> That is essentially a wealth transfer to the rich. They don't need it.

These are not valid arguments. The companies that get added to the S&P are always owned in some fraction by rich people.

SpaceX is obviously majorly owned by Elon, but it’s also owned by regular employees, a bunch of private investors and other funds that regular people invest in.

> They're not profitable.

Right

> When they prove they're worth the dollars,

Profitable isn’t related to “worth the dollars”. You need to look at income and how much is being reinvested into growth. Amazon famously remained unprofitable due to reinvestment and waiting for them to become profitable before investing was a bad bet.

Mostly owned by Elon who has 84% of the voting rights. Completely his entity and it can’t be denied that the value of an interesting space business has been massively inflated by tacking a worthless AI business onto it.

> "Amazon famously remained unprofitable due to reinvestment and waiting for them to become profitable before investing was a bad bet."

Amazon wasn't profitable because it reinvested earnings into growth, while SpaceX is funding it's growth by taking on very significant levels of debt (which will take a big chunk of future earnings just to service). These aren't comparable from a risk perspective.

> Profitable isn’t related to “worth the dollars”. You need to look at income and how much is being reinvested into growth. Amazon famously remained unprofitable due to reinvestment and waiting for them to become profitable before investing was a bad bet.

Sure, but we the only thing we know about the company is the current S1 filing. Need to time to see what all of that looks like. Fast tracking it and essentially forcing other people to buy without scrutinizing is the problem. They may very well be worth the money they claim, but we won't know until after they've proven it. That's what the rules are there for.

> Profitable isn’t related to “worth the dollars”. You need to look at income and how much is being reinvested into growth. Amazon famously remained unprofitable due to reinvestment and waiting for them to become profitable before investing was a bad bet.

Amazon met profitability requirements and went into the SP500 at around $2.40 in November 2005. Two years before it was $2.70. Six Years before it was $4.40.

Two years _after_ listing it was $4.50. Six years after it was ~$10.

Waiting for profitability seems like it was a good bet.

So is spacex growing like Amazon was? There is no evidence of growth. And no, Google renting them infra grom then is not growth. If it waa, AllBirds is the next unicorn

> SpaceX is obviously majorly owned by Elon, but it’s also owned by regular employees, a bunch of private investors and other funds that regular people invest in.

Is it really owned by them if Elon retains most of the voting rights anyway?