207
submitted 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
  • Morningstar analysts believe SpaceX is “significantly overvalued” ahead of its blockbuster IPO.

  • The analysts say xAI poses a “material threat of value destruction” to the company, with its “economic moat indeterminate.”

  • Morningstar values SpaceX at $780 billion, which is roughly 48% below its private market valuation of $1.5 trillion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ooops@feddit.org 33 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

analysts believe SpaceX is “significantly overvalued”

So a perfectly normal US tech company, operating in a stock market that totally decoupled from economic reality quite some time ago.

[-] Folstar@lemmus.org 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

No, no, no. You see, it all makes perfect sense because economics is built on the nobility of the rational thinking person. SpaceX is worth $1,500,000,000,000 because they have VTVL rockets! It's the future! Wait, what's that you said? Honda also has VTVL rockets and their market cap is only $35,000,000,000? Also, NASA has VTVL rockets in the 90s but keeps getting their budget cut? Ok, but the xAI has got to be making [searching] negative several billion dollars a quarter. Nevermind- what about Starlink? They're making money. Haha, check and mate. Adding in all the money Starlink has made puts SpaceX at [searching] just over negative one Honda in revenue. That... could be worse. Also, I mean, sure, satellite internet providers have been around for 30 years and each one had a period where the future looked bright before upkeep costs or technical issues hammered them into oblivion, but... mhhh....

Look, it's a very real, very serious, very professional system that is very grounded in reality. This is definitely not a huge scam with several giant red flags of unethical and possibly illegal rule changes to weasel into the NASDAQ-100 to fleece index funds.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

I agree with your overall point, but have one quibble:

Also, I mean, sure, satellite internet providers have been around for 30 years and each one had a period where the future looked bright before upkeep costs or technical issues hammered them into oblivion, but… mhhh…

Pre-Starlink satellite internet's future never looked bright because the latency and upload speeds always sucked. Having a swarm of satellites in a low orbit constantly handing off the connections is genuinely a huge improvement compared to having a few satellites all the way out at geostationary. It's just a shame that it's got the deal-breaker of being run by a nazi.

[-] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 28 minutes ago* (last edited 28 minutes ago)

I agree for the most part, but if instead of giving FCC money to a nazi billionaire scumbag we funded public utility fiber, we would have no need to ruin ground based astronomy and we'd have faster, more stable, lower latency connections. Switching to my county's PUD fiber was huge. I pay $65/mo for gig up and down and get sub 15ms pings in most things.

The FCC should have never given money to any private company, and certainly not one owned by one of the richest scumbags around.

[-] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 17 points 5 hours ago

It has a shitty LLM company attached, so that magically makes it one of the most valuable companies in the world!

[-] errer@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

And they’re going to launch those LLMs into spaaaaaaaace!

this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
207 points (99.1% liked)

News

37833 readers
1637 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS