[HN Gopher] SpaceX files to go public
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX files to go public
Author : nutjob2
Score : 124 points
Date : 2026-04-01 17:49 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| chasd00 wrote:
| The thing i'm not looking forward to is SpaceX will now be
| beholden to Wall Street. With Startship testing being so public,
| there's a whole cottage industry of youtubers watching their
| every move, there's going to be lots of ups and downs on the
| stock price.
| Diederich wrote:
| > SpaceX will now be beholden to Wall Street
|
| I get and appreciate that sentiment. Musk currently has a
| controlling interest in SpaceX. Do you expect that to change
| after the IPO? Thanks!
| ACCount37 wrote:
| I expect that the amount of "good influence" institutional
| shareholders can exert on SpaceX leadership and operations is
| about zero, and the amount of "bad influence" is more than
| that. Thus, the only way this can affect SpaceX's leadership
| is negative.
|
| A big part of how SpaceX did what they did is that they
| weren't beholden to institutional pressures. They could
| afford to take major risks. This may change when a pool of
| investors who don't care about space and just want the line
| to go up end up being stakeholders.
| chasd00 wrote:
| I get the feeling investors are going to watch Starship
| explode and explode while it's being developed without
| understanding the trial/error, hardware rich, approach SpaceX
| takes and not like it. That's going to hurt the stock price
| and therefore hurt the company. Before, when Starship
| exploded people just pointed and laughed at Musk but SpaceX
| kept going. For better or for worse it doesn't really bother
| him, don't forget he got literally laughed out of the room
| when he proposed a re-usable orbital booster. Now those
| people actually matter because they'll sell/short and kill
| the stock price and therefore materially hurt the company. I
| replied to a sibling about Tesla, remember the shorts nearly
| killed Tesla before it even had a chance. The technology was
| there and the concept proven but the shorters almost killed
| the whole thing. IMO Tesla went public way too early and it
| almost cost them everything. idk what SpaceX has to gain by
| going public, are they hurting for cash? Based on the pace of
| development in Boca Chica it doesn't appear so.
|
| /not a finance or investment expert just my observations and
| feelings
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _get the feeling investors are going to watch Starship
| explode and explode while it 's being developed without
| understanding the trial/error, hardware rich, approach
| SpaceX takes_
|
| Investors have been doing this since SpaceX first raised
| outside funding. American capital markets are not that risk
| averse.
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| > idk what SpaceX has to gain by going public
|
| They will save Elons shitty AI investment by making the
| public bag holders.
| moogly wrote:
| What makes you think this will be different from Tesla?
| chasd00 wrote:
| None and that's the problem, the shorts almost killed Tesla
| for no other reason than being short. I think watching
| Starship after Starship blow up while being tested when
| investors don't really understand what they're looking at is
| going to be bad for the stock price. In a public traded
| company so goes the stock price so goes the business.
| nxm wrote:
| Are you shorting Tesla since you're so confident in its
| downfall?
| pstuart wrote:
| blah blah _irrational_ blah blah _solvent_
|
| It's still obscenely overpriced.
| jordanb wrote:
| You don't have to believe. If you have a 401k you will be an
| investor 15 days after launch.
|
| The IPO will go great, because the company will float a fairly
| small issuance. The big shareholders will not immediately sell.
| They will hold on and maybe even buy to support the price.
|
| Then, after 15 days, it will enter the indexes and everyone's
| 401k will start auto-buying this stock.
|
| You might say this is an obvious flaw in how the indexes work if
| they start immediately accept a brand new IPOed stock with
| limited float. You'd be right, which is why they won't list for a
| year.
|
| At least they wouldn't until Elon got them to change their rules:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-30/nasdaq-cl...
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > If you have a 401k you will be an investor 15 days after
| launch
|
| You will be an investor in spacex and xai which it bought.
|
| Fun fact, Xai net loss 6 billion dollars per year and SpaceX
| net profit 8 billion on a good year
| (https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-xai-posts-net-
| quart... https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/spacex-
| registers-tak...)
|
| If you remember xai, it's that company currently being sued for
| the undressing kids feature (https://www.theverge.com/ai-
| artificial-intelligence/895639/x...
