SpaceX has reduced the cost of getting a ton of mass into orbit by a factor of 10 and with their new system (Starship) it's poised further reduce that to 100x. They launch, land and re-use their rockets so often now that what was considered impossible 15 years ago is now routine. They currently put more things into space than the rest of the world combined and by a huge margin. They also have the most advanced internet infrastructure in the world and are poised to replace legacy ISPs and even mobile carriers in the coming decade. Oh, and they're doing all this while making a profit ($16B last year) despite their massive R&D spending and even with the money sink that is xAI their profits will be higher this year. It's hard to say that this isn't one of the most innovative and fast moving companies in the world. $1.75T maybe seems excessive, but less so than a lot of other companies out there.
That article claiming $8b profit is indeed mislabeling EBITDA as profit. EBITDA removes any recurring replenishment costs, the cost of building the satellite, launching the satellite, the user equipment manufacturing and returns, all ground infrastructure build and replacement, all employee stock compensation (not counted!), no advertising costs (and they've actually had to do a lot of that lately to scrounge customers that are remote enough that their network isn't too congested to serve), no taxes are counted (though they get out of that because they have no profit!). Not to mention payments servicing all their debt and Starship development.
*they actually use "Adjusted EBITDA" which is even more nonstandard and means they define the accounting however they want!
Good for you! It’s fun when you realize it’s a constructed language that also tends towards precision. While accounting is not my favorite, financial models as a whole are incredibly powerful reasoning tools. On par, for me, with engineering or physics based first-principles reasoning.
Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion?
I'd always wanted to view affairs from a different lens, though I often feel the people who think everything revolves around bond rates or inflation numbers can miss the social picture of why things happen.
> Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion?
That’s a subject that fills many volumes on accounting, finance and economics. I don’t think you should be looking for one best theory, because there are valid differences of opinion in all these fields.
> I'd always wanted to view affairs from a different lens, though I often feel the people who think everything revolves around bond rates or inflation numbers can miss the social picture of why things happen.
The ‘social picture’ is what’s called welfare economics, which is a whole field in itself. I wouldn’t jump straight into welfare economics though, you’ll probably need to start with introductory economics to understand the basic terminology.
Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion?
The most-powerful ones for individuals are the micreconomic mechanisms. Understanding how leverage, tranching and moving risk (and reward) across stakeholders and time, work, for instance. The necessary mechanisms and tradeoffs one must make, as well as the ones one should.
If you're looking for a formal model, it's the balance sheet. But not the accountant's. The financier's. Sources and uses, and uses and sources. Payments in, payments out. How do they balance over time; how do they change exposures to different layers of economic and legal control.
The primitives of these models are transactions and people. When you look through them, they're defining human wants and ambitions, faults and fears, patience and mortality.
That’s such an overly complicated answer. I’ve noticed people from a financial background often do this. Why? Does it make you feel special? Lmao.
It’s all basic stuff, often wrapped in jargon to throw people off.
If the fella wants to be properly informed, he needs a very strong understanding of fundamental microeconomic principles, along with macroeconomics. On top of that an understanding of financial accounting.
And… on top of that an understanding of corporate finance and valuation. Aswath Damodaran (look him
Up on YouTube) is the go-to person for this.
Only then you will form a complete picture of what’s going on and make well informed statements about the future.
Nicely done! When I started moving up from being an individual contributor to corporate management years ago, the brass would casually say things like "P&L" or "EDITDA" and I had no idea what they meant. I read textbooks, took online classes, and it was a big deal when I finally could lead a conversation related to our finances.
It's such common language in business that I didn't even realize I was writing so much jargon. I hope you inspired some people to look up the terms. It's really not that hard to understand.... Even CEOs can do it.
With the way I've seen some companies run, I'm not so sure CEOs can lol.
It's been interesting so far. The tough part for me is a the literature is all wrapped in "make your company more successful and profitable", and to be honest I couldn't give a shit about it that. I'm doing this for me, and because (especially on the age of AI) understanding this stuff is more important than ever.
They can, but they might not. Richard Branson famously said he didn't know the difference between gross and net even though he was at the head of Virgin Records.
