yeah, as the article said bond prices have fallen slightly over the time period but this is much more bond buyers seeing increased risk SpaceX isn't going to have the cashflow or ease of further equity raises to pay them back in the long run. (With it being bonds the upside of "but what if SpaceX actually does become bigger than the present US economy" is capped too)

▲

londons_explore 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't see a future in which those bondholders don't get paid back.

The company has plenty of revenue, and if needed can just turn off the r&d tap and become a boring company. Terrible for the shareholders obviously, but the bond holders will be fine.

	▲	notahacker 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This assumes that SpaceX's decision maker decides to prioritise cuts to repay bondholders over R&D to see if they can innovate their way to bigger profits, which doesn't seem a sure bet (tbh I'd put SpaceX under its current management very low on the list of companies likely to do this) I mean the bond yield is 6.65% over US Treasury returns of 4.75% so it's not like everyone's running in fear of their imminent collapse either. But they're less confident than they were when Elon company valuations looked immune to gravity.
	▲	33hgtt 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Another example of complete idiocy on this board. Yep spacex can afford to have a declining value of equity… its talent who are mostly paid with stock will leave for its competitors - increasing the probability of bankruptcy. Putting the company in a tail spin heading for default. So how are the bond holders gonna get paid in the event that happens? Oh in bankruptcy court? Lmao. Raising equity is not a loophole either - ebit and ebitda drive measures of default risk. Most of you on here should never ever talk about finance. It’s like you learned how to discount a cash flow and have it all figured out lololol