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_sexual_deepfake_scandal) in
| its flagship product. By the way the feature is still enabled
| apparently
|
| Is there something about why spacex wants to go public ? if not
| then this is definitely about xai... to hide unprofitability
| and offload it on general public ASAP.
| lokar wrote:
| The SpaceX profit is EBITDA, not real. And presumably
| includes massive starlink depreciation and stock based comp.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Only NASDAQ so far; S&P 500 is apparently "reviewing its rules"
| but hasn't changed them yet.
|
| So you've got a full year to wait on that index fund, assuming
| they don't cave.
| lokar wrote:
| Also, would individual funds that track the S&P have left
| themselves some wiggle room to delay this if they wanted?
| morepork wrote:
| I am not an expert, but my understanding is most funds
| don't change allocations immediately, but it would be part
| of normal rebalancing, e.g. VOO and other indexes that
| track the S&P500 do it quarterly
| lokar wrote:
| And even with that, they give themselves some room for
| tracking error, I think.
| Betelbuddy wrote:
| Uter and complete corruption:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47389233 -
| "Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un
| crime oublie, parce qu'il a ete proprement fait."
| Honore de Balzac
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The flaw is the limited float. Indexes will be forced to buy a
| huge number of shares which don't exist, driving up the price.
|
| For general investors if this is going to eventually happen,
| the earlier the indexes buy in the better. Otherwise more
| sophisticated investors will buy ahead of the indexes and grab
| the profit.
| lokar wrote:
| if they weighted (fully) by float (perhaps the average float
| from the trailing 90 days to the re-balance) it would not be
| as easy to game. The Nasdaq is accounting for float, but not
| completely.
| dmoy wrote:
| Aren't basically all the huge serious index funds float
| weighted?
| lokar wrote:
| Matt Levine wrote (uh, yesterday?) that the Nasdaq 100
| was adding it (not a full linear weighting....) right now
| to accommodate this scam.
| dbt00 wrote:
| Yeah, the OEX is a more serious index for more serious
| people.
| dmoy wrote:
| Ok fair, I forgot that QQQ is as big as it is.
|
| Edit: wait, but QQQ is float adjusted?
|
| What are the biggest not-float-adjusted index funds?
| lokar wrote:
| I don't know about the funds, but it's really about the
| index. Both for the index funds that use the index, and
| the active mutual funds and index funds benchmark to that
| index.
| dmoy wrote:
| Why is it really about the index though, if the index
| fund doesn't track that public index?
|
| If the index fund is tracking some proxy that is float
| weighted, isn't that what matters? At least when it comes
| to people's money.
| nighthawk454 wrote:
| They are, but SpaceX is trying to get rules changed. They
| want the index to buy at a multiple of the float, so they
| release say 5% but get bought as if they had released 15%
| float. They also normally wouldn't be eligible for index
| inclusion for ~1 year, after showing multiple quarters of
| good stewardship, etc. They're trying to bypass all that
| barumrho wrote:
| Do the ETF managers have no discretion in determining when to
| buy? I was under the impression that they usually handle these
| changes to indices gradually even under normal circumstances.
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| of course they do. read any prospectus for a FUND and funds
| track INDEXES using rules. inclusion in some index doesn't
| hamstring anyone.
|
| blind purchases are not going to happen. people assume
| passive indexing is brainless, but it isnt.
| fermentation wrote:
| This is absolutely vile. The xAi merger made no sense and this
| is forcing working class people into purchasing risky assets
| from a known scammer.
| g-technology wrote:
| It does when you look at it with a few less zeros... it's
| like a broke person floating checks for payday loans.
| mosura wrote:
| Ever since SNAP the whole IPO show has been a transparent scam
| to game the index funds.
