31–40 of 73 posts
SpaceX insiders have so many shares, once they can they are going to dump hard, get ready for another -$1T. Morningstar says $780 billion. Clown show: Raymond James - $800 Morgan Stanley - $300 Deutsche Bank - $255 JPMorgan - $225 Goldman Sachs - $205 Citi - $200
Investors clearly aren't familiar with rocket launches. SpaceX scrubbed their Starship launch last evening so they could fix an engine issue. SpaceX stock immediately crashed. Even worse, Rocket Lab, an entirely unaffiliated company, had its stock plummet after the SpaceX scrub.
SpaceX insiders have so many shares, once they can they are going to dump hard, get ready for another -$1T. Morningstar says $780 billion. Clown show: Raymond James - $800 Morgan Stanley - $300 Deutsche Bank - $255 JPMorgan - $225 Goldman Sachs - $205 Citi - $200
$200b seems very low for a company with this level of capital investment. They did 167 launches last year. It's one of the few industries where US is outproducing China. We have both more launches and heavier launches. Put another way, the US spent $250b~ (inflation adjusted) dollars on the shuttle program, and we get much more output from SpaceX than we did for Shuttle.
Investors clearly aren't familiar with rocket launches. SpaceX scrubbed their Starship launch last evening so they could fix an engine issue. SpaceX stock immediately crashed. Even worse, Rocket Lab, an entirely unaffiliated company, had its stock plummet after the SpaceX scrub.
That is exactly what Musk was counting on. Reality is boring and no fun. People want promises, stars and dreams.
Curious that Tesla stock fell in price at the moment of the Starship abort. For what possible reason would a failed rocket launch affect the fortunes of an electric car company?
Once a company is listed, exchange rules prohibit adding super-voting shares, it has to be done prior to listing. In order to qualify for the S&P500 a company has to have a large enough market cap and be net profitable over an entire year in the market. It seems unlikely that SPCX will qualify for that bar in the foreseeable future.
However, a merger can combine both features into one company. TSLA recently rechartered in Texas, which makes it very hard for shareholders to sue. Presumably most of the TSLA shareholders today like Elon Musk, so they would be okay with the merger, and as mentioned above Elon has full control over SPCX. Since they are in totally different markets it is hard to see what sorts of anti-trust arguments even a hostile government (e.g. Europe or Democratic state level AG's) could convince a judge of. But he does kinda need the merger to seem like something of equal companies, not an acquisition of a failing company by a successful one, so that he can keep both of the features that he wants.
I know Dwarkesh Patel was interviewing Elon and brought up the fact that power cost for data centers is only 20%. The number I could find is 7-18%? GPUs are the majority of the cost. I don't think Elon responded directly to that.
There's the argument that licensing to build these things is cheaper in space. But earth has a lot of space in the middle of nowhere that no one would object to. That seems cheaper than space.
And the heat dissipation argument against it seems like a good one but I don't know if it's actually just a small engineering problem that can be solved cheaply or more fundamental.
On the plus side, you could say there is better connectivity in orbit. But if you're running inference, you'd probably want to talk to the same server that has your context cached. As it whips around earth, your latency would vary a lot, right?
I'd love it if someone could point me to a better analysis. It's an interesting question in general. Not just because one of the highest valued companies in the world is based entirely on its feasibility.
Investors clearly aren't familiar with rocket launches. SpaceX scrubbed their Starship launch last evening so they could fix an engine issue. SpaceX stock immediately crashed. Even worse, Rocket Lab, an entirely unaffiliated company, had its stock plummet after the SpaceX scrub.
Investors clearly aren't familiar with rocket launches. SpaceX scrubbed their Starship launch last evening so they could fix an engine issue. SpaceX stock immediately crashed. Even worse, Rocket Lab, an entirely unaffiliated company, had its stock plummet after the SpaceX scrub.
> Investors clearly aren't familiar with rocket launches. That is exactly what Musk was counting on. Reality is boring and no fun. People want promises, stars and dreams.
SpaceX insiders have so many shares, once they can they are going to dump hard, get ready for another -$1T. Morningstar says $780 billion. Clown show: Raymond James - $800 Morgan Stanley - $300 Deutsche Bank - $255 JPMorgan - $225 Goldman Sachs - $205 Citi - $200
How do they come up with these numbers?
In days of yore you'd look at the fundamentals like:
- ability of the firm to service its debt
- profitability ratios
- revenue growth
- total addressable market
- competition
- market dynamics
etc.
You'd also pore over their quarterly and annual regulatory findings and see what's in the MD&A sections, assess the competency of senior leadership, look at how they view themselves, etc.
Then you'd look at comparable firms, i.e. companies doing the same or materially-similar things. Some of those are "pure plays", i.e. companies selling exactly the same product/service (e.g. TSMC, UMC, GFS) and some are not pure (e.g. red bull sells energy drinks but it also has a bunch of other stuff like a formula 1 team).
You compare your target company's fundamentals to those of its comparables, see what prices those comps are trading at, look at discounted cash flows, and then you pull a semi-informed number more or less out of your ass for the target as a forecast, based on your analysis.
These days, though, valuations are more or less completely disconnected from fundamentals. This is why Warren Buffett-style value investing is commonly said to be dead in today's market.