131–140 of 208 posts
So I don't fundamentally care if SpaceX is overvalued or not. Like, that's on you for whatever you want to invest in or not. What I object to is all the rule changes by NASDAQ to essentially fix the IPO so massive pension funds and index funds are forced to invest in it. There have been multiple submissions about this but in short small floats are normally prohibited for index inclusion (not anymore), the trading day…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Completely. As if "We dominate the space launch and satellite internet markets" isn't enough, they're trying to tack on all this hypothetical stuff to inflate the valuation. Maybe some of it will come true in 50-100 years, but I'd bet a lot of it won't (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...) because telling the future is hard.
It'll be a real shame if the core, cool engineering that's happening at spaceX gets compromised by all the shenanigans going on elsewhere.
I waited for the Google IPO, but did not pre-order. I looked at the price on the first day of trading and decided it was overvalued (at about $100.00). GOOG today is worth about 200x the IPO price, so I guess I was wrong...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Starlink has a hard limit on how much it can grow. If you are within the reach of wired Internet, you aren't going to pay more for starlink. As terrestrial coverage continues to increase, the potential market shrinks. Basically mobile devices is what their market is. Aircraft, ships, etc. I don't know what to think about data centers in space. It's hard to see how it could be cheaper than terrestrial. Plus, if you ac…
I think you may be underestimating a little here. Even in places with reasonable wired availability, the convenience of being able to slap a dish on top of your house and get pretty good internet ~anywhere for ~not too much is pretty valuable.
I want to buy options against QQQ so badly -- but Tesla has traded at a crazy multiple of revenue/profits for a very long time, so I'm wondering if Elon/AI hype will keep these stocks high longer than I want to pay the risk premium for (options).
Is it true? I got no idea.
Supposedly, Tesla had some unique money games that vastly blew up their cash flow early on, less a car company and more a sort of tax arbitrage. So maybe it's in character.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Aswath Damodaran recently (pre S-1) valued SpaceX at $1.2T [1] - yeah I was shocked as well. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to dig into his numbers. But yeah, there's your _financial reality_.
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.
But that's what we do in stock and markets and well whatever we are living through, sometimes bad decisions can have good results because you were right place right time. if it happens more than once, that doesn't mean it was incredible it just means the bias works.
If 1% of the innovators had access to levels of cheap capital Musk has had, we might be living in a different reality.
SamAltman for all his faults brought trillion dollar NLP systems to reality by sheer ability to raise capital.
Everyone believes if things go south Musk can raise another Trillion somehow. And honestly I wouldn't bet against the guy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep seeing this comment on all these spacex posts, can someone ELI5 to me why the pension funds are going to be forced to buy this? (do they not have free will on what they buy?)
Thanks for the responses; next question... in theory, people that do this for a living know this? shouldn't they all be raising the red flags on this, as opposed to say just people on hackernews?