I'm just stating out on this, so I haven't gotten through everything I want to read yet.
Right now I'm reading Financial Intelligence by Karen Berman and and Joe Knight. There's different versions, but I choose the one "for managers". So far it's done a good job making the material understandable for someone who doesn't have a degree in finance. This the one that's more relevant to the post and will help you start understanding how companies operate at a financial level.
For personal finance I have read
I Will Teach You To Be Rich by Ramit Sethi and A Random Walk Down Wallstreet by Burton G. Malkiel. The first sounds "click-batey" but that's because "I will teach you the boring effective way to manage you're finances" doesn't sell. The latter gets more into the weeds on investing. Bother are great (though Random Walk has been edited many times and the beginning of the book has become bloated, so I'd recommend skimming it a bit since it's just history on epic financial crashes).
I'm going to copy/paste a reply I left for another commentor, so I don't have to retype everything lol
I'm just stating out on this, so I haven't gotten through everything I want to read yet.
Right now I'm reading Financial Intelligence by Karen Berman and and Joe Knight. There's different versions, but I choose the one "for managers". So far it's done a good job making the material understandable for someone who doesn't have a degree in finance. This the one that's more relevant to the post and will help you start understanding how companies operate at a financial level.
For personal finance I have read
I Will Teach You To Be Rich by Ramit Sethi and A Random Walk Down Wallstreet by Burton G. Malkiel. The first sounds "click-batey" but that's because "I will teach you the boring effective way to manage you're finances" doesn't sell. The latter gets more into the weeds on investing. Bother are great (though Random Walk has been edited many times and the beginning of the book has become bloated, so I'd recommend skimming it a bit since it's just history on epic financial crashes).
Hey are absolutely not replacing “legacy” isps and certainly not mobile. Even if they had perfect coverage, sat signals are way too sensitive to obstructions.
No, but they are replacing bad ISPs.
I have a relative in Brussels, while there is 10gig fiber on a nearby street, he's stuck on 100/10 coax, and to add insult to injury, Starlink is cheaper.
Coax is an old tech, but it is surprisingly innovative and pushed limits a lot with right equipment. Newest full duplex and extended spectrum models could potentially reach 10/10 Gbps and all they require is changing some passive splitters in the cable plant and RPD plus CM supporting new modulation. Which are way way cheaper than satellites.
What I'm saying, is as soon as there is a real competitor pressure, ISPs can upgrade their deployments in under a year or two, even without touching buried copper. Of course they can also choose not to do that too :) .
I mean your relative is maybe a member of the tech elite who needs amazing bandwith but
100 Mbps/10Mbps is not going to be limiting for most people. Coax is already pretty fast considering it probably takes its source from fiber at street level and mostly constrained in uploading. I just went from coax to fiber and I cannot tell the difference when browsing, streaming or sharing. Maybe it is because my devices are stuck on wifi 5 but even then I have my doubts.
On the other hand :
"Starlink users typically experience download speeds between 45 and 280 Mbps, with a majority of users experiencing speeds over 100 Mbps. Upload speeds are typically between 10 and 30 Mbps."
That doesn't sound meaningfully different. What is the price difference ?
You are quite right. Also in practice Starlink has random jitter and packet loss at unpredictable times, very visible when talking to my colleagues in Ukraine when they are on backups or in the country. It's fine solution, but landlines are for now superior. Also Starlink's bandwidth depends a lot on the majority of people staying on the landlines. Starlink is nothing short of miracle, but it has limitations. Interesting to see the if the v2 and v3 will upend the status quo.
True. They're replacing legacy ISPs in areas where your choices are high latency geostationary satellite service, dialup, or DSL where the nearest DSLAM is far enough away that it may as well be dialup.
Limited by the amount of satellite coverage? Or on the ground limitations from ever greater division of bandwidth? I guess those two are directly correlated, but they could in theory add microwave relays into the mix to help offset higher population dense areas from lower density ones with less used bandwidth.
I think it's mainly a limitation of the beam steering: terminals that are close together need to be seperated in bandwidth so that they don't intefere with each other, and there's only so much bandwidth available. Tighter beam steering could help but that is something that tends to bump up against physical limitations.
