SpaceX Files To Go Public (reuters.com) 81
Reuters reports that SpaceX has confidentially filed for a U.S. IPO, reportedly targeting a valuation above $1.75 trillion. Reuters reports: SpaceX puts more rockets in space than any other company and promises a chance to invest in humanity's return to the moon and attempt to colonize Mars. The company aspires to put artificial intelligence data centers in space, while running a lucrative satellite communications system that opens up much of the earth to the internet and is increasingly used in war. [...]
A public listing at a potential valuation of more than $1.75 trillion comes after SpaceX merged with Musk's artificial intelligence startup xAI in a deal that valued the rocket company at $1 trillion and the developer of the Grok chatbot at $250 billion. SpaceX is hosting an analyst day on April 21, encouraging research analysts to attend in person, [...]. The company is also offering analysts an optional visit to xAI's "Macrohard" data center site in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 23, and plans to hold a virtual session on May 4 to discuss financial models with banks' research analysts, the source said.
A public listing at a potential valuation of more than $1.75 trillion comes after SpaceX merged with Musk's artificial intelligence startup xAI in a deal that valued the rocket company at $1 trillion and the developer of the Grok chatbot at $250 billion. SpaceX is hosting an analyst day on April 21, encouraging research analysts to attend in person, [...]. The company is also offering analysts an optional visit to xAI's "Macrohard" data center site in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 23, and plans to hold a virtual session on May 4 to discuss financial models with banks' research analysts, the source said.
Thoughts and prayers (Score:1, Insightful)
going out for those about to end up holding the bags of Tesla, as vast majority of the capital in the "Elon Musk is intelligent and not a fraud" industry is about to move into the newer, flashier investment vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't bet on any of these because markets are being as irrational as ever but I'd ask you why'd you go to notoriously overvalued Tesla to invest in their robots when they're evidently far behind numerous and diverse competitors in the field, many of which are very clearly many years ahead in actual capability of the robots (Boston Dynamics, owned by Hyundai Motor Group), or have way more means to directly benefit from their use (Amazon Robotics), or are far more likely to come out on top through economic
Re: Thoughts and prayers (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you've addressed one end of the spectrum, what about the other one? The very Chinese companies that are, among other things, already eating Tesla's car market are all kramering into the robot biz and will readily sell you a less capable version of Spot for $2000. Tesla doesn't have a $2000 spot. Tesla doesn't even have the $25k Optimus yet. And since they apparently entirely up and gave up on $40k cybertruck, I do not see where the confidence they'll hit this far more ambitious goal with a product way
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let's look at the Chinese market in particular. The Model Y is the best selling new-energy vehicle (Chinese auto-industry breakdown) SUV and the #3 best selling overall. It dominates its price point, and has the absolute highest customer satisfaction in china (2.2 complaints per 10,000 vehicles vs an industry average of 19/10000).
There are cheaper products, there
Re: Thoughts and prayers (Score:4, Insightful)
Optimius won't do any of that stuff because Musk consistently overestimates how good AI is at vision. He can't even get his cars to stop crashing into stationary objects. A decade ago he promised they would be fully self driving within months, no driver oversight required, and he's still assuming that the huge breakthrough that makes vision actually work is just around the corner and he will be the one to make it.
The method that Musk is attempting has been tried many times before, always ending in failure. You can't just teach an AI to recognize more and more objects until it becomes competent. You can't just teach it more and more facts until it understands the world. The kind of intelligence needed to do seemingly simple tasks like folding clothes is much more general than that.
Re: Thoughts and prayers (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to drive home Musk's overestimation:
Waymo has experienced 2 crashes so far which were the fault of the AI and not involving an unavoidable scenario (such as that dog running out between cars and getting hit). Both crashes so far (which resulted in no injuries) resulted in a "recall", essentially a small stand-down to address the underlying cause. That on the back of 200 million miles driven.
Robotaxis on the other hand, which do have a safety driver, and still have not been able to convince authorities they shouldn't ahve a safety driver, have directly caused a crash on average once every 45k-65k miles. Hard to judge since Tesla is completely shady with reporting.