|
| The market simply doesn't have enough people actively investing
| because it rewards mass stupidity over generating meaningful
| returns.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Based on the list of businesses at the top, the stock market
| seems like it rewards profit margin and profits, by
| businesses that sell meaningful products and services.
|
| https://companiesmarketcap.com
|
| Can you provide an example of any of the businesses on that
| are on that list due to "mass stupidity"? They all seem to
| operate factories, employ many highly qualified people, and
| make a material difference in many or even most people's
| lives around the world.
|
| Meanwhile, SNAP has returned -14.98% per year to its
| shareholders since it IPO'd (Jun 3 2017), and at an $8.27B
| market cap, it makes up a negligible portion of any broad
| market index fund, so not sure how SNAP's shareholders have
| been rewarded by mass stupidity, especially given that the
| founders still own half of the business. They would have been
| far better off liquidating their shares and investing in
| SP500.
|
| https://dqydj.com/stock-return-calculator/?ticker=SNAP
| riffraff wrote:
| I mean, that list has Tesla, which is overvalued by any
| plausible valuation approach.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| I really wish more people were aware of this. It's a major
| scandal and definitely not being talked enough about.
|
| Nevermind SpaceX, which at least have some importance for US
| defense industry, but xAI ? We will be investing in Elon's
| private venture, at the price that he himself set and which is
| at least 2 orders of magnitude too high...
| lacy_tinpot wrote:
| In order to be incredulous at xAI, you'd have to be
| incredulous of the AI business in general, which is fair.
|
| But then you'd also be basically betting against the entire
| tech sector, and really the entire US economy and against the
| value add of AI. That kind of bet is much more difficult to
| swallow.
| riffraff wrote:
| That's not true at all.
|
| I am confident some companies will make bank with AI. I am
| also confident xAI is not one of those.
|
| It's as if you said "if you don't think Lycos is a good
| business you don't think search engines can work in
| general".
| sublinear wrote:
| I kinda disagree because while most search engines failed
| and Google succeeded, they did not succeed by simply
| being a better search engine.
|
| This is only further demonstrated by their excellent
| leverage of Gemini. Google continues to succeed at being
| Google.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| > against the value add of AI
|
| Hasn't the surprising _lack_ of value add been discussed
| with increasing frequency?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Who is using Grok seriously?
| sroussey wrote:
| Just call it what it is: SpaceTwitter
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Well, we elected a bunch of criminals, and Elon fired
| everyone who regulates this. The SEC was gutted like a fish,
| and contract terminations resulted in a large percentage of
| FINRA staff being laid off.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It 's a major scandal and definitely not being talked
| enough about_
|
| It's being extensively talked about and debated. It hasn't
| entered the mainstream discourse because it's too technical.
| manquer wrote:
| >float a fairly small issuance
|
| SpaceX are widely reported to be planning to raise $75Billion
| in new capital. It may seem small a % for the valuation target.
| However that is about 3 times previous highest raise of $29B
| when Saudi Aramco went public few years back. The market simply
| may not be that deep[1]
|
| There is a good chance this one becomes the Wework of this
| decade. The valuation, amount being raised, cooling interests
| in AI, and middle eastern capital changing priorities, interest
| rate outlook for the rest of the decade. These are all strong
| head winds to overcome even when not raising the largest ever
| amount in an IPO.
|
| That is not say that it is destined to fail, Elon is excellent
| salesman of vision when fundamentals are weak, There is no
| better proof than Tesla P/E .
|
| It is by no means clear this would be successful or not. The
| valuation, funds being raised, future growth potential are all
| not based on just SpaceX core businesses which would have been
| an easy sell.
|
| ---
|
| [1] i.e. it could be still under-subscribed even if everyone
| buys into the vision, growth projections, is comfortable with
| valuation gets fully onboard including retail.
|
| Even in this best case scenario SpaceX would have to sell at
| the lower end of the target range or go even lower and still
| end up being short matter what, because there could simply be
| not enough money in the market.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Serious question: Is there some ETF that is "Index of S&P500
| minus anything that smells like Musk"?
| delecti wrote:
| Yes, kinda. Goldman Sachs launched that under the symbol
| SPXXAI last month. I'm not totally sure how to actually
| invest in it yet though.
|
| https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/ai-goldman-sachs-stocks-
| ind...
| CactusBlue wrote:
| If you have a big enough portfolio, direct indexing (using
| something like Frec or Wealthfront) could be an interesting
| option, and weighting the companies that you don't want at 0.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| The indexes buy based on market cap or float?
| tonfa wrote:
| Most serious index do float, nasdaq has somewhat different
| rules (but it's a weird index...)
| abeppu wrote:
| ok so it seems pretty bad that they changed the index rules
| both to allow spacex in early and the wonky weighting stuff.
| But if one already has index-based things that are likely to be
| captive on the wrong side of this, and one wanted to benefit or
| at least balance out, to confirm my limited understanding the
| goal would be:
|
| - buy shortly after the IPO, ideally less than 15 days
|
| - and sell less than 6 months later when lockups would end and
| insiders are set to cash out?
| actionfromafar wrote:
| So that's what he's been busy with. I was hoping it was
| Ketamine.
| nick__m wrote:
| Thank you for posting that. I also read that on some less
| authoritative source I don't remember. It's truly scandalous. I
| wish ETFs will revolt and apply the old rule for inclusion, but
| I have no illusion it will happen.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| SpaceX will not be part of the S&P 500 when it lists, so you
| can avoid owning SpaceX for now by sticking with non-NASDAQ
| funds. IIRC it would take about a year for SpaceX to qualify
| for the S&P 500, four consecutive profitable quarters is needed
| I believe.
|
| If you own a NASDAQ fund or total US stock market fund, you
| will have exposure to SpaceX.
| browningstreet wrote:
| They're notably going for a large issuance.
| derwiki wrote:
| My 401k has BrokerageLink set up and invests in VT/VTI. It
| takes less than 15 days so if your company offers
| BrokerageLink, you can avoid investing in SpaceX.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Rabble rabble... debt... rabble rabble... xAI burning revenue...
|
| > In the United States, SpaceX accounts for five of every six
| launches into space, according to Georgetown University's Center
| for Security and Emerging Technology.
|
| That's why.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| And likely soon to be the world's biggest ISP, (they probably
| already are by some metrics)
| ctoa wrote:
| They are nowhere near the world's biggest ISP by any metrics,
| what are you talking about?
| lokar wrote:
| Biggest by capital depreciation, no?
| jjordan wrote:
| Well in terms of landmass covered it's not even a contest.
| wg0 wrote:
| Is it a scandal? https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| The speaker seems to be generated by AI. Edit: I not pro musk,
| but the run of the mill pictures aren't needed.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| > The speaker seems to be generated by AI
|
| This is Patrick Boyle, he's not AI generated? Why did you
| feel like the speaker is AI generated?
| lokar wrote:
| And Boyle, IMO, is a great presenter, in part because he is
| so deadpan
| amoss wrote:
| I've watched Patrick's videos for enough years that I know
| he is not, but I still wonder from time to time. His voice
| is incredibly flat and uniform, he always uses fake
| backgrounds and there is extremely high use of jump cuts in
| his edits.
| richbell wrote:
| I suspect that he at least uses AI for scripts. He tends
| to repeat the same thing worded slightly differently a
| few times.
| literalAardvark wrote:
| The jump cuts have been there since almost the beginning.
|
| The community noticed he rarely blinks and he ran with
| the gag and edited all of them out.
| superjan wrote:
| Patrick Boyle (fund manager, professor, youtuber) recently
| discussed this IPO on his channel. Informative and entertaining.
|
| https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?is=TGpEdM2Y7sknP-cW
| lokar wrote:
| And despite popular opinion, he is not an AI :)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Now or never. If the stock market goes bust because of the war
| then most IPO windows will close or will result in a much lower
| subscription rate. You can expect a flurry of these in the next
| few weeks.