(and it's an area where it would need orders of magnitude improvements to address the density of cities, it's not really close at the moment)
In the past I've worked on consensus based protocols like the ones used in modern cellular systems; basically edge devices register with a controller system that then coordinates time slots for distribution/use of bandwidth for the limited spectrum. Adds a lot of complexity and requires highly accurate time synchronization mechanisms to have any hope of working, but they certainly could leverage something like that to further increase support at higher densities. That is, if they're not doing that already.
That's another way to divide up the total amount of available bandwidth (common on any shared medium and they are almost certainly already doing this), but it doesn't increase the amount of available bandwidth in a given area.
You mentioned beam contention as the key problem, which consensus networks solve at the cost of latency at the high end. As for bandwidth, in theory, you get the full network speed when it's "your turn", so that looks somewhat "bursty" when cycle lengths are too high from high demand. Naturally it evens out at human perception timescales appearing as lower bandwidth though. And obviously there's a saturation point where it no longer makes sense to continue slicing the pie and more complex mitigation strategies like exp back off, priority queuing, varying cycle lengths, etc need to be added into the mix.
To decrease that latency in high density areas like cities they'd need to reach for something like terrestrial microwave relays to add more connection points from adjacent (in horizon) "freer skies"
For the microseconds-chasers, there's microwave relay links, say between Chicago and New York (ref e.g. https://bullseye.ac/blog/economics/inside-the-world-of-high-...). Sending a signal up a few hundred km and down again a few hundred km adds way too much latency, and signal-hopping between fast-moving satellites adds way too much jitter for "such applications".
They do make internet convenient and somewhat reliable for places that had no other options (on my boat, etc.) But I doubt they can displace wired or microwave relays, and why would they? On-earth systems are much cheaper to maintain even if the cost to LEO reduces by another order of magnitude.
To be fair, in Tokyo I see a lot of ISPs pushing 5g routers. Many buildings have fiberoptics pulled to the basement and then use VDSL for the last meters, and I bet they'd rather move everyone over to 5G than have to start actually installing proper fiberoptic internet. In Norway, 5g has been advertised as something groundbreaking and radical. We have been told "now surgery is finally possible with mobile networks" (hospitals don't have fiberoptics??) and similar. Very Apple 2010s "The ipad can now be used by (good person) to do (good thing)"-like. But nobody cares, real users don't see any benefit.
A normal person will probably never notice the difference between 4g and 5g because of what they use their phone for, and giving every household a proper fiberoptic line is probably a much better quality of life improvement. But ISPs dont want that future. They want everyone to be connected to these neighborhood hubs that don't require last-100m-cables and expensive construction. The same can probably be said for Starlink. It's "Good enough", and that's good enough to get sales. They don't care about the quality of the product they deliver, or if fiberoptics are superior. They care about sales.
Their technical accomplishments are doubtlessly notable, but does the expected business growth justify this valuation? Honest question, how many things do we really need to send up there that reducing the cost to orbit by 100x will trigger Jevon's paradox and lead to 100x more launches?
I suppose "data centers in space" is the current answer but again, I'm suspicious about its feasibility.
Barring that, until we have another "killer app" besides Starlink, like a giant orbital space station or a moonbase, I'm curious whether there is enough demand.
Personally, I think that valuing businesses by their expected growth is doing really bad things to our society.
We used to value businesses by their current returns, usually dividends paid to shareholders. And we treated any statements about their future plans as interesting but not something anyone should trust.
Now we value stocks on what their price will do in the near future, because the primary return to shareholders is an increase in share price, effectively speculation rather than dividends as the method of returning value to shareholders. So we're incentivising companies to be constantly pushing their share price up (rather than paying decent dividends), which does bad things to both the company and the economy as a whole.
It's not how the system was intended to work and we find ourselves on a treadmill of constant growth that is killing everything good.
Valuing anything by its expected, long term value is just accurate. You'd consider the longevity of, say, a garment when you purchase it. The fact that a car has a lot of miles in it, and therefore will need replacing earlier, is something that any reasonable person will consider with its valuation. We spend money educating children not because of the value of the knowledge that second, but the expected value in the future, including how it'll be useful to learn other things.