Musk claims you should be able to sit and play with your phone while driving a Tesla.
Regulators consistently point out that Tesla's struggle to meet the safety guidelines of even L2 autonomous driving to say nothing of L3 driving which is the minimum required for distracted driving, or L4 which is required for truly autonomous cars.
Optimus will be amazing... 10 years from now, and then 5 years from that date.
On the up side Musk's track record is marginally better than nuclear fusion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But to imagine that Elon Musk doesnt deliver:
1. His rockets land.
2. His space internet has 10,000,000 su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is FUBAR, and something I can speak to with plenty of experience. FSD is good enough that insurance companies are offering discounts to use it.
Tesla's with FSD are bought by people who fall into the categories insurance companies identified as being low risk enough to offer discounts. Also you misspelled "insurance" company. There's no reason to use a plural there. There's one, a small startup.
None of that invalidates the data reported to the NHTSA.
But to imagine that Elon Musk doesnt deliver:
I didn't say Musk doesn't deliver. I said he over estimates. Let's go through your list.
1. His rockets landed 5 years after he promised they would.
2. Space internet was never a promise, it came out of n
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Re: (Score:2)
"I wouldn't bet against them pulling off useful humanoid robots"
by what Earth date?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thoughts and prayers (Score:5, Informative)
Which likely means among others most "casual" long term investors. I remember reading that Musk was negotiating faster inclusion of SpaceX into indexes like S&P 500 (without a usual wait time). Once the company is included in the index managers of all the funds tied to that index will need to buy the stocks whether they like it or not, likely rising the prices. A lot of retirement and other long term savings are tied into funds like these so A LOT of normal people will get the exposure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Eventual merger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They won't be the first. Pick a defense contractor. Or any government contractor for that matter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tesla... well they sell cars and battery packs and solar panels, and charging sessions. So.. no.
Re: (Score:3)
He'll buy out USX for the stock ticker, presumably with a sweetheart government deal to undo Nippon Steel's sweetheart government deal, and let the actual steel business fail.
Re: (Score:1)
If we estimate that there are about 1.2 trillion humans that will born in the future and US government estimates the value of single life to be about 10 million dollars (considering what they are willing to do to save one life). If we multiply these values, it should give us a rough estimate of what it is worth to save humanity. Considering that the main goal that Mush has, is to populate Mars to preserve humans (and he is pretty much the only one who actually tries to implement it), I think that is the wor
Re: Eventual merger (Score:2)
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while.
There will not be a colony on Mars in the next 1000 years. Anyone who tries to live there is likely to suffer horribly before dying.
i would buy (Score:1, Interesting)
Musk is a crazy, flawed genius who pivots enormous companies to chase just-about viable dreams.
I think he will get us to Mars, and maybe even to FSD.
And I like his stupid jokes.
Re: i would buy (Score:2, Flamebait)
Musk is, and despite all the bad decisions, he is still doing
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with Tesla and SpaceX at this point is Elon Musk. Seriously, many people who were looking to buy a Tesla immediately became anti-Tesla with Musk and that abortion known as DOGE, as well as the obvious conflicts of interest and how it cost more money than was saved(because Musk only did it for his own profits and as a way to steal information from things like Social Security). SpaceX I wouldn't bet against right now, but all second guessing about Tesla and SpaceX would be gone if Musk wer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. Musk was certainly critical in getting them started, but is probably much less so now. If what you say is true that's a really good reason not to buy either of them though. Never invest in a company that depends on one person or is run by a manager who can't set things up to work independently.
Re: i would buy (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
lol!
Go watch Patrick Boyle's video on YouTube (Score:1, Insightful)
They will dump this into your 401k and deregulation lets them do it.
Re:Go watch Patrick Boyle's video on YouTube (Score:5, Interesting)
space x doesn't have enough launch customers to justify the valuation. There's not enough potential satellite Internet customers to make up the difference.
Maybe. But I remember saying "Amazon's valuation is insane. There are not enough books sold to justify that even if Amazon had a 100% market share."
