bastard musk must be broken down to destitution to clean up our world
How much does it have to grow before Musk dies? That’ll be the question
I’m loathe to find out how he’s going to fail his way upwards from this. It’s going to pop, and he’s going to tumble upwards like he always does. Capitalism is a system that props fools like this up.
Better start hauling asteroids for mining. Nothing else is going to have that level of ROI.
All they have to do is to start putting ads on space and none of us will be able to do anything about it because we are a bunch of peasants.
We can burn the hypothetical companies which obstruct our heavens.
Why do people like this guy? Tell him to fuck off already.
Because he has a massive public presence. Why do people like mcdonald and not burgermeister? Because they have never hear of the latest. The proper way to give this guy the middle finger is to stop giving him any exposure if not for serious stuff that show he’s scum.
Because he has $826 billion…
why people invest in this? they will just lose their money
As long as there is a sucker willing to pay more they will gain money. And unfortunately there are millions of suckers on the planet. Fundamentals don’t mean anything with this IPO. It’s basically all hype based like Pokemon cards.
One of the big problems with investing is that the average investor thinks they’re smarter than the average investor.
It’s inevitable, anyone wise enough to doubt their ability to outplay the market chooses not to try, the remainder all think they can
Where it’s not a bubble, the market is positive sum and the average investor is wise to participate.
That’s true. I guess you just have to think you can keep up with the market, not necessarily beat it.
Don’t be so smug. The intended victims of this IPO are passive investors who aren’t trying to time the market and are just long-term holding index funds for retirement. That’s exactly who Musk is planning to rob. If you’re taking the typical low-cost index fund strategy, you will be giving approximately 1% of your life savings to Elon Musk.
Not trying to be smug, just pointing out that a system that encourages self selection will tend to select for self belief, justified or not.
This is nuts. Can someone explain this cos I just don’t get it. Why would you invest in a company if its well established that its unlikely you’ll ever make a profit or even get that money back??
Because Elon said so, and a lot of these people are playing with other people’s money, so it’s worth a shot.
Elon says:
- SpaceX is really about xAI, and look how well regarded Anthropic is, we’ll be even better than Anthropic because, welll I’m Elon and I said so!
- All this AI stuff has to go to space because some company that makes a part for natural gas generators is backordered a few years, so we’ll start having hundreds of Starship launches a month.
Yes, he claimed that hundreds of Starship launches a month is a more realistic thing to pull off than making some parts of natural gas turbines…
- Buy stock when it’s valued at $1.75 trillion
- Elon says on twitter he thinks it will be worth $3 trillion soon
- Some idiots buy stock, price goes up
- You sell
- Profit
You can keep doing this as long as there’s a bigger idiot down the line. If you’re still holding the stock when it collapses you’re the biggest idiot and you lose.
SpaceXs initial valuation is so large it will distort the market, and they changed the rules so the index funds will all buy shares automatically to balance their portfolios, which will shoot the price up and balloon the valuation even further, then Elon and the investors that helped him buy twitter can sell at ludicrous prices at the expense of American 401ks and and passive managed pension funds.
It’s a trillion dollar rug pull in broad daylight.
Edit- Nasdaq changed their rule, S&P has not.
That’s what they want to happen, but the biggest index fund are already shutting that down. The main losers are going to be his die hard sycophants, who won’t be able to help themselves from buying this trap.
On behalf of my 401k, thank goodness.
Surely the SEC will shut down these shenanigans! /s
Tl;dr - Not a single person would be investing in SpaceX. Americans’ retirement funds would be invested into it, without their knowledge or consent, regardless of how obvious the outcome is.
All my friends got on the wait-list to be part of the ipo launch. Trust me a lot of people want this and it will sell like crazy.
they are forcing us to invest by stealing from our 401k.
because nasdaw and russel rigged inclusion rulescheck your 401k people, you might need to move into other ETF to avoid AI companies and bubble
check your 401k people, you might need to move into other ETF to avoid AI companies and bubble
But if (when) the bubble bursts it will tank the market. There’s so much riding on this that there will be no hiding. Unless you do a Ron Swanson and bury gold in your garden.
