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

#171

Post by NoLinkToMe » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:55 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.

I'm also curious as to what the moat really is?

It's 24 years old with 16 billion revenue. Suppose you had a warchest and had the option to buy SpaceX at 1750 billion, or to spend a fraction of that to replicate its technology. Could you?

I've seen estimates that SpaceX spent less than $50-60 billion in cash during its lifetime. That's in the range of its cumulative revenue + capital raised, too.

I just don't really see how this couldn't be replicated, if the market was big enough. But it seems to me that Space isn't that useful yet, and the market isn't that big yet, to the point that it doesn't warrant lots of competitors like the thinking on AI.

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

#172

Post by dh2022 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:00 PM UTC

proteal wrote: post #20

It’s also one of the thinnest floats IPO’ing. They’re only selling less than 5% of the company. That introduces a lot of sensitivity in the valuation, not to mention there exists a bit of game theory around fund managers needing to join in to maintain nominal returns with their peers. Check out Matt Levine commentary, which goes into more detail (SpaceX Indexing) https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-03-…

Matt Levine commentary with no paywall: https://archive.ph/OSzvG

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

#173

Post by Nevermark » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:05 PM UTC

gigatexal wrote: post #134

Nevermark wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nap achieved.

> Grant me that at least

Granted, indeed, and with the summarily bestowed honor of our royal favor.

Yes. The changes for Elon are exactly what they look like. Preferred treatment in exchange for the priveledge of being paid vast sums to serve him.

My sober point is that this is absolute par for the course. Every whale gets this treatment. Elon can take his business somewhere else, and expects something for not doing so.

The exception here is not a bent rule. But that the special treatment his spending power "merits" is so enormous, that the proportional conflict-of-interest sacrifice, is unusually visible.

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

#174

Post by NoLinkToMe » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:05 PM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #14

elevation wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any funds you'd recommend that would preserve the legacy 1 year watch period?

The float adjustment probably handles this for you? The tiny amount of float of that $1.75T means that for any large total market or s&p or whatever fund (VTI, SPY, etc), SpaceX is going to be a minuscule fraction of the fund. Apple has a float of >99%. SpaceX is going to come out with 3-4% float. Since all big serious total market / whatever index funds are float adjusted, this means that SpaceX will be treated more…

We should differentiate two matters here.

1. are your finances going to be screwed from overpaying for SpaceX IPO shares through your index fund? No because as you say, it's a small fraction of typical index funds.

2. Is this a form of financial malfeasance? I think yes. The average 401k has about $150k in it. Even if just 0.5% goes to SpaceX, that's $750 per American. That's a few hundred billion. It's serious cash. If that's going to overpaying Elon 3x or whatever it is for these shares, that's a travesty. Even if for each individual it's a tiny blip that doesn't show up in the annual ROI graphs, it's a form of corruption. Like the programmer infamous Salami slicing stories at banks.

If the SpaceX IPO is wildly overpriced, even if you have just 300k in your account, yo

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

#175

Post by stouset » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:10 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?

If you’re referring to the manosphere podcasters, pseudoscientists, cranks, and conspiracy theorists that came out in droves to support him, they can get fucked too.

If you’re referring to Biden, who all but guaranteed that Trump would win a second term by having zero sense of urgency or concern, zero drive to push through popular but sweeping changes, zero real vision, falling back to politics-as-usual, and topping it all off with disastrously running for a second term until pulling out at almost the last possible second, then yes, him too, and I will personally never forgive him for stepping in when Bernie had momentum.

For anyone else, it’s hard for me to get as worked up over them. Uninspiring, ineffective, bargain basement levels of corruption is upsetting but not a reason to put fire to everything that has put this country and its residents in a position of economic power, peace and security, and as the diplomatic head of the world. If I could wave a magic wand and strip the right to vote from anyone who thought so and acted upon that belief, I wouldn’t give it a second of hesitation.

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

#176

Post by NoLinkToMe » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:18 PM UTC

scottyah wrote: post #138

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.

Sure but this is a shrinking market population, right? We're not talking about 1 billion Chinese, as far as I know there's about 5000 people on Antartica at any point in time. Most of those are concentrated in the same areas meaning a connection can be shared. How that gets you to $300 billion valuation I don't know.

I mean if you value a company for its future cashflows, how long will Starlink be the only game in town? Will we not see other rockets/space-internet competitors in 2040 for example, in 15 years from now, from any other company (or even, any other state actor)? I think we will, and I think that timeline is generous. Without a monopoly you're competing the price towards marginal cost to cater to a tiny and shrinking fraction of the world that needs satelite internet. The vast majority of people live in urban environments, particularly among those who can afford internet in the first place, and it's only growing further in that direction.

I think Starlink is a wonderful product but there's a reason it has $10b revenue, while telecom companies around the world do more than $1.7 trillion in revenue.[0]

[0] https://dgtlinfra.com/top-telecom-companies/

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

#177

Post by rkagerer » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:23 PM UTC

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…

I didn't realize there had been 3 tower catches? Can anyone link to good video footage of the last two?

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

#178

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:40 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #168

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You buy VTI, you're impacted VTI “seeks to track the performance of the CRSP US Total Market Index” [1]. Not the NASDAQ 100. It will include the latter’s components. But it shouldn’t reference its weights. [1] https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...

That index seems to add new listings even more quickly (5 trading days!), so this effect doesn’t seem to be easy to escape just by switching indexes. MSCI is also on the order of days.

> That index seems to add new listings even more quickly

I’m not recommending that index. Just saying it’s separate from the NASDAQ 100. You can absolutely find a total-market index biased towards mature, seasoned issuers.

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

#179

Post by NoLinkToMe » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:42 PM UTC

jgbuddy wrote: post #19

Were people overpaying 30% for tesla in 2010?

A few facts:

1. Tesla was priced at $2.5b end of 2010. 2. Tesla started production that year of the model S, with nearly 500km range and 0-100 in 4.4 seconds, still competitive 16 years later. It was an obvious disruption of a proven market. 3. that car market was valued at half a trillion at the time.

So Tesla being valued at 0.5% of the market, with disruptive technology, seems fine. Of course it was a moonshot, but hindsight is 20/20.

But what is the total market here that it's stepping into? Seems like SpaceX is servicing the majority of the market for years, yet it just has 16 billion revenue. How that gets you to 1.75 trillion, I don't know.

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

#180

Post by NoLinkToMe » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 10:48 PM UTC

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #103

bobtheborg wrote: post #50

Having never really looked at valuations, my ignorant mind can get from Starlink's 10M subscribers to a $380B valuation. If you make $100/mo/user that's 12B/yr and that with a higher 50x P/E ratio is 60B. If you go to 100x, that's $120B.

Starlink's maritime, roving, airplane, and military options are all much more than $100/mo/user. Not sure how much that closes the gap, but it's _something_. Source: https://starlink.com/business/aviation ($250->$10k/mo) https://starlink.com/business/maritime ($250/mo) https://starlink.com/business/mobility ($65->$540/mo)

But it's actual revenue was $10b in 2025 on 9m customers, so he's pretty much correct.

The point I have more issue with is that a 60 or 100 PE ratio only makes sense in a high-growth scenario. Telecoms are valued at 9x by comparison. 60 or 100 only makes sense if you expect it to grow by 10x from here, and face no competition and keep prices this high.

And that seems like a bit of a reach. The richest people on the planet live in urban environments in US/EU/Asia, with fast and widespread 5G.

Yes, rich people on boats in the pacific, hiking remote mountains, and researchers in Antartica exist, but they're not a market of 200 million people. And even if you get there, that's still just 120b, not 380b valuation.