So of course we price businesses based on the expected long term value of the shares, as best as we can guess it. But the fact that a company degrades in value as it "overgrows", and engorges itself to become an entity that can't innovate or do anything efficiently in itself goes into the price too. It's not as if a place like IBM doens't want to grow: We just know they won't.
As for speculation rather than dividends, I suspect the real medium why this happens isn't just need for infinite growth: Again, as growth expectations slow down, price moderates: See Paypal vs Stripe. The issue is mroe of a principal-agent situation, as it's very difficult for the median shareholder to, say, force Zuck to stop spending money on the metaverse. And it's not just at the top level: We have a lot of incentives in organizations for people to push for more hires, even when there's very little value to be had. Anyone with a long career can see how much less tense a growing company is that one that has decided its headcount is stuck for a long time, or possibly shrinking.
Principal Agent problems are just much more annoying to put a blame on, because instead of being able to blame some exec all on their own, we get to look at ourselves too, and how what is good for us differs so much from what is good for employers too. The blame is spread thinly, and the behaviors that would lead to more efficient companies are also worse for workers. Then it's suddenly people easier to like, and we don't like where "try to be profitable at the most optimal size" takes us.
Isn't it much simpler than that? Dividends and profits are taxed. Reinvesting to grow revenue isn't. That's why you see companies doing stock buybacks; prevents them from paying taxes, prevents their shareholders from paying taxes.
When humans are involved the waters are pretty muddy and the forecasts of possible growth rosier than reality. Seeing companies losing money hand over first while those same companies get insanely high valuations is common enough that these are obviously short term money grabs before the house of cards collapses.
Imagine valuing Google in early 2000s on its revenue and dividends. It would have nearly zero value, but if you bought then you knew it was going to be one of the biggest companies in the world.
Only boring stable companies that have no growth like Coca-Cola make sense only valuing without further growth.
So speculative fiction, making this basically gambling since the entropy for picking a "winner" is so high. For every Google there's a hundred others that had similarly brilliant ideas that either flopped or failed to monetize. Your anecdotal example is just retroactive survivorship bias.
I agree - I think there should be a rule that prevents anyone who buys a stock from selling it inside the following 2 years or so. And another rule that says every stock must pay a dividend that is a fixed percentage of the company's profit, modifiable only rarely and only by the board of directors. Then anyone buying stocks would have to price them more by the actual present-day dividends and strength of the company in the present day than by what someone else might buy the stock for tomorrow. It would curb speculation and reward responsible companies that are building strength for the long term.
People have been speculating on future returns since forever.
The East India company (an example of capitalism gone very very wrong) was speculatively founded with £4m (in today’s money) and went on to corner half of global trade.
This rose-tinted past of honest capitalism did not exist.
You’re free to invest that way if you want. You might one day wake up and wonder why your Blockbuster Video shares did so badly. But Netflix seemed way overpriced.
Investing in future prospects encourages companies to plan for the future, rather than extract what they can from the present. The stock price is a big motivation for execs, so they can only invest in R&D if the market understands why it makes sense to spend money now in expectation of future profits.
The fact that capitalist systems require unbounded growth for "success" is the real society killer, but crazy valuations is definitely a concrete symptom of this as we reach growth limitations; we're now pushed to "just assume" that the growth is still plausible when it's clearly not to keep the status quo.
> but does the expected business growth justify this valuation?
What was the expected value of investing in a colony in the Americas? It’s very hard to quantify. Most of them failed, but some people got very very rich.
Starlink seems like a no-brainer at this late date, but I remember thinking "He'll never be able to make money from internet satellites. This has to be some kind of scam. Look what happened to Irridium."
Data centers in orbit certainly seem like a pipe dream, but SpaceX certainly has the technology it needs to put them there, and that's a huge competitive advantage (like it was for Starlink) if they do turn out to be feasible.
Sure, but factor of 10 cheaper in a market that is tiny still isn't that much. Even if you assume a 10x market size increase, its still tiny.