My mistake was to think of Amazon as a bookseller. (For younger readers, they were.)
Telsa's valuation is clearly not based on projections of car sales.
And I'm hearing echos of Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943.
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie wasn't running out there to pay a 0-5% income tax rate and advocating for lower tax rates on the wealthy. Responsible people who have money SUPPORT the idea of higher tax rates on those who make over $4 million per year.
Re: (Score:1)
It's both the same person... look at the signature line.
If he wants to take the company public, good luck! That also makes it easier to lose the whole thing and to lose total control over it.
If his gambles with SpaceX work (Starship, and more crewed missions), it could be a good choice... but, if it's more failures, the company won't be worth the paper it's printed on.
I wouldn't have taken it public, though... too much risk of someone getting their foot in the door (operations-wise) and mucking up the whol
Amazon doesn't just sell books (Score:5, Insightful)
SpaceX doesn't have any other markets to move into. Musk is trying to push AI but he's getting his ass kicked and he's already lost all his good engineers.
You're basically comparing a company that got in on the ground floor and was able to use massive amounts of anti-competitive tactics to buy up their competitors and expand rapidly to a company that has maxed out its markets and doesn't have anything new to spread into except one sector where they have already lost.
It's a scam. It exists to loot 401ks.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to say the opposite. Tesla had lots of other markets they could move into but none of them seem to have worked out. They're more of a car manufacturer today than they were in the past, not less. They are a bit more vertically integrated, but they also have a lot more competition.
SpaceX, on the other hand, has been so successful becoming an ISP that it now provides most of their revenue. If they get Starship working they won't be a launch provider, they'll be *the* launch provider. If it works as
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine they could go into lots of other fields with cheap space flight. They already have starlink which makes them their own customer for launches, could move into something like asteroid mining to justify more
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe. Maybe lower launch costs will open up new markets for launches. Mayb
Re: Go watch Patrick Boyle's video on YouTube (Score:1)
Stock is artificially low supply to boost value
That isn't even remotely how market capitalization works. Indeed, this statement alone is a QED that you have no idea whatever how to make investment decisions.
Re: Go watch Patrick Boyle's video on YouTube (Score:1)
Effectively the argument is that by doing a split, you're going to reduce the market cap, which is total nonsense. In fact, usually the exact opposite happens after a split.
There's no rhyme or reason to this argument whatsoever. You guys are just fucking dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so unreasonable when you're a meme stock. Fund managers can divide by total shares outstanding but there are hordes of people who will absolutely buy SpaceX who don't give a shit.
Re: Go watch Patrick Boyle's video on YouTube (Score:1)
The number of shares outstanding has zero relevance to that. What you're arguing falls entirely on trade volume. How are you supposed to increase trade volume if, as retardedsilvergun says, you're trying to keep the total number of shares outstanding to a minimum? That does exactly the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is filing for an IPO. In an IPO the company sells a number of shares for some price per share. Those shares represent some percentage of the company, with the rest of the company represented by private shares that are not for sale. If the demand is not entirely rational then the actual percentage of the company represented by the publicly offered shares doesn't matter to the buyers, they just want to buy some shares. $100 for a share of SpaceX? Awesome! Doesn't matter to the irrational purchaser if t
Is this real? (Score:3)
Given the date its hard to know if this is real or fake...
Re: (Score:1)
Hi from April 2nd.
Why Americans insist on living east of the international date line, I'll never know.
Re: Is this real? (Score:2)
The financial circle jerk's next phase (Score:4, Insightful)
It took a while but Musk finally managed to escape the impact of his dumb decisions. All it took was creating an AI company, having that AI company xAI buy Musk's stake in Twitter, then using government money to have SpaceX buy xAI, and now making SpaceX go public and once again all of Musk's stupid decisions have no financial consequence for him.
Bonus points for selling all the unsellable Cybertruck stock to SpaceX, because really SpaceX needs a fleet made entirely of Cybertrucks for ... reasons. I'm joking of course, we all know the reason is that Musk used SpaceX to solve yet another dumb of his decisions.
