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

A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

futuresearch.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 214 posts

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#131

Post by [deleted] »

gruez wrote: post #77
tliptay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! This comment inspired me to dig deeper. After 20+ years in the market, today I learned: "The S&P 500 is a float-adjusted, market-capitalization-weighted index." So presumably an S&P 500 index fund is not disadvantaged, since it is tracking a float-adjusted index, i.e. the weight of SpaceX will be tiny if its float is tiny. Or, is there a nuance that I'm missing?

>So presumably an S&P 500 index fund is not disadvantaged, since it is tracking a float-adjusted index, i.e. the weight of SpaceX will be tiny if its float is tiny. Nasdaq already caved. FTSE and S&P are supposedly considering it. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/31/index-providers...

[deleted]

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#132

Post by munk-a »

saadn92 wrote: post #22

The xAI piece is the one that stands out to me. $258B for a lab that's burning $1.46B/quarter against $430M revenue, valued almost entirely on a merger anchor from four months ago.

xAI's valuation comes from an internal transfer of Elon's. Elon has stated it's worth 258B and that's the only data point to go by.

It's absolutely bonkers and wrong but it's unlikely to raise to the level of actual misrepresentation.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#133

Post by Bombthecat »

sfblah wrote: post #57
sharemywin wrote: post #2

Not bad for about $12-$16B in total actual revenue. net income probably: $1.5B – $3B P/E:500-1000 Of course people will trip overthemselves to buy it up.

I just don't think space is as useful or profitable as people think. Time will tell.

As long as we don't find a new it energy to get stuff up, I don't think so.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#134

Post by gigatexal »

Nevermark wrote: post #128
gigatexal wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah imma get out of index and hold my basket and just rebalance. This is dumb. Why bend the rules for a trillionaire?

> Why bend the rules[?] > for a trillionaire[!] This writes itself. It shouldn't, but "should" as a concept needs a lot of work. And even that isn't accurate. They are not bending the rules for a trillionaire, they are maintaining the consistency more systemic rules. This is how it has always been. We can all point to real or perceived ethical islands. They certainly exist, and are worth creating and preserving. But…

Did you get lost and start writing a poem? What’s all this about the “sea”? Fine. Let me turn down my anti-Elon-ness for a bit and caveat that the timing of these changes coinciding with this listing is suspicious, no? Grant me that at least. And then we can, with new found common ground, investigate the motives behind such a change.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#135

Post by mikkupikku »

scottyah wrote: post #126
mikkupikku wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume "extremely skeptical" is you being generous, is there anybody other than Elon who says xAI/Grok are SOTA? The only thing anybody says about it is that it's only good for porn, but local models do porn too so xAI has no moat or edge at all as far as I can see.

If you don't spend any time comparing models to the point where you don't know about benchmarks, why do you care where people think the line for SOTA is?

The benchmark game is wholly gamed, but the proof is in the pudding. I know people using Anthropic, OpenAI, and Gemini. Chinese models locally. But who uses Grok for anything but porn? Whatever the benchmarks might say, Grok is just trash in practice. They spent too much time teaching it to be edgy and not enough time teaching it to code.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#136

Post by conductr »

gruez wrote: post #74
conductr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're buying most index funds, you should literally not care about this. Disagree. Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Granted, I’d be more concerned if the fund manager was buying it without a requirement to. The issue still remains about why are we paying so much for this stock? Make it make sense?

>Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Right, but the whole point of index funds is that you're letting the market decide what's worth investing/buying (via market cap/free float weightings) and at what price. If you're making calls on what's "waste" or not, then you're no longer a passive investor and you're just picking stocks.

Fiduciary responsibility in this context is a large umbrella of responsibilities. They should be fighting the new nasdaq rules on behalf of us. As you mentioned, this forces them to participate in fleecing the passive fund holding public and undermines the whole point of index funds. I don’t see how a fund manager could just blindly take this rule change and not make a ruckus about how it’s forcing him to break their fiduciary obligations

Following the rules of the fund and being index is one thing. Sitting silently as this pump and dump is designed to fleece your clients, is something entirely different.

> Starting May 1, 2026, Nasdaq rules allow large IPOs (e.g., top 40 market cap) to join the Nasdaq-100 Index within 15 trading days. This forces index-tracking funds to buy new shares, often at inflated valuations shortly after listing, a "fast entry" rule designed for mega-IPOs like SpaceX or OpenAI

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#137

Post by mr_toad »

kibwen wrote: post #43
genidoi wrote: post #16

> Starship at $170B is pure option value on technology still in advanced testing. The argument that Starship is somehow an experimental/unproven technology that might fail to materialise was absurd but plausible sounding before flight 1, there were many new technologies simultaneously being deployed to a single launch system in one go. But after 3 tower catches of the booster demonstrating centimetres of guided preci…

The question is not even whether or not Starship works. Starship is, in theory, designed with the idea of getting many, many payloads to Mars. However, getting payloads to Mars is not currently something that anyone is paying for; even NASA isn't going to focus on Mars for at least another decade (likely more). And in the meantime, it's not like we don't have rockets capable of getting payloads to Mars (the Saturn V…

The Saturn V payload to LEO is large, but the payload to the Moon was much smaller (the Eagle lander was less than ten tons on touchdown, with a couple of tons of cargo). Starship might be able to put 100 tons on the Moon, because of orbital refueling, which is the reason they need several Starship launches.

It’s not really sensible to compare a single spacecraft with what is essentially a fleet of ships with an order of magnitude greater cargo capacity. It’s the possibility of refueling that unlocks the ability to push really large payloads beyond LEO, and many of the more audacious plans (like a Moon base) do require a lot of cargo well beyond LEO.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#138

Post by scottyah »

lokimedes wrote: post #80

I know it’s easy to sit at home being indignant at the internet, but how on earth does an ISP with 10M subscribers and the most expensive infrastructure in the solar system ever come out to be worth $300B? They even have to routinely replenish their “cell towers” as their orbits decay. Any mid-sized country would have multiple cellphone and Internet providers with larger customer bases and less upkeep.

How much would it cost you to run wires to the northern tip of Greenland and Antarctica? How about the middle of the Pacific? All of Africa? At the end of the day, that is the alternative. If you think normal ISP ground stations don't need maintenance (especially power), you're missing a lot. Also I know people who have cell towers on their property, and they get paid over a hundred thousand a year just for that.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#139

Post by gruez »

Teever wrote: post #121
gruez wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone who can't articulate who the villains are out of a pre-selected list and has to fall back to personal attacks is pretty "weak" as well.

If you were to apply the principle of charity[0] to the person you originally asked the question to, who do you think that they would mean by the word 'they' in this context? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

>who do you think that they would mean by the word 'they' in this context?

It's really not clear, which is why I listed 3 plausible options. I'm also not going to bother attacking an imaginary position and be accused of "strawman" or whatever.

Post reply on HN