SpaceX valued at just $780 billion by Morningstar, less than half its IPO target
Source: finance.yahoo.com
SpaceX (SPAX.PVT) just got slapped with a bearish valuation ahead of its monster IPO coming up later this month. The report signals that one of the most anticipated offerings in years may be significantly overpriced, just as CEO Elon Musk tries to justify the valuation.
Morningstar initiated coverage of SpaceX with a fair-value estimate of just $780 billion, less than half the roughly $1.8 trillion valuation the company is targeting in its initial public offering.
Analyst Nicolas Owenss discounted cash flow model valued SpaceXs core launch and Starlink satellite businesses at about $611 billion in enterprise value, plus an additional $170 billion in probability-weighted scenarios for the companys AI operations.
Read more: https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/spacex-valued-at-just-780-billion-by-morningstar-less-than-half-its-ipo-target-174617034.html
dave99
(304 posts)EX500rider
(12,800 posts)That seem unlikely with revenue of $18.67 billion last year for SpaceX/Starlink
dave99
(304 posts)pat_k
(14,062 posts)Starlink is the "cash cow." But with the acquisition of xAI the "company" as a whole is a dog.
The entire U.S. economy is currently an all-in bet on AI. I see no reason to pump the bubble up with an absurd xAI over-valuation buried inside SpaceX
SpaceX Segment Financials (2025)
Overall operating loss $2.60 billion
Connectivity (primarily Starlink)
Operating Income $𝟒.𝟒𝟐 billion
Space (Launches and Nasa)
Operating Loss $0.657 billion.
AI (xAI)
Operating Loss 6.36 billion
Shipwack
(3,114 posts)No solid plans to fix that, either. Long term that doesnt bode well.
Or short, term, either.
Bengus81
(10,430 posts)ago. That crap trades at $9 and is lucky to be that high. If Eloon is going public he no longer needs to feed off the teet of taxpayers.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,687 posts)The sober investors contemplating buying it in the IPO have to work out if that will keep the price high enough for them to offload it way above its true value; and those buying in the subsequent market have to work out if the cult will keep it high long enough for NASDAQ index trackers to have to buy it, whatever the price.
Then the question will become if it stays up long enough for the forced purchases by S&P 500 index trackers to arrive.
Personally I hold an S&P 500 tracker, and hope that it crashes before it gets to the point it has to buy it. I also hold 2 world index trackers, and I have no idea when their rules will force them to buy it. I'd hope they're more conservative than the NASDAQ fanbois.
paulkienitz
(1,522 posts)flamingdem
(40,985 posts)Typical Muskrat move
bucolic_frolic
(56,045 posts)Don't go for the cyber truck of spaceships.
Go with the infrastructure suppliers, the electronics.
oh. There is this:
Priced according to Eloon's ego. It's almost like a Golden Arch or a Ballroom.
BootinUp
(51,697 posts)Prairie Gates
(8,526 posts)in an industry that requires government contracts both foreign and domestic. And an early entrant into an industry with a lot of downstream competition coming online.
Seriously, what Democratic administration for the next 40 years won't be tempted to zero out SpaceX contracts the way Elon and his merry band of idiots zeroed out NEH grants?
pat_k
(14,062 posts)I'm not sure what to do about this.
I transfered from a standard s&p index to XMAG to limit exposure to AI, Musk, and other tech bros absurdly inflated values.
I wish there were an XMAG that excluded the "Magnificent 10 and SpaceX, whatever market capitalization SpaceX debuts at.
WSHazel
(867 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2026, 06:09 AM - Edit history (1)
Starlink is the entire value of the company. The space business should be done by the government, and the AI has significant negative value and the company would be worth more long term if it was just shut down. Twitter is worth maybe $5 billion, probably less.
The problem with Starlink is that as developing world countries continue to build out their cell infrastructure, Starlink becomes less valuable. The EU is building their own Starlink for military purposes.
OGBuzz
(755 posts)well on his way to $2 trillion. There is something obscene about all this.
But hey, Elon did manage to destroy USAID causing the deaths of over 750,000 people (so far) due to stoppage in medical, nutritional, and humanitarian aid.
moonshinegnomie
(4,099 posts)besides being way overvalued s&P funds are going to have to buy a big slug of the IPO. they will have to get teh cash selling other stocks and with the mag 7 being the majorit of teh s&p thats what they will have to sell puttin gpressure on the market. betwen spacex,open ai anthroponic and teh other ipos coming i thing we are very near the top.
