SpaceX Now Valued at $46 Billion, Making It America's Top 'Unicorn' (cnn.com) 79
"SpaceX, the Elon Musk-led company that recently became the first business in history to send astronauts into Earth's orbit, is parlaying its successes into big money," reports CNN Business:
The company recently finished a $1.9 billion funding round, one of the largest single fundraising pushes by any privately held company, according to public filings and data aggregated by venture capital data firm Crunchbase. That brings SpaceX's overall valuation to $46 billion... SpaceX now ranks third on a list of so-called "unicorns," which are privately held startups with valuations topping $1 billion, according to data from the venture capital analysis firm CB Insights. The only two startups valued higher than SpaceX are two Chinese tech giants — rideshare company Didi Chuxing and TikTok parent company ByteDance...
But even at SpaceX's eye-popping valuation, some Wall Street analysts and investors argue the company is still undervalued. Morgan Stanley analysts, for example, wrote in a report last month that SpaceX could be worth as much as $200 billion if its experimental satellite-internet project, Starlink, works as intended. Morgan Stanley said its low-end estimate for SpaceX's value is about $50 billion. And SpaceX's other ventures — including launching astronauts and cargo for NASA, building massive prototypes for a would-be Mars rocket, and launching satellites for the US military — all give investors plenty of reason to clamor for a chance to own a piece of SpaceX, according to Chad Anderson, a SpaceX investor and the CEO of investment firm Space Angels...
Anderson added that SpaceX still isn't turning a profit, but that's mostly because it's still spending large sums of money investing in new arms of its business, including the Starlink internet business and its Mars rocket prototypes, dubbed Starship. And that does leave some room for debate when it comes to the question of whether SpaceX's valuation is too high. "I think there would probably be an argument both ways," he said. "I think there's definitely a lot of SpaceX haters or naysayers."
But even at SpaceX's eye-popping valuation, some Wall Street analysts and investors argue the company is still undervalued. Morgan Stanley analysts, for example, wrote in a report last month that SpaceX could be worth as much as $200 billion if its experimental satellite-internet project, Starlink, works as intended. Morgan Stanley said its low-end estimate for SpaceX's value is about $50 billion. And SpaceX's other ventures — including launching astronauts and cargo for NASA, building massive prototypes for a would-be Mars rocket, and launching satellites for the US military — all give investors plenty of reason to clamor for a chance to own a piece of SpaceX, according to Chad Anderson, a SpaceX investor and the CEO of investment firm Space Angels...
Anderson added that SpaceX still isn't turning a profit, but that's mostly because it's still spending large sums of money investing in new arms of its business, including the Starlink internet business and its Mars rocket prototypes, dubbed Starship. And that does leave some room for debate when it comes to the question of whether SpaceX's valuation is too high. "I think there would probably be an argument both ways," he said. "I think there's definitely a lot of SpaceX haters or naysayers."
startup? (Score:5, Insightful)
with that many satellite, contracts, and successful launches, I think it's past "startup" . . .
Burning cash, single product they sell (Score:2)
I hear ya - it's big and pretty far along for a start-up.
It's also still losing tons of money, and the company will fail completely if there is a problem with their single revenue-producing product. Contrast a mature company, Boeing. Boeing totally screwed up their latest product, yet still make money and they are still worth $95 billion. If the Falcon 9 had the kinds of problems that the 737 MAX had, SpaceX would be gone.
Shit does happen, shit will happen to SpaceX, so there is a risk factor there that
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that? (Score:2)
As noted in the summary, one of the owners of SpaceX says it has not turned a profit. Because it's not a public company, there isn't an annual report we can check to confirm one way or the other. We do know they just raised another $2 billion -they didn't have money to cover what they want to do.
We also know analysts expect the revenue of ENTIRE launch industry to be about $7 billion in a few years, with that $7 billion divided between several companies. So their latest round of fundraising is roughly a
Re: (Score:2)
Gwynne Shotwell, who runs SpaceX, said in mid-2018 that SpaceX has "had many years of profitability". She's said similar things on many occasions. The person you're citing is an investor, not directly involved in the company, and isn't directly quoted. CNN wrote it as "still isn't turning a profit", but that could simply mean that after 2018, they stopped turning a profit as investment in Starlink ramped up. In fact, we know exactly why they're raising all this money, it's the startup costs for Starlink.
