Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

futuresearch.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 214 posts

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

#201

Post by verzali »

NoLinkToMe wrote: post #171
sfblah wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Even the SLS cost less than $50bn to develop, which is a lot, but only a fraction of what SpaceX is apparently worth.

Developing a new rocket like the Falcon 9, even a reusable one, would cost a private investor less than $10bn. It would take time, that is the hardest part. But in terms of cash, it is a fraction of this valuation.

Then a constellation like Starlink - again, we are talking $10-$15bn. Once you have the rocket, the satellite design is not going to cost much. The challenge is getting the regulatory approvals and getting the launch rate up.

Then developing something like Starship, again a few billions, certainly far less than $50 bn. A crew capsule too, that would be a few billion, but probable For a trillion dollars you could probably throw in a space station (the ISS was about $100bn), a few advanced orbiting telescopes, a human mission to Mars, and maybe an intensive exploration of Europa. Heck, why not land something on Pluto just for kicks.

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

#202

Post by jgbuddy »

scottyah wrote: post #185
arein3 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you see it, it's preety funny how these people pick weird little hills to die on.

Society seems a lot more full of people trying to broadcast who they are from their opinions on stuff instead of what they've done.

Bingo!

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

#203

Post by arein3 »

croes wrote: post #193
scottyah wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it makes much less sense to me. It boils down to he's rich on paper, and doesn't put on a fake PR mask.

Let’s ignore things like the pedoguy incident and his ridiculous defense it was South African slang. Or how he helped dismantle USAID which leads to real death of people. You’re being spoiled with not having a fake PR mask. He‘s just spared from real consequences because of his wealth. As soon as real consequences are at the horizon that changes pretty quickly. It just happens too rarely.

Not having a PR mask is because he doesn't care about cancel culture. I like that.

Cancel culture needs to stop, we are not a hive mind, everyone has different opinions.

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

#204

Post by dmoy »

dmurray wrote: post #82
charcircuit wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What law prevents someone from choosing to buy stocks from the NASDAQ 100 however they want for a fund?

Actively managed funds like that charge around 0.5% to 1% a year. E.g. [0] The most prominent Nasdaq ETF, QQQ, charges 0.2% [1] Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2]. If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your…

> Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2].

Does that article say that? I didn't see "4.5xm" mentioned anywhere. Also jow does QQQ do float adjusting? Will it do the same 5x that we're hearing nasdaq is going to do? (Which would make it what, <1%?). Or something else?

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

#205

Post by bumby »

WalterBright wrote: post #149
malfist wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay? The US is the largest country market in the world.

America became a success much later.

I think you are in agreement. The poster you replied to seem to insinuate that immediate revenue (in the Americas/space) isn't the best indicator of latter successful pioneering markets.

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

#206

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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, even if you don't mention the underlying data source by name?

If there were a good autopilot energy policy option, it would probably entail doing the opposite of whatever Germany votes to do.

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

#207

Post by dmurray »

dmoy wrote: post #204
dmurray wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actively managed funds like that charge around 0.5% to 1% a year. E.g. [0] The most prominent Nasdaq ETF, QQQ, charges 0.2% [1] Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2]. If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your…

> Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2]. Does that article say that? I didn't see "4.5xm" mentioned anywhere. Also jow does QQQ do float adjusting? Will it do the same 5x that we're hearing nasdaq is going to do? (Which would make it what, <1%?). Or something else?

QQQ is the same as Nasdaq, for this meaning of Nasdaq.

The article isn't a great source, agreed. But it does give this calculation:

> Oddly enough, had SpaceX entered the Nasdaq-100 with a market capitalization of $1.75 trillion on Friday, March 27 [assuming the new rules (?)], it would have supplanted Tesla as the fifth-largest holding in the benchmark. The electric vehicle stock accounts for 3.8% of the Invesco ETFs.

So it would come in somewhere above 3.8%, by those calculations. And it depends on market prices from day to day. Not much changes about the argument above if you make it 3% or 6%, holding constant the assumption that it's 30% overvalued.

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

#208

Post by dmoy »

dmurray wrote: post #207
dmoy wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2]. Does that article say that? I didn't see "4.5xm" mentioned anywhere. Also jow does QQQ do float adjusting? Will it do the same 5x that we're hearing nasdaq is going to do? (Which would make it what, <1%?). Or something else?

QQQ is the same as Nasdaq, for this meaning of Nasdaq. The article isn't a great source, agreed. But it does give this calculation: > Oddly enough, had SpaceX entered the Nasdaq-100 with a market capitalization of $1.75 trillion on Friday, March 27 [assuming the new rules (?)], it would have supplanted Tesla as the fifth-largest holding in the benchmark. The electric vehicle stock accounts for 3.8% of the Invesco ETF…

I was mostly confused because the article made 0 mention of the float adjustment or the changes to nasdaq float adjusting that is proposed (5x float, which would still put SpaceX at It is just not addressed at all in the article, which makes it seem like they're assuming it's 100% of market cap.

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

#209

Post by fastball »

ben_w wrote: post #196
fastball wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is whether those markets are not already adequately served by Falcon 9 What does that even mean? Almost every single Falcon 9 customer will prefer launching on Starship if/when it is available, because the cost will be much lower. A very small segment who have payloads that are exactly Falcon 9 sized and want a very particular orbit might still be better served by F9, but maybe not. Beyond that , much…

It may not even be cheaper when it works; upper stage reuse still isn't there. (I'd like it to be, but until it is, it isn't).

The argument was "why do you even need Starship?", not "will it be fully re-usable at the end of the day?"

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

#210

Post by ben_w »

fastball wrote: post #209
ben_w wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not even be cheaper when it works; upper stage reuse still isn't there. (I'd like it to be, but until it is, it isn't).

The argument was "why do you even need Starship?", not "will it be fully re-usable at the end of the day?"

> Almost every single Falcon 9 customer will prefer launching on Starship if/when it is available, because the cost will be much lower

Cost reduction depends on it being fully reusable.

Post reply on HN