171–180 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically the whole ESG craze from a few years ago?
Sure, or there are faith based ones now - I personally invest in PTL
* air quality
* environmental risk
* GHG emissions
* ecological impact
* product sustainability
https://www.inspireetf.com/screening
yet weights ExxonMobil, the 21st largest company:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/
as by far their 2nd largest holding:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The stock market is not about current results, it’s about future results. SpaceX has more future upside than any company I can think of…
How? The total market for space flight is low. Satellite internet is nice but again small. Is this just all grok?
Reusable rockets will change the economics of space travel beyond recognition. Jevon’s paradox will strike hard and fast. Starlink is the initial proof of this.
Maybe Starship will be the first to achieve the fabled dream of rapid reusability. Maybe not. Either way, it’s a tractable engineering problem at this point and the path has been made pretty clear.
I have no idea what the valuation of SpaceX should be. But, in general, I’d bet a lot on the launch industry growing enormously in the coming decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? The total market for space flight is low. Satellite internet is nice but again small. Is this just all grok?
The total market size might be low this year or the next. But, for better or worse, humans will continue to push into the unknown. Reusable rockets will change the economics of space travel beyond recognition. Jevon’s paradox will strike hard and fast. Starlink is the initial proof of this. Maybe Starship will be the first to achieve the fabled dream of rapid reusability. Maybe not. Either way, it’s a tractable engin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The stock market is not about current results, it’s about future results. SpaceX has more future upside than any company I can think of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest competitor to Starlink is, ironically, traditional fiber. When COVID hit, I knew a lot of engineers who decided to move to rural areas / small farms, because they could leverage Starlink to work remotely. Last year, when I asked whether they still liked Starlink, all of them said it was amazing, but they had gotten fiber coverage in their area from a local provider, so they don't use it anymore, or just u…
Starlink isn’t for areas served by fiber it’s for areas that don’t have have good Internet access available, which are far larger than the area served by fiber.
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 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).
The SpaceX IPO has a tiny 5% float and only a $75 billion raise target. There are enough morons in the world that they will compete to buy and push the valuation up. It's all a stupid financial trick to make Elon a paper trillionaire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The stock market is not about current results, it’s about future results. SpaceX has more future upside than any company I can think of…
Nobody is making a profit in space. Not even Starlink. Once you add in the costs of sustaining their constellation, it barely scrapes by into profitability by underestimating launch costs and an over optimistic projection of future costs.
Starlink can't serve more than a small fraction of an urban population because each bird has a pretty low capacity limit, and terrestrial wireless keeps chipping away at their TAM out in the countryside. Terrestrial wireless infrastructure has a track record of declining costs. The rate at which it eats up the customers Starlink is counting on accelerates.
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.
Elon Musk seems like an ultimate counterexample of a person that "deserves" his dozens of billions of dollars. Because his name alone for some reason raises the percepted value of a company by that much amount. No amount of one person's or even dozens' hard labour will be able to match this. Of course it may come crashing anytime and Ponzi also had a similar kind of "productivity", but it really shows that not all la…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
This is an honest headline:
"SP500 Bends Rules to Include SPACEX in fund At Launch"
This is not:
"401k Holders Forced to By SpaceX"