A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 7:56 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #129

WalterBright wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. Of course some do. After all, that's what makes an "average". Some people are taller than average, too!

They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck. Someone can win at roulette and make more money than the average player over some measurement period, but nobody can be good at roulette (when properly implemented and stuff). Stocks are somewhat possible to be good at but results are mostly random and the fee you'd pay is usually way too much.

> They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck.

How would you know it is or is not luck?

> roulette

Has no winning strategy - it's very different.

The winning strategy with stocks is understanding the underlying businesses better than the average investor. Peter Lynch's Magellan fund did consistently better than others because Lynch had insights others didn't. When others figured it out, Magellan's returns retreated to market levels.

I.e. investors can do better than average if they have insight others don't have and stay below the radar.

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

#152

Post by stouset » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 7:57 PM UTC

ant6n wrote: post #127

stouset wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would wager minerals mining and tourism are probably the only meaningful revenue sources in our lifetimes.

Going to orbit is actually useful already, cf starlink

Yeah, I meant in addition to what we’re already doing.

I do think that will reach diminishing returns at some point. Kessler syndrome is a real thing for long-term higher orbits.

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

#153

Post by stouset » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 7:58 PM UTC

KK7NIL wrote: post #120

stouset wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re also reducing the float requirements, which is absolutely insane. As a passive investor with significant assets outside of tax-protected retirement accounts, I am beyond livid. If I have to switch investments to move away from the rules being changed out from under me, it will result in enormous tax consequences. I don’t tend to let my emotions out this much here, but utterly fuck everything about this admini…

Nothing like a forced tax event to get the people rioting in the streets!

This is just one more of an endless list of inexcusable, indefensible, corrupt and incompetent acts this government has performed and/or enabled.

In this specific case I am retired and I have done this based on financial projections assuming the game continues to be played the same. So it hits closer to home for me. But it’s a far bigger problem than just me—this is looting the retirement savings of millions of Americans—and it is far from the only thing about this administration and those who have supported it to make me absolutely livid.

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

#154

Post by Noaidi » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

darth_aardvark wrote: post #109

Noaidi wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they would! If the P/E of a company is 1.1 it is overvalued by definition so why would anyone buy an over valued company? So you have to be a complete idiot to but stock in a company with a P/E of 500!

> Of course they would! If the P/E of a company is 1.1 it is overvalued by definition so why would anyone buy an over valued company? This is obviously untrue. Would you sell a box that spits out $1 million dollars a year for 1 million dollars?

I do not know the P/E ratio for your magic box, sorry.

A P/E ratio of 1 indicates that a company's share price is equal to its earnings per share, suggesting that investors are paying $1 for every $1 of earnings.

A P/E ratio of 10 indicates that a company's share price is equal to its earnings per share, suggesting that investors are paying $10 for every $1 of earnings.

Which is the better deal? Neither! The first company could suddenly earn more per share and you will be better off. The second company could loose earnings per share and you will be worse off.

A P/E of 1 means you are paying exactly the earnings per share, which is the fairest and most non speculative price. You are paying what the company is earning.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:02 PM UTC

scottyah wrote: post #124

stouset wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re also reducing the float requirements, which is absolutely insane. As a passive investor with significant assets outside of tax-protected retirement accounts, I am beyond livid. If I have to switch investments to move away from the rules being changed out from under me, it will result in enormous tax consequences. I don’t tend to let my emotions out this much here, but utterly fuck everything about this admini…

What about those that made this administration so desirable for so many?

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:07 PM UTC

malfist wrote: post #63

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Legally, any fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 must follow the rules set by NASDAQ No? Contractually, maybe. But legally you can do whatever you want with index constructions.

You might be surprised to learn that the stock markets are heavily regulated.

> You might be surprised to learn that the stock markets are heavily regulated

How is this a response?

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

#157

Post by jayers » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:10 PM UTC

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.

Profitable remains to be seen, but it is undoubted that the potential resources in the solar system are (pun intended) astronomically valuable. Getting at them is "just" an engineering problem.

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

#158

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:14 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #62

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Legally, any fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 must follow the rules set by NASDAQ No? Contractually, maybe. But legally you can do whatever you want with index constructions.

Are indexes not covered by copyright, even if you don't mention the underlying data source by name? If they are, you'd only get a license when accepting their terms.

> Are indexes not covered by copyright

Index providers definitely own their trademarks. You can’t market an S&P index without paying S&P. But “the available authority indicates that copyright protection for indexes may extend to the index constituent lists but not index averages, and copyright preemption principles may limit misappropriation protection for indexes to a very narrow class of ‘hot news’ uses” [1].

> you'd only get a license when accepting their terms

Sure. But plenty of indices allow for mixing and matching. The terms are designed to avoid confusion—you can’t use the term NASDAQ 100 if it isn’t exactly that. More broadly, there are tons of indices and benchmark portfolios.

[1] https://www.blegalgroup.com/market-index-licensing-a-review-...

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

#159

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:16 PM UTC

bitmasher9 wrote: post #91

lxgr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. Even passive investors need to pick some methodology of how to pick assets and how to relatively weigh them, and while you can make that as mathematically simple as possible, it's arguably an active decision. Or would you say that e.g. an ETF tracking MSCI ex-US is not a passive fund?

I’d also argue that "passive investor" applies more to the buy and hold strategy when paired with low engagement in the account (few transactions, or scheduled transactions). I’d consider someone that puts $50 into Coca Cola stock every paycheck a passive investor

> I’d consider someone that puts $50 into Coca Cola stock every paycheck a passive investor

They’re not. Passive vs active are terms of art in investing. They refer to the degree selection effect is at play.

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

#160

Post by yabutlivnWoods » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:22 PM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #150

taurath wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

Geez this comment is a melodramatic non sequitur. There's no rule you have to own QQQ and indeed most people don't. There are thousands of low cost ETFs that provide passive exposure to the market. If this new rule bothers you, be like most people and buy one of those instead of QQQ. Problem solved. Like sure, let's improve our tax systems (as an aside, I would say there are many more efficient and progressive option…

As soon as you try to do something more efficient than:

mv some_rich_ppl_money some_poor_ppl

You're making it more inefficient; any other hop in such a system is inefficiency.

Such a tiny minority of real people are not that important to the species. Maybe that important to some mind palace of some contemporary meat suits but they're going to die anyway; kicking the can down the road for future people. If we can fuck the future, fuck us then. Our existence is just as forfeitable

My neighbors and family have been expressing such. If we're just going to screw the next generation via environmental collapse and serfdom to rich overlords they opt to give up on the living enabling it