Ive sold a lot of my stocks and have put the proceeds into cash.
(disclaimer: i trade stocks for a living and spend 20+ years on the commodity floor )
flamingdem
(40,985 posts)Genuinely curious and also cautious but not sure it's crash time yet.
pat_k
(14,062 posts)The incestuous circular deals are sure reminiscent of the dot com bubble.

This all-in bet on AI that is the American economy is incredibly fragile, however you look at it. Particularly when you add in the fact that our economy relies on spending by the wealthiest. The problem with decimating the middle class is that relying on the wealthiest spending lots is dicey. The minute things start going south, they can cut way back, sending the economy into a death spiral.
https://www.profgalloway.com/how-does-the-end-begin/
...
If Mag 10 valuations are cut in half, the S&P and global markets would decline by 20% and 10%, respectively. In the U.S., the immediate impact would be felt by the wealthiest 10%, who own 87% of the stocks. Those households wont struggle to pay their bills, but they may be the tail of the whip on the economy, as wealthy households have the luxury of decreasing their spending dramatically, vs. middle-class households, who spend the majority of their income on basics. If the top 10%, who account for half the consumer spending in the U.S., hit the brakes, the nation gets whiplash. I estimate that if the wealthy see their portfolios drop by 20%, we could see a 2-3% decline in GDP. For context: From peak to trough, the Great Recession registered a 4.3% drop in GDP.
...
moonshinegnomie
(4,099 posts)but if a fund needs to raise cash to but spacex they need to sell something and NVDA is a huge winner. so selling some is easy.
eringer
(553 posts)Nicholas Owens thinks not. He is betting against SpaceX which will have the money from the IPO to make it happen. That will drive the valuation.
Based on its history, SpaceX should make short work of it.
paulkienitz
(1,522 posts)The whole idea is just a piece of the AI bubble.
eringer
(553 posts)Business case is there given the NIBY mentality governing earth based sites. It will take lots of money and brainpower to make it happen but the rewards are there if someone is not adverse to the risks. I can only think of one guy thats willing to put it all on the black. Its really the only reason he is going public.
Nicholas projected valuation assumes you are buying a launch company. In my opinion, he either hasnt done his homework or is very naive. In either case, he is no rocket scientist on this subject.
paulkienitz
(1,522 posts)so that data centers in orbit are cheaper and pay out better than ones on the ground with full environmental mitigation and respect for neighbors, unless you assume a scale so gargantuan that it's the only option. Which would tremendously escalate the risk of turning our entire fleet of low-orbit assets into shrapnel via the Kessler syndrome.
Plus the entirely speculative gamble of what good the data centers will even do us once built, and the fact that the only reason this idea is being taken seriously at all by people like Musk or Bezos or Eric Schmit is just because we're in the middle of a huge speculative bubble. Which will collapse long before the buildout can get to a scale big enough to justify needing to put it in space.
This is even dumber than the old idea of building giant solar arrays in orbit to beam down power via microwaves, when for a fraction of the cost you can produce just as many watts from ordinary solar roofs scattered wherever people live.
Shipwack
(3,114 posts)Long story short: data centers generate lots of heat. Its difficult to transfer heat to a vacuum (thats an oversimplification, but essentially correct).
eringer
(553 posts)That is why Musk finally agreed to the offering. It was always talked about once a year at SpaceX but everyone knew the rumors were untrue. That it is happening took everyone by surprise. Musk is putting everything on the black. Dont bet against his people pulling it off as impossible as it sounds.
LudwigPastorius
(15,107 posts)5 month-old article just on things he promised happening by 2025:
https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-failed-to-deliver-on-2025-promises
paulkienitz
(1,522 posts)turbinetree
(27,757 posts)pat_k
(14,062 posts)And the space crap isn't actually much of the business. The cash cow is starlink, which is facing a lot more competition.
Overall SpaceX operating loss $2.60 billion. Breakdown:
Connectivity (primarily Starlink)
Operating Income $𝟒.𝟒𝟐 billion
Space (Launches and Nasa)
Operating Loss $0.657 billion.
AI (xAI)
Operating Loss 6.36 billion
turbinetree
(27,757 posts)paulkienitz
(1,522 posts)I assume because they are bought in to the AI bubble.
twodogsbarking
(19,504 posts)barbtries
(31,369 posts)less than musk's salary. hehehe
Emile
(43,602 posts)"Just $780 billion? Wow, I guess they're practically giving the rockets away for free.