Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target • Hacker News Board

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#181

Post by nonethewiser » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 1:42 PM UTC

satellite2 wrote: post #107

nonethewiser wrote: post #93

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…

With the change to only five days of being publicly traded requirements, incentivising market makers to keep a high valuation becomes very cheap. After five days the index funds have to buy at the last price making it final. In other words even if the vast majority of the market believes it's worth much less, they can force a high price and force basically everyone to hold it via retirement funds.

Yes exactly what I said - you can take issue with how it was included, but if inclusion == force then you're also forced to buy Dell, Apple etc.

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#182

Post by nonethewiser » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 1:44 PM UTC

anonymars wrote: post #103

nonethewiser wrote: post #93

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…

> Apple? Dell? Workday? How long after their IPOs were they added to the appropriate indexes? Did the rules change specifically for them?

But thats an issue with the inclusion rules. The question is if adding a stock to the fund constitutes forcing people to buy it.

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#183

Post by MattDamonSpace » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 3:05 PM UTC

ssorallen wrote: post #113

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #45

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…

79.6% of SpaceX’s Total Addressable Market is listed under “Enterprise Applications” of AI. This is in the S-1 itself. SpaceX is not planning to make its money in space or in broadband - SpaceX claims it’s an AI company.

Eh everyone’s claiming to be an AI company these days

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#184

Post by MattDamonSpace » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 3:06 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #108

MattDamonSpace wrote: post #45

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…

You don’t service them, you let them deorbit and send up a new one

You also don’t try to send a Data Center to space. You send smaller satellites that are essentially individual racks. Cheap, marginal, easy to decommission

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#185

Post by anonymars » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 3:13 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #182

anonymars wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple? Dell? Workday? How long after their IPOs were they added to the appropriate indexes? Did the rules change specifically for them?

But thats an issue with the inclusion rules. The question is if adding a stock to the fund constitutes forcing people to buy it.

And why did SpaceX want the rules changed? Because anyone holding those passive indexes (a huge percent of holdings) would be forced to either liquidate them or invest in SpaceX

Is there a relevant distinction you are trying to make, beyond "well, actually"? Call it something else then, like "enshittification of index funds" but it's still the same overall picture of getting money from people who otherwise wouldn't have invested in it

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#186

Post by _DeadFred_ » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 3:46 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #167

minraws wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proves the point that skills don't matter results do, if a monkey manages to make better milkshake and you fire the chef, you didn't really improve the kitchen. 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…

This all assumes there was some skill involved. Instead, this along with gamestop and a few other meme stocks are showing that the stock market simply isn't as rational as finance experts have wanted to pretend. This is a bitcoin stock market. Things are valued entirely based on what others are willing to buy for. They are not valued based on any attribute of the underlying asset. Exactly like bitcoin, it's whim and…

It has always been gambling. The non-gambling version was grandma holding dividend stocks. Any stock that isn't one you buy for dividends is gambling. The whole point of index funds is spread out the odds.

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#187

Post by satellite2 » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

nonethewiser wrote: post #181

satellite2 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the change to only five days of being publicly traded requirements, incentivising market makers to keep a high valuation becomes very cheap. After five days the index funds have to buy at the last price making it final. In other words even if the vast majority of the market believes it's worth much less, they can force a high price and force basically everyone to hold it via retirement funds.

Yes exactly what I said - you can take issue with how it was included, but if inclusion == force then you're also forced to buy Dell, Apple etc.

But Dell Apple etc were included when stronger requirements were in place.

Comforting the passive investor that the market would have had time to react and to force a lower valuation before their inclusion in the index

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#188

Post by weakfish » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

kklisura wrote: post #137

cmiles8 wrote: post #94

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…

> There’s simply no version of financial reality that values this company at over 1T. 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_. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhY5EF1_LjQ

Who is this guy and why should I listen to him?

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#189

Post by UncleMeat » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

bagels wrote: post #169

UncleMeat wrote: post #166

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?

Starlink is growing. Valuation is too high, but it is growing.

"Growing" and "more future upside than any other company" are very different things.

Re: Morningstar values SpaceX at $780B, half its IPO target

#190

Post by TimTheTinker » Wed, Jun 03, 2026, 6:20 PM UTC

myroon5 wrote: post #171

TimTheTinker wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, or there are faith based ones now - I personally invest in PTL

$PTL "screens" for: * 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: https://www.inspireetf.com/etf/ptl

Oil/Gas/Petroleum is essential for our economy to function, and the line between "ethical" and "not ethical" is a dial (one among many that all need to be tuned together), not a switch.

$PTL/Inspire does not adjudicate "dial" ethical issues, just switches -- company practices/policies that it views as black-and-white good/bad. "It would be ethical if you produced N% less" doesn't fit that category.