Re:The financial circle jerk's next phase (Score:4, Informative)
Bonus points for selling all the unsellable Cybertruck stock to SpaceX
I was unsure about this specific claim but it appears to be accurate: https://electrek.co/2025/10/13... [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't do this. Rich people pay clever people to come up with ideas only available to rich people with the support of other rich people. You give him too much credit.
Re: (Score:2)
Once Musk companies stuff count as publicly traded equities, the market will have a real say in what the valuation should actually be.
I think that it's starting at 5% of the ownership going public. That's artificially low to crank the price up, and I don't like that game. However, once Musk gets a taste of public money, I suspect that he will want more. I anticipate a larger fraction of it going public over time. He won
Re:Cheap entertainment (Score:4, Interesting)
What makes this a left vs right issue? People who used to worship Musk weren't left or right, they were nerdy geeks who were on board with his vision. The fundamental problem is he turned out to be a perpetual liar, a grifter, and someone who uses his wealth and fame to cover up his stupid mistakes.
It's not a left vs right issue that virtually all early Teslas which were promised self driving have now been relegated to scrap yard after he failed to deliver "next year" for well over a decade.
It's not a left vs right issue that his "Robotaxis" have a crash rate worse than a human driver, despite actually having a human safety driver in the vehicle.
It's not a left vs right issue that he promised an amazing autonomous robot and delivered man dancing in a constume, and then shortly after a remote controlled machine.
It's not a left vs right thing that he promised we'd have people travelling to Mars 4 years ago.
It's not a left vs right thing that he bought Twitter and shat on it.
It's not a left vs right thing that despite getting deserved kudos for building reusable rockets, like always he did so 5 years after it was promised.
It's not a left vs right issue that he is lying about how he runs his databases in breach of his environmental permits to the detriment of locals (though it may be a left vs right thing about the resulting climate change issue)
It's not a left vs right issue that he used SpaceX to buy out xAI which he used to buy out Twitter to bail himself out of a $44bn mistake while he continues to pay no taxes.
It's not a left vs right issue that he used SpaceX to bail him out of his disastrous Cybertruck flop by buying up unsold inventory (because that's what SpaceX needs, Cybertrucks).
It's not a left vs right issue that no person on this planet should ever have the remuneration package he has.
He did a Nazi salute in Germany, I do think some of the left didn't like that, but surely that would be countered by the right wing collectively jizzing in their own underpants.
Me? I'm not left or right. Don't need to be. There's countless reasons these days that aren't political to hate the fucker.
Oh right speaking of fuckers, how about he stops running around impregnating people and then disowning his offspring.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm glad his name isn't Muskovitz: he already spreads enough disinformation about the Jewish community.
Re:Cheap entertainment (Score:4, Insightful)
Tessier-Ashpool or Weyland-Yutani? (Score:1)
I can't choose. They're both so delightfully dystopian.
Mind your index funds folks (Score:5, Interesting)
Spacex is pushing to be included in the Nasdaq 100 in short order to spread their financial risks and to access the into people holding QQQ and SPY (Among others). The lobbying going on by SpaceX is intense to make this happen.
For the first few months, as long as SpaceX doesn't crater due to problems with Starship, or its Money-Losing Xai, things may be OK. However, around 6 months out, people in SpaceX and Xai are going to want to cash in on their gains. This could force the price of SpaceX down.
Estimates given are that SpaceX could take up 3.5% of the value of the Nasdaq 100 stocks in QQQ. Nvidia is also a significant portion of QQQ value (6%?).
Not giving any financial advice here, but it might be prudent to look at how much exposure you have and maybe look at rediversifying out of QQQ.
The SpaceX Files (Score:1)
Later we'll come to find out Elon has a mansion on the moon where he's been taking the little girls. Islands are so common.
Just another way to make Elon richer (Score:1)
Musk wonder (Score:2)
The whole Musk companies are strange, the valuation looks like fiction to me.
I mean, Musk had this car maker thar produces very few EV cars valued higher than companies that do dominate the market.