You can’t eliminate the risk, but you can ameliorate it. Yes, sectors like retail, construction, and even healthcare will take a hit during the AI bust. After a crash, there’s much less money floating around. People are out of work. Asset prices are down. People spend less. So every sector gets hit.
But there is a difference between a hit and a collapse. If you’re invested in OpenAI, and the bubble bursts? Your investment is going to zero. The company is going to go bankrupt. Shareholders will be completely wiped out. If you’re invested in say…Home Depot, well yes, in a crash, the stock will go down. With millions laid off, people will have less money to spend on home renovations, so demand for the Depot’s products will decline. Their stock price will take a large hit.
But, if you’re smart, this won’t hurt you. Eventually things will recover, the bubble will clear out, and demand for building products will return. At that point the Home Depot stock price will recover. As long as you don’t sell during the crash, you won’t see any losses.
That is the key difference. An investment in any sector right now risks a decline and then recovery a few years down the road. An investment in the AI sector risks a complete collapse to zero.
I dunno man. Whatever way it goes it doesnt look good for capitalism.
Say its a huge success and they manage to achieve AGI - then comes mass unemployment, mortgage defaults, slow down in spending…
There’s also a lot of disgruntlement left over from the 2008 crash, and economies never really recovered from that. Climbing out of whatever comes next is going to be a much bigger challenge. It might be easier to start over.
Frankly, for investing, AGI shouldn’t even be on your radar. AGI can only result in three outcomes - extinction, complete totalitarianism, or some sort of communist system. Most likely any AGI would just kill us, probably by accident. But even if they manage to control it, then what? You quickly end up with one or a handful of AI companies owning literally the entire economy, producing everything. At that point capitalism is done. Either we allow the new oligarchy to exist indefinitely (totalitarianism) or we nationalize the companies and go full Star Trek.
What these AI companies miss is that true AGI is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t work when only 1-3 companies make all the goods and services in the economy.
Your point on 2008 is valid though. There’s a lot we just swept under the rug instead of dealing with properly.
I can’t wait for my 401k to lose a significant chunk of its value within the next 5 years because some chud at Fidelity needed to ride Elon to the moon. And also the AI crash.
I just wish my money would all be gone already so I didn’t have to worry so much.
The S&P 500 rejected adding SpaceX though. So no worries from them but when AI crashes and burns so will your 401k.
They didn’t reject adding SpaceX, they simply said they would not change the rules to add it early, like the other indexes are. Those rules include a minimum time listed as a public company, a certain percentage of shares being floated to the public, and some profitability. I doubt SpaceX ever gets there.
Some of those other AI companies might make it through the gauntlet, though, and be listed eventually.
Also, NASDAQ will be changing its rules to list SpaceX as soon as 15 days after IPO.
No idea how US pensions work… But can’t you change the funds?
I sold the default fund and moved it into non US stuff.
Many employers offer to match the employee’s contribution to their retirement fund up to a certain amount, but the employer gets to pick which funds are available. Anyone can open their own IRA (retirement fund) but they won’t get that employer match.
Why would the employer care which funds are available though?
Here, the employer picks the provider and default fund, but you can change it to anything the provider offers. (Although most don’t)
So I thought I had that setup, but it so happens that I ended up with two 401ks at the exact same provider via two different companies, and there are different options between the employers.
I don’t see a particular pattern as to why one would be different from the other, but they are…
The only option I have is to shift into international markets and even that isn’t too much of a shield as many of those have US allocations that will be buying SpaceX
Oh god damn it.
Sorry, it’s the same as you’re describing. The employer doesn’t decide which funds are available, the bank does. I’m thinking back to my last job and there were only about 10 funds to choose from, but I couldn’t tell you who was responsible for limiting the options. The bank might have offered a “retirement benefits package” to the employer to simplify things. Not sure.