| churchill wrote:
| With $1.75t valuation & ~$16b in revenues, that's just over 100*
| revenues. SpaceX recently announced $8b in EBITDA, but I don't
| think it's a healthy metric for such a hardware-heavy business.
| Or, like Charlie Munger calls it, BS earnings.
|
| Even if you give SpaceX the benefit of the doubt and assume
| they'll eventually settle at the profit rates Apple, Google, etc.
| have (~25%, check it), it'll be $4b in annual profits holding up
| $1.8t in market cap or roughly 450 PE ratio.
|
| And that's if we give them the same great odds for profitability
| as America's most successful and profitable firms.
|
| In summary, in the short-term the stock might very likely shoot
| up to $3t, but in the long-term, it doesn't look very healthy.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| SpaceX has reduced the cost of getting a ton of mass into orbit
| by a factor of 10 and with their new system (Starship) it's
| poised further reduce that to 100x. They launch, land and re-use
| their rockets so often now that what was considered impossible 15
| years ago is now routine. They currently put more things into
| space than the rest of the world combined and by a huge margin.
| They also have the most advanced internet infrastructure in the
| world and are poised to replace legacy ISPs and even mobile
| carriers in the coming decade. Oh, and they're doing all this
| while making a profit ($16B last year) despite their massive R&D
| spending and even with the money sink that is xAI their profits
| will be higher this year. It's hard to say that this isn't one of
| the most innovative and fast moving companies in the world.
| $1.75T maybe seems excessive, but less so than a lot of other
| companies out there.
| luke5441 wrote:
| I don't see how replacing mobile carriers with space based
| infrastructure is physically possible.
| tristanj wrote:
| It's not meant to replace terrestrial networks, it's a space-
| based alternative that serves areas carriers have no
| financial incentive to cover. Terrestrial cellular towers
| cost between $150k to $500k per tower, and are not
| economically feasible in less populated areas. There are also
| many dead-zones in mountainous regions, since cell signals
| are blocked by mountains.
|
| Starlink Mobile supplements this, it's simply cheaper for
| mobile providers to partner with them than do their own
| buildout. Currently only 5% of the earth's surface is covered
| by cellular signals. Starlink will push that up to 85+%, and
| is backward compatible with existing cellphones.
| x0x0 wrote:
| It doesn't not seem like anything approaching a lucrative
| business.
|
| TAM: How big is the market for high speed internet that can
| pay $1200+/year and isn't already well-served by
| comcast/at&t/etc? And of course, this is all with finite
| spectrum too. So you can't serve the major cities.
|
| No doubt there exist buyers. But rural Montana doesn't have
| that many households. Add that 5 year replacement cycle and
| Musk's Trump alignment that has Europe building their own for
| security reasons.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| It has technical merit and it is impressive. But I doubt it's
| worth that much. I guess Musk has the talent of pushing and
| getting what he wants, so I guess we'll see how it plays out.
| I'm just afraid for the future is SpaceX in these crazy crazy
| times.
| projektfu wrote:
| $16B is the top line gross revenue number.
|
| You don't count R&D as an expense per GAAP, so...
|
| They have claimed $8B in EBITDA, also leaving out the
| amortization of R&D costs.
|
| Those aren't audited numbers, as far as I know.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Those aren 't audited numbers, as far as I know_
|
| SpaceX has been audited for over a decade.
| pnw wrote:
| Audited financials would be released with the S-1. But it's
| very unlikely that they are not audited given the amount of
| money they have raised.
| b3ing wrote:
| How will they make money? From governments? With Elon's beliefs,
| few will be able to afford the vacation trips to space, except a
| few and they can already do this if they wanted, but haven't in
| droves.
|
| If anything this just proves that the Overview Effect (traveling
| to space changes you) is just BS, Bezos and the others never
| changed.
| convexly wrote:
| I'm genuinely waiting to see at what the valuation lands at. The
| gap between what SpaceX charges per launch and what everyone else
| charges is so wide that the moat basically is the rocket. Hard to
| compare against anything even now.
