> The SpaceX IPO in 2026 is unlikely to mirror the 500x or 1,000x returns of early Amazon or Google

I don't think this is right; when Google first IPO'd the sentiment was that they had a single successful product, search, and the stock was expected to track search. Now they have a whole suite of successful products.

Similarily SoaceX is viewed as a rocket company, but they're likely to continue to expand their product range, and for all we know some of their future products could be bigger and more profitable.

▲

u1hcw9nx 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Say a number.

In your opinion how much SpaceX should be valued to be overpriced?

If $1.75T is OK. Is $5T too much? I think the idea is that with over 1.5 valuation that is already taken into account (as is the narrative fallacy)

▲

guywithahat 15 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know what the correct value is, however my understanding of IPO's is that a bank buys (underwrites) the shares first and then lists them. This would suggest a large bank has taken a massive financial bet on the company, and I trust they understand the market and SpaceX's current value.

I know this is a lame answer because it's an appeal to authority, but I don't have an opinion on the share price other than very knowledgeable people have agreed it's fair and put up a lot of their own money.

What I do have an opinion on is that I think there's plenty of room for them to expand the market and grow. I also know the EBITDA for SpaceX is outrageously high for a hardware company, would would suggest it's a lucrative industry that others have trouble entering with low recurring costs. It seems likely to me they could continue to grow on 15 billion of revenue, and this growth is likely to be profitable.

	▲	lokar 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The underwriters take almost no risk, and have a much higher upside compared to the risk they do take. You should never view the participation of a bank in underwriting an IPO as any kind of endorsement of the long (or even mid) term prospects for the business.
	▲	sifar 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>> I trust they understand the market and SpaceX's current value It is more likely that the parties involved know that they can create/manipulate conditions to make it a success.

▲

jayd16 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Seems ludicrous. They're starting at half of Googles current market cap and have to 1000x.

You're saying in 20 years SpaceX being valued at ~500x current Googles is likely?

▲

dan353hehe 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Now they have a whole suite of successful products.

Like what? Do they have anything that actually brings in income other than advertising?

SpaceX also is Twitter(X), and Xai. So they already have several products that are loosing them money. Not sure what else they have in the pipeline other then ai data centers in space.

▲

foobarian 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If they manage to bag a platinum asteroid all bets are off

▲

nutjob2 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, but that's pure speculation. The price suggests not speculation but certainty about some unspecified and massive success.

Google's price went up as they were more successful and created new products. They didn't try to extract money upfront from investors for vapor.

	▲	guywithahat 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would argue all stock prices are speculative, they could quarter their share price in a month or they could 4x it. I've found myself constantly surprised when I look at a company, think "what else could they do?", and then watch the company explode in value again. I disagree that their share price assumes some unspecified massive success