If only you could change the currency it’s held in. I have little faith the dollar will be accepted by anyone when I’m retirement age.
Never understood the business model for SpaceX and Starlink. Huge capital and operational costs without a clear understanding of who is paying for it.
For Starlink and SpaceX, I can probably understand the business model, considering the race to getting more satellites to orbit be it for surveying or in case of Starlink stable Internet anywhere. But anything beyond that, like data centers in space I just ridiculous. No way that their valuation is anywhere near what it is realistically.
I look at Starlink where currently about 6 spacecraft deorbit a week and need replacement as a huge operational cost. Many SpaceX launches are Starlink launches, it raises the question of whether this is a circular or self fulfilling industry.
As far as I understood, I always thought that they just used other people’s rockets to piggyback their own satellites to space basically for free
Unless you want to separate starlink from spacex it’s kinda the other way around.
I think spacex was adding starlink deployment to all their rockets and their “plan” was to launch other satellites and nasa projects, then get the starlink stuff up there for less.
Haven’t heard that though you need a lot of other launches with space available….
Its actually a great business model as they need to do actual test flights to build better rockets and instead of that being pure R&D expenses, its supplemented by launching Starlink satellites which generate their own revenue for the company.
Great theory, but the Falcon 9 is already a proven design and most of SpaceX’s R&D is going to the starship, which uses completely different engines and which has blown up or disintegrated just as much as its successfully gotten above the atmosphere. It’s also never actually completed an orbit or delivered a gram of anything to orbit.
Starlink is a useful tool to boost launch numbers precisely so investors think things are better than they actually are. Originally SpaceX burned through government and private investor money. Now that they’ve blown through the entire Artemis budget the interim director of nasa gave them through blatant corruption, and launched even more billion dollar fireworks using private investor money, they are desperately trying to convince the public for more fireworks funds.
I suppose that it is that dependence upon Starlink to boost launch numbers makes me suspicious of the books. The whole thing just feels ponzie scheme.
Starlink is basically a military tech that is too expensive even for the US military, so it was sold to gullible investors as a great deal… It won’t ever be profitable, at least not near the level that was promised. But it might turn out to be essential during a few wars.
While you’re probably right, I wonder if we would’ve said the same thing about GPS
GPS was planned out and deployed over 20 years (from proposal to operational).
It was also designed and worked for its intended purpose with only 24 satellites.
Block III gps satellites are designed to last 15 years and there are 10 of them.
Starlink is disposable chains of 1,000s of satellites that will be constantly burning up in the atmosphere and replaced at huge costs, including co2 from the launches.
I don’t think it’s the same, we already have the infrastructure for the network in most places with a dense population. Existing infrastructure is of the similar quality to Starlink, and the maintenance cost for the existing infrastructure is lower.
In case of GPS, the infrastructure existing before was much worse.
The only cases I can think of, where Starlink outperforms the existing infrastructure are:
-
Areas with low population density - the problem, in those areas, by definition, there aren’t many customers
-
Situation when someone is actively trying to sabotage the existing infrastructure, like those ships, that are breaking underwater internet cables, or the active jamming near the front lines - what happens in the Ukraine shows that Starlink is great for that case. It is enough to treat it as strategically important, but it doesn’t justify the starlink valuation. I really hope this market won’t grow much.
- Countries that refuse to guarantee fiber to every home so you’re not getting it unless the gods (Telia in the case of Estonia) decide you should get it.
I don’t like the expression “guarantee fiber to every home”, I don’t think intervention like that is needed, It’s enough if the country guarantees fair competition. But I agree that Starlink lets you bypass local obstacles like local incompetence/corruption or censorship*
* unless it's the kind of censorship that Elon supports, then I am pretty sure Starlink will soon block it as well
-
Starlink is the only thing making SpaceX profitable right now though
Starlink is the part of spaceX making money. Selling a low latency global communications capability is a sound business model. The rocketry part is close to break even. I suspect it could do with a few more launches that weren’t starlink.