| bmau5 wrote:
| Valuations are always more of an art than a science but in what
| world is SpaceX worth more than Meta today? Maybe the $1.75T is
| to find that world.
| convexly wrote:
| The valuation only makes sense if you price in Starlink
| becoming a top 3 telecom and Starship opening up entirely new
| markets. Possible, sure, but the launch business alone
| doesn't get you anywhere near 1.75T. They're betting the
| multiple on revenue lines that don't fully exist yet.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I mean... in what world is it worth less?
|
| Meta has increasingly ephemeral digital mindshare and no AI
| play. SpaceX has a near monopoly on access to the rest of the
| galaxy.
| convexly wrote:
| The question for me is just timeline. The "rest of the
| galaxy" revenue is decades out, while Starlink revenue is
| now. Most of the 1.75T has to be priced on Starlink working
| at telecom scale. If not, 1.75T seems like a steal for the
| first true "Universal" investment...
| dang wrote:
| [stub for offtopicness]
|
| [All: please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. You don't
| have to like $Company or $Person, but when the banned accounts
| are posting more thoughtfully than the rest, that's...a bad
| sign.]
| mtharrison wrote:
| What's in the SpaceX Files and why aren't they already public?
| throwaway85825 wrote:
| The big numbers are the cost to train a frontier LLM and the
| GPU cost per hour.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Sensitive financial information. It is normal for companies
| to file confidentiality to avoid leaking information early.
| wavemode wrote:
| Parent commenter is making a joke about the fact that, in
| the title "SpaceX Files to Go Public", the word "Files"
| could be read as either a noun or a verb.
| riffraff wrote:
| the truth social is out there
| MisterTea wrote:
| Details of alien encounters and abductions, paranormal and
| psychic phenomena, as well as crypto-zoology and curious
| human abilities.
|
| _reads headline again_
|
| Oh. Probably all the money burnt in AI training and data
| centers.
| SunshineTheCat wrote:
| That is what I'm talking about, finally someone is asking the
| real questions.
| tastyface wrote:
| I don't know what's in the Spacex files, but I do know that
| Musk begged and pleaded with Epstein to come party on pedo
| island.
|
| Maybe something to consider before investing in any of his
| companies.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Outstanding comment.
|
| 4 different levels to unpack: Literal IPO question, Epstein
| cover-up (gov. won't just do it), aliens (X-Files) cover-up,
| and finally the Elon-Epstein connection (email files thread
| to host him at SpaceX).
| righthand wrote:
| Just more pedophiles and their supporters.
| righthand wrote:
| What? OP wasn't trying to make an Epstein files joke?
| nxm wrote:
| Clintons?
| righthand wrote:
| Clintons aren't connected to Space X though so that's a
| silly answer.
| gigatexal wrote:
| ugh he's going to be worth > 1T and go on to have even more
| influence than before. this is so bad for society.
|
| idgaf about the company. sure they proved the space and moved
| the space forward just like Tesla did with electric cars but
| why did it have to be Elon?
| throwaway85825 wrote:
| Trying to dump on the market before the bubble pops.
| outside2344 wrote:
| Not sure why you are being downvoted. This is exactly what is
| happening and why OpenAI is trying to IPO to dump their
| garbage as well.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| maybe it's the histrionics? Thse personalities are
| inevitably inflating their own balloons in order to cash
| out, but that doesn't mean the reality is these companies
| are worthless. The downvotes come from comments like
| "OpenAI is trying to dump their garbage". At best that's a
| silly thing to say. We can argue "fair market value" but
| it's not zero.
| throwaway85825 wrote:
| What is the fair market value of an AI company that loses
| >$10B/year? Of course they have assets that could be
| stripped and sold for profit but public creditors come
| last. It's also going to be no where near their private
| valuation.
| senectus1 wrote:
| because its not accurate. they're _milking_ the market. not
| dumping on the market.
|
| they're only (sic) going for 75 billion. with an evaluation
| in the trillion mark.
|
| This is just more speculative investment. you'll see this
| again in another year or so with a bigger evaluation on
| it... it's how the modern economy now "works".
| CalChris wrote:
| This is structured so that Musk becomes the first trillionaire.
| Detrytus wrote:
| Yeah, that's probably the only reason for SpaceX going
| public.
| Ekaros wrote:
| On one hand I do take some enjoyment of suckers being fleeced.
| But on other hand I know who this all will benefit so I really
| can't do that.
|
| As whole I find that valuation just insane, but seemingly if
| you only offer tiny enough slice with enough hype it might bump
| prices to something that really make no sense at all...
| throwaway85825 wrote:
| The suckers being fleeced are every pension fund in the
| world. They're demanding the S&P includes them faster to
| force ETF owners to buy in before the price tanks.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Why are they being fleeced? If people didn't want to buy
| SpaceX they could buy some other ETF that doesn't include
| it. If there's enough of a demand I'm sure ETFs will be
| offered which include all the big indexed stocks _except_
| SpaceX.
| throwaway85825 wrote:
| Restructuring every ETF to be S&P but prior rules and no
| SpaceX would be enormously difficult.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Yes Americans will definitely move their 401k over this
| /s
|
| Its fleecing because it basically takes everybody's money
| and gives it to support musk's money loser xai. SpaceX
| net profit 8 billion per year (previous years much less)
| and Xai was net losing 1.5 billion per quarter.
| michaelt wrote:
| God forbid we participants in the stock market _evaluate_ a
| business before investing in it, or do any sort of _work_
| to get the return we 're promised.
|
| I, for one, much prefer to earn a 9% return without
| expending any effort or thought at all.
| throwaway85825 wrote:
| For most people their talent and expertise does not
| involve investing. That's why pensions and 401ks exist
| and why S&P/nasdaq have rules to protect the public.
| bryananderson wrote:
| You may wish it were not so, you may find it inelegant
| and infuriating and unfair, but it is a fact that retail
| investors nearly all underperform the market over a long
| enough time horizon. Maybe you are built different but
| for most of us it is very rational to take the market
| return for "free".
| socialcommenter wrote:
| Do understand, though, that market return will struggle
| to achieve 9% for the coming decades. A 9% annualised
| return would put the US stock market at 50% of world GDP
| in 10 years (edit: 20) and something like 90% of world
| GDP in 30 years (edit: 50 years). Cost of goods, and your
| customer's money, both have to come out of global GDP
| too.
|
| (The current value of around 25% of global GDP doesn't
| even include the 1.75 trillion SpaceX which alone would
| be another almost 1%...)
|
| ETF expense ratios are small but still mean retail will
| underperform anyway. It's an unfortunate situation all
| around.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Unless you literally have nothing, YOU are one of the
| millions being fleeced. Pensions & retirement funds, any
| index fund that comes remotely close to technology, any
| equity you own in a venture in tech, any industry that via
| very short linkages is connected. Good luck avoiding this.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| You only get "fleeced" if the stock crashes. If it's that
| terrible of a stock then the price will be low. As far as
| SpaceX goes, I think there are far riskier companies with
| little prospect of doing well.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| How about xAI? Losing $6B a year and with that whole
| "Grok, generate me an image of this child with no clothes
| on" horrorshow?
|
| Sorry, "xAI, a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX".
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| 1.) All the image generation models will do that, xAI is
| just the one that caught flak for it
|
| 2.) SpaceX made $16B in profit last year, despite its
| enormous R&D costs and is on track for $20B this year,
| despite the losses from AI. People still wise to invest
| in Google despite their AI business still being a huge
| loss
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > 1.) All the image generation models will do that, xAI
| is just the one that caught flak for it
|
| Perhaps. But that's a huge undersell. "just the one that
| caught flak"? No. The one with nearly zero guardrails.
| Where users could trivially create underage porn,
| bestiality, etc., using prompts that you could put into
| any other AI and just say "does this image generation
| prompt seem likely to create legally problematic
| content?"
|
| No, Captain Free Speech said fuck it, let's roll.