The
Re: (Score:1)
It could be that the reason that market is slack and competition rare is because there are not that many customers -- in other words, rural internet might just not be a very desi
Re: (Score:2)
Industry (aircraft and ships, remote infrastructure) is certainly an area they're targeting, as is military (the USAF has done a bunch of testing with Starlink).
Rural is their stated primary target market. Its estimated that there are as many as 40 million people in the US alone that don't have access to broadband. HughesNet alone has 1.3 million customers despite the fact that their service is incredibly slow and rather expensive ($150 USD/mth gets you 50GB/mth). I can't see the existing geosat ISPs retain
Re: (Score:2)
When you stop to look at long term expectations, you have to consider that means the exploration and colonisation of space and not just our solar system but others. So the potential for long term value to exceed the value of the entire earth is possible. Whilst that outcome is low in the short term, there is no way to say when, I mean a century from horse and buggy to the moon, not bad, what will the next century bring and how close are the space elements of investment, serious investment and returns, reall
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. SpaceX is 18 years old. Hardly a 'startup' by any definition. It's merely a private company and only the investors care if it is profitable (not not).
- Necron69
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is definitely undervalued. They have a product that practically guarantees they will get 100 sales a year
Thank the crazy fed (Score:1)
(in the voice of "Crazy Eddie")
These bailouts are insane!!
Re:Thank the crazy fed (Score:5, Informative)
The government gave them a loan guarantee which they repaid a long while back. It's clear at this point betting against the world's 4th richest man (Elon Musk) is a fool's errand.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not SpaceX by itself, Wall Street in general (which includes SpaceX), the money is coming from the fed. Nobody seems willing to accept the fact that the entire stock market is on price supports. That is what is inflating this bubble. The whole thing is entirely fraudulent. I guess the idea is to work it while we can.
Re: (Score:2)
Not SpaceX by itself, Wall Street in general (which includes SpaceX), the money is coming from the fed. Nobody seems willing to accept the fact that the entire stock market is on price supports. That is what is inflating this bubble. The whole thing is entirely fraudulent. I guess the idea is to work it while we can.
^^FUCKING THIS
Re: Thank the crazy fed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the stock is on price supports. That is the only thing keeping it this high. Almost a trillion every month since September for the "repo" man. This is nothing about the congressional bailout. It's "off the record" as far as congress is concerned. It's the same QE that hasn't really stopped since 2007
SpaceX is publicly traded through "intermediaries"
Re: (Score:2)
How does "Wall Street" include SpaceX?
Re: (Score:1)
SpaceX is just another commodity being traded like baseball cards. It is living on the same price supports as the rest of the market
SpaceX is not a public company (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
To me, you need to show a few more degrees of separation for that to be true.
Re: SpaceX is not a public company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not directly. The other companies with heavy investments are. It's a neat way to avoid public scrutiny
Re: (Score:1)
Ok. We get it. You're an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Not saying this is the case for SpaceX, but we literally just saw that exact situation with WeWork. Existing investors have an incentive to set the value as high as possible to maximize their returns, even new investors have an incentive to promote the value of the company to justify the money they spent.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, this would be the same case. It's a common practice that normally doesn't make headlines. Plus now the stock market is hyper inflated by the fed. These numbers are irrational... I don't know why I 'm getting slammed over this.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're missing is that it might not be foolish. Musk takes risks. He does it with a purpose, and he calculates the risks, but he definitely takes risks. He's been both careful with details and lucky...but one can't depend on staying lucky. So he limits the risks as much as he can, and still do what he wants to do. But many of his decisions aren't those that someone purely interested in increasing their finances would make.
Personally, I want Musk to travel to Mars with a sizeable number of other pe
Fully reusable to-orbit rockets. (Score:2)
I wonder why they aren't worth more. But that's probably gonna come.
Re:Fully reusable to-orbit rockets. (Score:5, Interesting)
There just isn't that much launch business yet. Companies are very slow to realize when the landscape changes, and haven't yet clued into what they can do with cheaper launch rates. Meanwhile, SpaceX has significantly increased launch prices as their low launch prices didn't create a new market (though they're still like 70% of competitors).
I think Starlink was created out of frustration with this. It's a business that only makes sense with launch costs much cheaper than people are used to. Rather than waiting longer for someone to get a clue, Musk just created an example new business made possible by the change. Personally, I think orbital solar power is the way to go. Makes no sense with old launch costs, but with Starship? The numbers will make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? SpaceX is the only company in the world that has a viable path to save the human race.