> They also have the most advanced internet infrastructure in the world and are poised to replace legacy ISPs and even mobile carriers in the coming decade.
That's quite the claim. I believe Starlink is a great business, the largest sat business for a long while to come (unlike space datacenter) but even if you are, very, very bullish on it, its not enough to justify the price.
You basically need to believe that:
- Launch market to 10x and grow faster then it ever has for decades
- Starlink goes from already being amazing systematically crushing terrestrial competition.
- xAi wins the AI race (this is almost absurdly optimistic)
- AI data-center becoming a insanely thing (also absurdly optimistic)
And even then this is hard to justify. And I certaintly don't believe 3. or 4. And 1 is a stretch. And while I believe in Starlink continued growth, terrestrial infrastructure still has lots of advantages for cities, where most people actually live.
It has technical merit and it is impressive. But I doubt it's worth that much. I guess Musk has the talent of pushing and getting what he wants, so I guess we'll see how it plays out. I'm just afraid for the future is SpaceX in these crazy crazy times.
At some point we'll reach saturation of what we're comfortable putting into LEO, or at least greater pushback from governments leading to regulations in hopes of avoiding that. There's a lot of space junk out there already and they're still pumping out those isp satellites en mass.
Luckily these specific spacex LEO sats decay pretty rapidly (unless they've made them more advanced recently, I haven't followed closely as of late.) So I guess they'll keep themselves busy at least refreshing the fleet.
The jury is still out on Starship. And also a bold claim to say that SpaceX by itself has reduced the cost of a ton of mass into orbit by a factor of 10. Did it play an important role in that reduction? Sure...
This comment reads like an S-1 pitch deck and almost every claim is false or misleading.
The $16B is not profit its revenue, and I strongly suggest to learn the difference before investing. The $8B figure is EBITDA, also known as, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, AND amortization.
For a company running around 9500 LEO satellites with a less than 5 year lifespan, depreciation is the business.
Their FCC filings show that about 500 satellites deorbited just in the first of half of 2025 alone, and they were all under 5 years old. The estimates for constellation sustenance are currently at $5-8B per year in satellite manufacturing (about $500K each) and launch costs are about $3M each. That is the real capex that EBITDA hides. Net income has never been disclosed and probably for good reason...
And lets not even mention the $19 billion EchoStar acquisition who is almost certainly! not included in the $8 billion EBITDA figures reported...
The most critical is that xAI is excluded from the number. XAI had a $1.46B net loss in Q3 2025 on just $107M in revenue, accelerating from $1B the prior quarter. They were burning $1B a month at the time of filing. This pig was then merged into SpaceX in Feb 2026 along with X/Twitter. So start with $8B EBITDA, subtract $5-8B satellite replacement, subtract $4-6B per year in xAI losses, subtract interest and taxes specially amortization and you are very very deep in the red. Once audited financials go public, every analyst with a calculator and a working brain will see this.
Also the revenue is largely circular... Over 70% of Falcon 9 launches in 2025 were internal Starlink missions so SpaceX is its own biggest customer. Starlink is 70% of total revenue. The so called "launch business" and "internet business" are the same capital cycle booked as two revenue lines ;-)
Replace legacy ISPs? Really? Starlink has 0.2% residential market share after 5 years, with declining ARPU ($85 avg vs $120 US) and congestion already emerging at 10M subs. It is a niche rural/maritime ISP, not an AT&T killer.
And on the valuation? NVIDIA for example, who has an almost actual monopoly on AI chips, with $216B revenue, and $120B net income, at 56% margins, trades at 20x revenue. Tesla…. already considered absurdly overvalued at P/E 355, trades at 15x. Amazon at 3x. Meta at 10x. SpaceX wants 110x !! times revenue, with no audited financials, unknown net income, and a freshly absorbed money losing AI company. Even on bullish 2026 projected revenue of $24B, it's 73x so nearly 4x NVIDIA multiple, and NVIDIA actually prints profit...