| torginus wrote:
| Not that I approve of that, but when image generation was
| hot and new, the insane amount of refusals I got from the
| major ones for apparently no reason, exacerabated by the
| general slowness, quotas and inherent trial and error
| workflow has completely soured me on them.
| lokar wrote:
| They are only selling a small % of the shares in the IPO
| and subsequent weeks.
|
| With a tiny float the price will almost certainly go up
| as a limited number of enthusiastic investors buy in. The
| plan is to then line up the lockup expirations so they
| sell into the index re-balance, a ton of new non-
| discretionary demand to match the new supply.
|
| It's manipulation.
| rvz wrote:
| They are going IPO close to Elon's birthday (26th or 29th June)
| aren't they? Like they did with Tesla.
|
| But as soon as they IPO, that's a signal to head for the exit
| before it all collapses again.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| TSLA is up 300x from what it IPO'd at
| bobsomers wrote:
| But it was also flat last year and the financials are
| atrociously bad. Reality is catching up.
| outside2344 wrote:
| I hate that I will have to invest in this crap with my
| retirement index funds
| torginus wrote:
| Does this mean that before june SpaceX will do something highly
| noteworthy, to justify the IPO price?
| WarmWash wrote:
| Elon will announce roborockets that pick you up and fly you
| to Mars in under 12 hours while your hypersleep in the
| ExaShip. Production starts definitely next year.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| If it goes public, does that means Musk won't own any of it?
| Can we rip it out of his filthy hands?
| nly wrote:
| Likely only a shameful % of the company will float.
| projektfu wrote:
| Expect a Facebook-style stock offering with 90% of the
| voting power in a special share class not available to
| retail.
| cj wrote:
| Companies typically make a minority of their stock available
| on public markets upon IPO.
|
| Not sure what % SpaceX will be offering up.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Bollocks valuation. There isn't that much demand for space and
| it's not that profitable.
| nickvec wrote:
| A space company in the pursuit of profit... what could possibly
| go wrong.
| kakflelajf74 wrote:
| How can I avoid my retirement and index funds being a part of
| this garbage?
| nutjob2 wrote:
| Maybe someone will start selling a Nasdaq minus Musk index
| fund.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Don't buy it. If you don't have enough money to directly
| index, don't waste time trying to pick stocks or time the
| market.
| mrinterweb wrote:
| I feel the global instability could easily be very disruptive to
| SpaceX. Just imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts
| destroying these satellites or blowing up their satellites to
| create orbital debris that could knock satellites out of orbit. A
| really bad solar storm could be devastating.
|
| Just saying there are some decent risks, and pricing it at 1.75T
| IPO seems risky enough. I would not take that gamble.
| intrasight wrote:
| > very disruptive to SpaceX
|
| And to most everything else
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying
| these satellites_
|
| Sounds like lots of demand for new launches from the military-
| industrial complex.
|
| > _imagine if Russia gets vindictive and starts destroying
| these satellites_
|
| Space is big. It's almost always cheaper to individually target
| satellites than to try and blanket orbits. And with Starship vs
| ASAT, the cheap drones are the satellites. Russia would
| bankrupt itself trying to sink Starlink and Starshield.
|
| (They would also set a precedent that would let the U.S. deny
| China a LEO constellation.)
| nutjob2 wrote:
| Bloomberg link if you can't read the NYT:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-01/spacex-is...
| sroussey wrote:
| SpaceX does internal sales of stock twice a year, so there will
| not be pressure from existing stockholders to sell. But there
| will be buyers. SpaceX is/was a great brand (before it became
| SpaceTwitter).
| panick21_ wrote:
| I love space and they are an amazing company that I have been
| following for almost 2 decades, but I wouldn't touch that IPO
| with a 10 foot pool.
|
| But the auto inclusion in Fortune 500 is basically cheating.
| beej71 wrote:
| Man, did I parse that badly. "Space(X files) to go public."
|
| I'm a little disappointed now.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-01 23:00 UTC)