Human life cannot survive on this planet forever. The best case scenario is that we all die when the sun turns into a red giant in 4 billion years. We need to become intersteller by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The global telecom market that they're entering is orders of magnitude larger than the launch market. There are tens or hundreds of millions of people out there who will fork over significant amounts of money every month forever for service.
Even if they manage 10 million customers paying $50 a month for broadband (and ignoring the potential of offering telephone and television service through the same connection), that's already roughly the same amount of annual revenue as the entire launch market. And 10 m
Re: (Score:2)
"That's my question - what SpaceX has accomplished is great, but how big is the market? This isn't like cellphones (apple) which is something the average US household will happily fork over a couple hundred $ per month on, forever."
Wait for the SpaceXfone model 1, works _everywhere_!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC estimates that 21 million Americans lack access to broadband, while other reports analyzing the data indicate it may be over 40 million.
Starlink isn't targeting you. It's targeting them. It either won't be available or will only have limited availability in urban and suburban areas. It will target rural and remote areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Space Power Sattelites(SPS) sending power to Earth is probably not feasible yet. But sending power to elsewhere might well be. The way I think it could be used at the moment is to send power to allow a strong ion rocket to make trips within the solar system in short periods of time. How short? Well, that depends on how heavy the vehicle is. IIUC the top thrust of an top ion rocket is about 30 lbs., but how long can that be maintained? What's the fuel expenditure at that thrust? Can
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so. Space Power Sattelites(SPS) sending power to Earth is probably not feasible yet.
The launch cost is the only real impediment. Remember, the primary reason satellites cost so much is the heroic effort to keep weight down. There are reasonable designs already for thermal power satellites that there's just no practical way to launch today. But with Starship's (designed) ability to launch 100 Tons to LEO (so 30-50 tons to a middle orbit that you'd want) and a 9m fairing you can have a large central core that doesn't have to fold up, and Mylar sheets for mirrors and folding radiator panel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a problem we'll just have to solve, as humanity continues to grow. Best we start working on it, I think.
But I also think any kind of "green" power should be backed up by enough natural gas power generation capability to avoid blackouts if all the green goes black. Sadly, people don't seem to be able to think that way.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Fully reusable to-orbit rockets. (Score:2)
Commisions and fees and bonuses. (Score:3, Interesting)
some Wall Street analysts and investors argue the company is still undervalued. Morgan Stanley analysts, for example, wrote in a report last month that SpaceX could be worth as much as $200 billion if its experimental satellite-internet project, Starlink, works as intended. Morgan Stanley said its low-end estimate for SpaceX's value is about $50 billion. And SpaceX's other ventures — including launching
These fucking people would pay a billion dollars for a pizza parlor if it was operated by Elon Musk.
The stock market is totally fucked and is not based on any accounting reality. Just hype and dreams.
Read the "Intelligent Investor"sometime. It doesn't hold. Graham's opinions were valid 30 years ago but now? The stock market is nothing but emotion. There was always an emotional component but fundamentals would check them. Now .... it's all emotion and free money.
You want to complain about "free shit"?! Well, there is trillions of dollars of free (almost free) money floating around. There is no need to be responsible about capital - it's all FREE SHIT!
I liquidated everything I had last week. It's 1999 all over again.
"I got rich selling too soon." - Mayer Rothschild.
Re:Commisions and fees and bonuses. (Score:5, Funny)
You shorted Tesla last year did you?
Re:Commisions and fees and bonuses. (Score:4, Funny)
"But for the record, if I were in charge of Tesla, it would have been profitable - WITH positive cash flows TEN years ago. "
LOL! SURE you would, buddy. Best joke of the day.
Re: (Score:1)
"But for the record, if I were in charge of Tesla, it would have been profitable - WITH positive cash flows TEN years ago. "
LOL! SURE you would, buddy. Best joke of the day.
Here, let me make you pee in your pants: Musk is a scam artist who is using Liberal polices to keep his scam running. Hellooooo carbon credits!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Tesla could have been profitable 10 years ago... but they wouldn’t be producing and selling cars at a rate of 1 million per year in 2021 if they had just focused on profits then.
They botched the SolarCity acquisition for sure, but that is primarily due to “distractions” with the Model 3 than a flawed vision.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Tesla could have been profitable 10 years ago... but they wouldn’t be producing and selling cars at a rate of 1 million per year in 2021 if they had just focused on profits then.
They botched the SolarCity acquisition for sure, but that is primarily due to “distractions” with the Model 3 than a flawed vision.
2021?! You have sales figures for next year?! AMAZING!
Do tell! How can you tell the future?!
Re: (Score:2)
They have a conservative production rate of 500k slated for the end of the year. 5,000 additional vehicles per week will be online by the end of the 2021Q1 in Shanghai, 2-3,000 in Berlin in 2021Q3, and projections for 4,000-5,000 in Austin in 2021 Q4. That puts them at a run rate of up to 1.2 million/year in 2021. (2022 is likely to see a further increase in Berlin and Austin.)
As for sales... well, you have to have a little faith, but I don’t see any real issues in 1-2 million cars per year. Profi
Re:Commisions and fees and bonuses. (Score:5, Insightful)
The stock market is where it is because there is no other good place to put money to outpace inflation. I do have Apple and Tesla stock, and will admit that this past week was just stupid gains (7% and 20% respectively), with the S&P flat.
It looks like a flight to quality to me, but what do I know.
(That said, I took some money off the table Friday.)
Re: (Score:2)
The stock market is where it is because the fed is pumping mad money into it as fast as it can for price supports. Phony as a three dollar bill.
Re: (Score:2)
I do understand that... but the S&P would be up higher if it was just the Fed’s actions; they can’t concentrate money in the “higher quality” stocks and have their desired effect.
Re: (Score:1)
but the S&P would be up higher if it was just the Fed’s actions
No, they would simply be much lower without the fed. Within the system the money flows like it always does. It's the tide that is kept at an artificially high level that keeps the system afloat. And we still can't get enough masks...
Re: (Score:2)
The stock market is totally fucked and is not based on any accounting reality. Just hype and dreams.
I can't disagree... but I am hoping the "hype and dreams" holds sway until I retire in a few years...
(I kid, I kid... sorta)
Re: (Score:3)
The stock market is totally fucked and is not based on any accounting reality. Just hype and dreams.
I can't disagree... but I am hoping the "hype and dreams" holds sway until I retire in a few years...
(I kid, I kid... sorta)
If you are close to retirement age, sell Mortimer! Sell! The risk is WAY too high!!
No kidding on my side.
Re: (Score:3)
It's inflation from 2009. A lot of money raining from the Fed after the Great Recession eventually fed into the market where it continues to slosh around in prices and buybacks. It never trickled down to wages -> consumer goods so we were spared "inflation". The current rain is scattered more widely, though since there's more of an actual drought it's being absorbed by the hoi polloi rather than boosting prices in a surface flow.
Countdown 3 .. 2 .. 1 .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Cue the usual suspects about how Elon is a fraud pushing nothing but vaporware and all their products are unmarketable with fatal design flaws anyway and anyone investing is a fool.
You know it's coming, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the comments about he just made money due to government handouts and his parents weren't poor!
Re: (Score:1)
The entire stock market is living off government handouts! To the tune of 30 Billion every day.
Re: (Score:1)
So far they seem to be outnumbered by all the virtual cocksucking.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, we will find out. It's part of the cost of doing this work. But we need to suffer these losses to get where we need to go. Every astronaut that flies on a rocket knows this.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite possibly... very little to none.
The Crew Dragon Capsule has 8 different abort modes and splashdown locations and is capable of aborting at any point during launch. If the Falcon 9 booster explodes, the automatic systems should be capable of getting the capsule clear and safely get it back in nearly all scenarios.
Imagine a near repeat of the Challenger disaster, with the first stage exploding between 60 and 90 seconds after launch, and the astronauts being yanked clear and safely recovered instead of
Re: (Score:2)
Russia had one of these not too long ago... apparently it didn't even make much news around these parts. I guess when the launch escape system works, it kinda short circuits that news cycle. [wikipedia.org]
alt headline (Score:1)
Will they offer a $50 Static IP Address (Score:2)
This world ceases to be logical (Score:3)
I'm beginning to see why Musk wants to turn Mars into the Vulcan home world.
Tik-tok a company that takes ad money for videos dancing teenagers is valued more highly than SpaceX which designs, engineers and builds things. Not only that, the things SpaceX builds are spaceships, and awesome ones at that.
But no, dancing teenager and ads. Also destroying privacy.
Great. More rural internet access. (Score:1)
Asteroid mining (Score:1)