be launched. Given the IPO, I suspect they're hitting the wall with regards to new starlink signups, and SpaceX is done growing. SpaceX has $6.6B adjusted EBITD…

There are competitors to Starlink arriving now. For example, the Australian government has selected Project Kepler (now called Amazon Leo) to provide broadband services to the Australian Outback. https://www.nbnco.com.au/corporate-information/media-centre/... And geopolitical shenanigans in Ukraine with Musk and Starlink means that it may not be a reliable partner.

And LEO is using SpaceX to launch.

SpaceX was launching a modest % of the LEO constellation but after the Blue Origin failure, SpaceX is the only launch provider who can fill that gap and actually let LEO deliver on contracted time.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm no Musk sycophant though I do love SpaceX and Starlink. I want us to have multiple providers of super cheap space launch capabilities and multiple diverse LEO satellite constellations (3-4 on a global scale makes sense I think?).

I'm sure BlueOrigin will get there some day and I'm sure LEO will get there too (maybe even in the 2028 window if they expand their SpaceX launch partnership).

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

#129

Post by pandoro »

nonethewiser wrote: post #88
pandoro wrote: post #69

The other day I was thinking: "if Musk disappears tomorrow would the valuation still be in the same ballpark?". I don't think so at all. In this context, it feels like even 150 Billions would be a big stretch considering revenue and forecasts. The coming IPOs and numbers are completely detached from reality and we are all in for a crash that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

>I don't think so at all. In this context, it feels like even 150 Billions would be a big stretch considering revenue and forecasts. How are you valuating SpaceX?

Their launch business has a dominant market position but is not run for profit and xAI is loosing money. Starlink is the only segment earning real money: $7.2 billion in adjusted EBITDA. So 150 Billions seems "realistic" when taking Musk out of the equation. Maybe 150 to 250 billions would be better as a range if you want to be really optimistic.

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

#130

Post by a3c9 »

trhway wrote: post #53
dstroot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additional concern is the push to get it added to indices immediately. Forcing it into our retirement funds, 401ks and IRAs.

>Forcing it into our retirement funds, 401ks and IRAs. Not just forcing it into. Forcing the funds to fight for it betting the stock rice higher and higher in a runaway style - the effect created by limited float and high valuation as the funds tracking indexes would try to get the amount reflecting the proportion of the valuation of the company vs. the whole tracked index valuation, and with such huge valuation the…

That's exactly what happened with Nortel in the dotcom crash. Everyone's pension and retirement tied up in a company that couldn't turn a profit and was, at its peak, 38% of the TSE300.

I don't think dominating an index to anywhere close to that degree is likely here, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some similar strategies being used. Changing the rules is already from the Nortel playbook: The Nortel Rule allowed index funds to have over 10% of their holdings in a single stock.

Post reply on HN