Starship on another side is very very far from routine... 11 flights, 5 failures. But notice on thing...In 2025 alone on Flight 7 the upper stage exploded from harmonic vibrations. Then Flight 8 exploded from propellant mixing. Flight 9 was destroyed on reentry...Ship 36 exploded on test stand
...the first V3 booster exploded during pressure testing and was scrapped.
See a pattern here? Each failure from a different root cause. So multiple unsolved failure modes, not iteration. It has never reached orbit, never caught a ship, never demonstrated orbital refueling.
This offering is the most scandalous ever and the structure tells you everything. The filing is confidential, REAL financials only need to go public 15 days before the roadshow. Nasdaq is literally changing its index rules effective May 1 to allow a fast track Nasdaq-100 entry in 15 trading days. This is a rule that never existed before, and is made for this IPO, forcing billions in passive index buying on day one.
Public float is just 3% to 4%. This is one of the tightest floats for any major US IPO in modern history, and I have been following the markets for 20 years. They do 30% retail allocation what is three times the norm and tells you exactly who the target buyer is.
Given this level of rule bending, dont be shocked if the S-1 with real audited numbers quietly drops at the last legally permissible moment, maybe minutes before the IPO? ensuring hype and retail commitments are fully baked, before anyone really looks at what the financials actually say.
It will be a wildly successful IPO. Same playbook as Tesla 2010, just with more zeros and fewer functioning prototypes.
You don't have to believe. If you have a 401k you will be an investor 15 days after launch.
The IPO will go great, because the company will float a fairly small issuance. The big shareholders will not immediately sell. They will hold on and maybe even buy to support the price.
Then, after 15 days, it will enter the indexes and everyone's 401k will start auto-buying this stock.
You might say this is an obvious flaw in how the indexes work if they start immediately accept a brand new IPOed stock with limited float. You'd be right, which is why they won't list for a year.
I'm genuinely waiting to see at what the valuation lands at. The gap between what SpaceX charges per launch and what everyone else charges is so wide that the moat basically is the rocket. Hard to compare against anything even now.
The thing i'm not looking forward to is SpaceX will now be beholden to Wall Street. With Startship testing being so public, there's a whole cottage industry of youtubers watching their every move, there's going to be lots of ups and downs on the stock price.
How will they make money? From governments? With Elon's beliefs, few will be able to afford the vacation trips to space, except a few and they can already do this if they wanted, but haven't in droves.
If anything this just proves that the Overview Effect (traveling to space changes you) is just BS, Bezos and the others never changed.
I'm a SpaceX investor, and from reading the comments here, I think most people here are missing why SpaceX has an outrageously high valuation.
SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if you buy into their mission of creating a civilization on Mars, and that the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is the vehicle that creates this future. If SpaceX achieves this, it would be the most valuable company ever created. It would be worth $10s of trillions.
I personally believe SpaceX has a 70% chance of achieving its Mars ambitions. So I find the current $1.75 trillion valuation very logical, if not a little underpriced.
If you believe there's a SpaceX won't achieve these ambitions, which I'd assume most people in this thread belong to, then you'd assign a <1% chance of this happening. Then you'd value the company based on it's financials, at a more realistic $200B. You'd explain the 8x valuation gap though a mixture of financial engineering and Elon grifting, both of which I agree are happening.
The current $1.75 trillion valuation comes from the ratio of people in camp A to camp B.
I wonder if this ends up like Tesla - China copies it and makes it cheaper -
GG if not protected by huge tariffs/bans. It seems like US these days is just a testing ground for new tech that later scaled further and optimized in China. Are there any hard moats protecting SpaceX from that?
Starship is the biggest scam in the history of spaceflight, it was never about getting to the moon or mars or even towards other points on Earth (or space tourism) but lowering the cost of sending military and other dual use technologies to Low Earth Orbit.
It's hard to imagine how SpaceX can be making the reported $8 billion a year in profit[1]. We now see roughly two Starlink reentries per day... The replenishment costs are at least $5M/day just to maintain the current constellation, while the entire customer revenue is ~$20M/day. Guess the real money is in Golden Dome.
SpaceX does internal sales of stock twice a year, so there will not be pressure from existing stockholders to sell. But there will be buyers. SpaceX is/was a great brand (before it became SpaceTwitter).