It’s xAI that’s tanking the whole thing. Without that SpaceX would be profitable. With it, it’s a trash stock.
Business model: people apparently like supporting Nazis with no real vision.
It’s a FOMO play for morons.
The entire valuation is that they say that they can find $28T of businesses on mars and the moon, that that creating these business ideas is something they can do repeatably.
To be fair, you’re only a moron if you are considering it a “hold forever” stock. If you get out in time, or even if you miss-time it, that’s just gambling, which only makes you a moron if you can’t afford the loss.
No single stock should be a hold forever play (unless you count ETFs as a single stock)
A steady dividend stock might be a hold forever stock. Especially if you don’t want to realize the capital gains of the stock’s appreciation.
It’s one single stock for one company, there is still high risk of extreme losses over a very long time
The water utility for my country’s capital is a publicly traded company for some reason. The only way they’re going out of business is if people stop using water or water stops existing in the area.
That can honestly be considered a forever stock as far as I can tell. Dividends aren’t super high but that’s because they’re constantly saving up half the profit for future infra work.
Depends on the company. Some asset heavy companies (think railroads, commercial REITs) pay steady dividends, and are extremely unlikely to just go under without warning.
Stsrlink is about the only thing in the company pulling in solid revenue. There’s a good analysis on https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2026/05/30/what-is-starlinks-financial-performance
But basically it’s a subscription service which they can sell around most of the planet and compete with infrastructure heavy services (as in expensive to replace them). They also have a lot of enterprise customer usecases (like agriculture and construction) as well as cashcow government (army).
Their growth is actually massive compared to last year, and starlink itself is already profitable. Their economy gets better with the investment in the rocket tech. Starship will be able to lift 20x the amount of starlink than falcon 9, apparently also cheaper, while the next gen starlink sats will also be able to serve a lot more customers. That’ll drive their operating cost down, while allowing selling more.
(Just to be clear, spacex as a company is still hot garbage because of the bundling of x and xai and also probably the control structure giving musk all the power while not even holding majority stake, the above is just about starlink and the rocket tech.)
The problem with Starlink is it’s only ever a niche service. There’s a limit to how many satellites you can have in the sky over paying subscribers (as opppsed to, say, deserts or oceans) - I did some back of the envelope maths that put it at about 15 million subscribers with acceptable speeds, maybe double that with terrible service.
By comparison, Deutsche Telekom in Germany alone has 5 times as many mobile subscribers, and a similar number of fixed-line broadband. Amd best of all, Deutsche Telekom doesn’t need to replace all its infrastructure every 5 years when it falls to Earth.
So on what possible basis does Starlink warrant a “to the moon” valuation, and traditional providers don’t? Traditional providers can serve more consumers, at lower cost, with better return on assets…
Starlink, and batshit ideas about datacentres in space, exist for one reason: US infrastructure is complete shit. It would almost certainly be long-run a better investment to fix the power, water, and telecomms infrastructure on the ground, but right now you have a government that would rather private companies fire money into space than pay taxes.
I don’t disagree that even starlink is overvalued, my point was that it’s the only thing in spacex bringing in profit and why.
FWIW, their v3 satellite model is apparently a 10x bandwidth increase over v2 (although weights about 5x as much). At the moment they are so oversubscribed that they can charge a $1000 surcharge for people to just sign up in some areas, so there’s definitely demand. So given they’re already around 10 mill subscribers there is some growth to be had (although I agree it won’t be 100s of millions, maybe a few 10s - far from the 50+ multiplier on the valuation, even ignoring the other 2 money pits bundled in)
That being said, you’re entirely correct that fixing the on-ground infrastructure is a much better investment if the goal is good internet service and would deliver a better quality service for cheaper, but that is happening extremely slowly in most of the developed countries (e.g. UK has terrible internet infra as well), especially in rural areas. So for the next 10 years starlink doss have a large market because the ground infrastructure sucks, and it’s not “hype” to spend money on it for investors where’s space stuff is.
