| ▲ | amluto 3 hours ago |
| I sincerely hope the market is not willing to value this sort of deal at a P/E ratio anywhere near 94. Off the top of my head, there is a very well established business involving buying expensive things and leasing them to the companies that intend to operate them so they can sell services: aircraft leasing. AER is the biggest player and they have a P/E ratio of, drumroll please, 6. And I expect that GPUs, despite currently looking like an appreciating asset, will actually depreciate faster than aircraft in the long run. |
|
| ▲ | BobbyJo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| P/E is price to earning. Price to revenue is P/S. AER's P/S is like 3, so the discrepancy is much worse than you think. Sidenote: 3 is actually high. 94 is absolutely ridiculous. |
| |
| ▲ | ralfd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Sidenote: 3 is actually high. Do you mean low? AAPL has a ps of 10. | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Generally < 1 is low, between 1 and 3 is in the middle ground, and > 3 is high. However, that all depends on margins, which is why people generally use P/E or forward P/E rather than P/S to compare multiples. Issue here being that P/E is nonsensical for unprofitable companies or companies with very low margins. Spacex's P/E after Google pushed them into profitability by a slim margin would look absolutely stupid. I would also like to point out, that on a forward P/E basis, AAPL is quite overvalued compared to historical norms, but basically every tech company is right now. | |
| ▲ | marcosdumay 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most companies have a P/S of 1 or 2, almost all have it bellow 4. A few segments of the economy are known to have low revenue/investment ratios, and companies there get P/S up to 7 or so. Then, very few companies have people betting on their growth so much that their P/S get as high as 15. And then you have literally about half a dozen exceptions on the ones S&P tracks that get higher than that. | |
| ▲ | doctorpangloss an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're arguing with people who have no idea what they're talking about. | | |
| |
| ▲ | stogot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The question on my mind is-is this IPO designed to rip off recreational passive investors and those of us that invest in retirement accounts? | | |
| ▲ | BobbyJo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | With the Nasdaq rule changes, almost certainly. | | |
| ▲ | laughing_man an hour ago | parent [-] | | Those rule changes aren't happening. | | |
| ▲ | a2tech an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | My understanding is that the s&p 500 were the only ones unwilling to change their rules. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Why "unwilling"? That's a weird wording. S&P Dow Jones Indices decided to not go through with their rule change after it became a political issue. Obviously they were willing, the proposed rule change originated from them! | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Please provide some support that the rule changes were proposed from within. Given the fact they tried pulling this nonsense on 3 indices, it seems very unlikely the rules changes originated from within. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say, so the burden of proof to prove otherwise must fall on you. And anyway, the rule change is truly the only reasonable way they can react to the current situation. It will absolutely be untenable to keep Anthropic , OpenAI and SpaceX off the S&P 500 with them also being the highest valued companies on the market. | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Quatsch. The indices will say whatever benefits their power the most, regardless of truth. The fact that they are bending now to pressure is proof enough for me. We live in an age proving that valuation is just a manipulation. This whole story is just like the BaM situation: the people with more money feel emboldened to pull every dastardly trick they can to tilt the table towards their pockets, away from the honest participants. SpaceX and the AI IPOs are just the latest and most grand scheme. I’m guessing you were surprised by the collapse of lehman brothers back in the day. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | So you don't actually have any evidence to support your claim? This just seems like a matter of faith at this point, that's fine. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | They became effective last month. |
|
| |
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean? | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Passive investors and retirement accounts are heavily in on automatic indexing. This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules. The accusation is that these changes were made so that index funds will buy this stock automatically far earlier than they would have previously. Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules. Pushed by whom? Can you link some reporting on this topic? > Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders. "asking price" lmao, buyers decide the prices they'll buy at. Edit: I wonder, why is pointing out that this apparently massive conspiracy hasn't been covered by a single credible news outlet worthy of so many downvotes? | | |
| ▲ | codechicago277 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s been covered extensively and is common knowledge. One example after a 5 second google: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/may-jobs-report-stock-marke... | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Where does your link describe this supposed external pressure? |
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It has been covered extensively. The change of nasdaq rules has been covered by Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, and most others who have reporters on the Wall Street beat. Columnists at all three of those publications have called it out as a possible play on institutional indexing money. I don’t need to tell you who like it’s some big secret either. It was Elon Musk on behalf of spacex. The changes were openly part of the ipo. I’m not going to cite sources for a major financial news story that is being extensively covered in the financial and general press. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Here's Matt Levine from Bloomberg saying something along the lines of "lol, obviously the indices have to do this, they'll look like fools if they don't because these will be the biggest companies on the market". He famously spends much of his time making fun of Musk, but seems to reject the idea of his influence here. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind... Perhaps you can provide a single counterpoint? I can't find the columns you refer to. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That is one of the columns. The headline makes my point succinctly. Your paraphrase of the column misses the crucial point. A Nasdaq index fund doesn’t buy a company unless it is in the Nasdaq. Under the old rules SPCEX was ineligible for listing. Now Nasdaq index funds all have to buy. Index funds by nature do not selectively buy stocks, if the stock is in the index, they buy. That’s the game. That’s hundreds of billions worth of funds that now have to buy in, that previously wouldn’t have had to if it wasn’t listed on the Nasdaq. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nullstyle 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You use your back channels and good ole boys club connections to try getting the rules for inclusion changed. Maybe collude would be a better verb than design? Is that your objection? | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory? | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Common sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation? | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Common sense and rationality says this: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind... >index providers will have to decide: Are they in the business of giving passive investors exposure to all the stocks that the market thinks are good, or to all the stocks that the index committee thinks are good? >There’s only one plausible answer. Can you explain why your theory is better than the one widely believed by people who actually work in the financial industry? | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Lol, the dude asking for reporting to justify his oligarch dickriding dismisses patrick boyle in his chat history as just a youtuber while using paywalled links to support his position. My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Criticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg. |
|
| |
| ▲ | AlexCoventry 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Common sense and rationality go out the window in corrupt, unregulated environments with perverse incentives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, only a small portion of SpaceX's revenue actually comes from Space (payload delivery). At this point they are basically an ISP (Starlink) and a datacenter/leasing company. It's not clear if Musk (SpaceX/X.ai) is really pursuing AI any more - I expect he hasn't necessarily given up on it, and he hasn't said he has, but it seems he's rented out almost all of his GPUs to Anthropic and Google, so that's not going to be much of a revenue generator, at least for time being. It was in the news not too long ago that Musk was looking to use Samsung to fabricate "AI chips", presumably either for X.ai and/or Tesla, so perhaps he's basically put X.ai on hold until he can reboot his efforts with his own chips (& perhaps a new datacenter)? |
| |
| ▲ | austin-cheney an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | According to their IPO S-1 draft they are 93% an AI company and 4% a space company. Its the remaining 3% of the company that is profitable, the Starlink stuff. | | |
| ▲ | HarHarVeryFunny an hour ago | parent [-] | | As I recall isn't Starlink revenue at least 3x Space revenue, so not sure how they are characterizing that 3:1 ratio as 3% vs 4% ! The "93% AI company" is also a huge mischaracterization since this isn't AI business - it's datacenter/GPU leasing business which their 2 customers can pull the plug on with 90 days notice. |
| |
| ▲ | AlexCoventry 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe they'll become an AI company again after they've abused their privileged access as hardware providers to reverse-engineer Google and Anthropic's weights and operations. | |
| ▲ | mlinhares 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Given the amount of compute rented I doubt there’s anything meaningful left for the people there to do any AI. | |
| ▲ | laughing_man an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The profit center, to the extent any division makes money, is Starlink, yes, but what we have always known as SpaceX is just a tiny side project in the combined company. | |
| ▲ | an0malous an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m pretty sure he’s just trying to become the world’s first trillionaire at this point, these deals are obviously gimmicks to boost the SpaceX share price and his less-than-critical-thinking fanbase will happily oblige. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | coke12 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Comparing SpaceX to an aircraft leasing company seems more foolish to me than a 94x multiple. I understand the gist here, but come on. This is a generational company. It’s the only relevant space launch business, and has its tentacles deep in AI infrastructure as well. Maybe the AI bet is foolish — I don’t know — you should short it! |
| |
| ▲ | amluto 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I am comparing SpaceX’s datacenter-and-GPU leasing business to aircraft leasing. It’s possible, and common, for one large company to have multiple business lines, each worthy of a very different P/E multiplier. In principle you end up with a weighted average of some sort. edit: Matt Levine has some great articles about this phenomenon and how some companies try to juice it. | |
| ▲ | Lplololopo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 'generational company'? Are you on drugs or so? All of Musks business stuff highly depends on first mover advantage. If people now selling it as a 'generational company' than it becomes even more stupid. He didn't invent an unkown solution he is hiding to transform something into gold, he only put a lot of money into rockets. And the rockets right now don't even have enough payload to have unlimited potential. If Space-X knows how to build a rocket very efficient, 10 years later other companies can do that too. | |
| ▲ | selfsimilar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would short xAI but the market can remain irrational longer than I can remain solvent. Plus all the foolishness to prop it up with other businesses just seems like bad accounting. | |
| ▲ | browningstreet an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | He can’t do with rockets what he says SpaceX has to do to meet its goals, and he isn’t raising enough money to get the job done either. It’s another misdirection. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | spwa4 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think you can short it before the IPO happens. Well, unless you've got a few millions and go to a bank and have them make a product for you specifically. But for normal people, for now, not happening. |
|