Starlink is massively profitable, look at their balance sheets. It’s very simple, their users pay them a lot of money to access the internet. Far, far more than the launch costs to maintain the constellation.
Their defense launch business is also profitable, though I haven’t checked how much.
The Starship development and stupid acquisitions (xai) have been a money pit though.
Starlink is the only part of SpaceX operations that turns a profit.
Rocket launches do not, and xAi is a bottomless money pit just like every other AI venture.
I don’t think that’s quite true. (Happy to be proven wrong if somebody has better numbers than me.)
From what I can see the launch business generated $4.1 billion, but profits in that segment are negative because the $3 billion in Starship development costs are lumped in to that. The overall loss (-$600 million) would instantly turn into great profit if they decided to give up on Starship.
But for sure, xAi is a nightmare. Absolutely Elon trying to bail himself out again.
The best numbers I can find are from 2024, when Starlink made a total of $72 million in profit.
Not great numbers though, as the article explains. It only talks about the cost of the end user hardware and providing the service, so the profit is against those expenses. It doesn’t factor in the cost of launches and satellites.
Generated 4.1 billion with a profit of how much?
And how much money did they get from the US government?
Lockheed Martin gets most of their money from the government and still manages to be profitable.
I don’t think Starlink includes their launch fees, leaving that on SpaceX side of the balance sheet. But I haven’t read details.
The business model is armament. Future warfare uses land and air drones and they require network access, which Starlink provides and they’re much more difficult to jam than ground-based network facilities.
And he played his hand too soon in Ukraine: by deciding for himself to reject Ukrainian coverage in Crimea. This creates an opening for competitors that only war can afford to duplicate.
Yeah. Are they really expecting me to believe we can‘t have wide spread fiber that has fairly little maintenance costs but we can totally afford weekly space rocket launches to maintain Starlink? And Starlink is supposed to be an affordable option while still being profitable? Yeah, sure buddy. Totally doesn‘t sound like a hyperloop-esque pipe dream. /s
And doesn’t SpaceX now also own xAI and Xitter? He’s trying to offload his terrible investments.
Not Twitter. He only moved the AI over so he could attach it to something that could hide it’s losses (not very well).
Reusable vehicles meant something like 1/20 the per-launch costs of the pre-existing competition? No matter what you want to pay to have put in space, the supplier who reuses equipment will have a huge advantage.
And starlink? Satellite internet access for remote properties used to have all the latency of a return trip to geostationary orbit. Starlink is a massive advantage compared to that.
You’re not wrong, they were kinda burning money to create a business model. I’m a space fanboy though so I’m glad someone is doing it.
Pretty sad that musk is involved at all, but he started it. More sad that it now has the ai cancer stuck to it.
Still I want humans to go beyond earth and I guess I’m willing to let th devil do it
But, but… Money laundering err I mean mars!
Here’s the twist. SpaceX doesn’t have to do anything at all. It can go bankrupt tomorrow and its valuation will only go up.
The stock market never made any sense whatsoever, and this is just peak stock market behaviour.
The major indices already said they’re not buying. That number they made up was counting on forcing them to buy automatically.
NASDAQ is still buying. S&P500 isn’t. But it’s still a major concern if you’re holding a total market index fund or similar.
in order to achieve that they’d have to hire pretty much the entire aerospace industry. everyone in the usa with any expertise in rockets or satellites. im doing my part by never working for that fucking fascist piece of shit.
I’m sorry to i form you that they plan to have a majority of their business revenue come from their AI division, not their satellite division and definitely not their rocket division
Inflation will be 60x soon enough.
For readers, that averages 51% per year.
That’s 59% growth annually, every year, for 10 years straight.
Any miss or early miss throws the schedule off significantly.
Pretty close to Moore’s Law, a doubling approximately every 18 months.
Sounds like a good investment if you were paying a price based off today’s value. A terrible one in actuality.