Can't wait til the precious minerals market crash from asteroid mining goes kaboom, and just like that old tale about the king who left a wake of gold in his hajj, which ended up destroying the economy. In Cairo specifically.
> In the United States, SpaceX accounts for five of every six launches into space, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
It's going to have a big impact on short-term volatility, but it's going to take a big drop in prices in a month. But I think it's a company that needs to be invested in the long run.
In space development, I don’t think there are any competitors at SpaceX’s level at the moment. On top of that, they are trying to do something most people would never even imagine: building data centers in space using SpaceX’s technology. If that becomes a reality, they will almost certainly dominate when it comes to energy.
The Artemis II launch, despite the heat shield risk, is clearly a way to hype up the general retail investor before the SpaceX IPO. I really hope that nothing bad happens to the astronauts up there... but if it does, shame on NASA, and shame on everyone else involved. Big money, unfortunately, always wins.
582 comments
You don't count R&D as an expense per GAAP, so...
They have claimed $8B in EBITDA, also leaving out the amortization of R&D costs.
Those aren't audited numbers, as far as I know.
*they actually use "Adjusted EBITDA" which is even more nonstandard and means they define the accounting however they want!
>> *they actually use "Adjusted EBITDA" which is even more nonstandard and means they define the accounting however they want!
Enron would be proud...Theranos-level Transparency...
90% of the valuation is about Golden Dome
I'd always wanted to view affairs from a different lens, though I often feel the people who think everything revolves around bond rates or inflation numbers can miss the social picture of why things happen.
> Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion?
That’s a subject that fills many volumes on accounting, finance and economics. I don’t think you should be looking for one best theory, because there are valid differences of opinion in all these fields.
> I'd always wanted to view affairs from a different lens, though I often feel the people who think everything revolves around bond rates or inflation numbers can miss the social picture of why things happen.
The ‘social picture’ is what’s called welfare economics, which is a whole field in itself. I wouldn’t jump straight into welfare economics though, you’ll probably need to start with introductory economics to understand the basic terminology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics
>
Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion?The most-powerful ones for individuals are the micreconomic mechanisms. Understanding how leverage, tranching and moving risk (and reward) across stakeholders and time, work, for instance. The necessary mechanisms and tradeoffs one must make, as well as the ones one should.
If you're looking for a formal model, it's the balance sheet. But not the accountant's. The financier's. Sources and uses, and uses and sources. Payments in, payments out. How do they balance over time; how do they change exposures to different layers of economic and legal control.
The primitives of these models are transactions and people. When you look through them, they're defining human wants and ambitions, faults and fears, patience and mortality.
It’s all basic stuff, often wrapped in jargon to throw people off.
If the fella wants to be properly informed, he needs a very strong understanding of fundamental microeconomic principles, along with macroeconomics. On top of that an understanding of financial accounting.
And… on top of that an understanding of corporate finance and valuation. Aswath Damodaran (look him Up on YouTube) is the go-to person for this.
Only then you will form a complete picture of what’s going on and make well informed statements about the future.
It's been interesting so far. The tough part for me is a the literature is all wrapped in "make your company more successful and profitable", and to be honest I couldn't give a shit about it that. I'm doing this for me, and because (especially on the age of AI) understanding this stuff is more important than ever.
Right now I'm reading Financial Intelligence by Karen Berman and and Joe Knight. There's different versions, but I choose the one "for managers". So far it's done a good job making the material understandable for someone who doesn't have a degree in finance. This the one that's more relevant to the post and will help you start understanding how companies operate at a financial level.
For personal finance I have read
I Will Teach You To Be Rich by Ramit Sethi and A Random Walk Down Wallstreet by Burton G. Malkiel. The first sounds "click-batey" but that's because "I will teach you the boring effective way to manage you're finances" doesn't sell. The latter gets more into the weeds on investing. Bother are great (though Random Walk has been edited many times and the beginning of the book has become bloated, so I'd recommend skimming it a bit since it's just history on epic financial crashes).
I'm planning to read:
7 Powers — Hamilton Helmer
Good Strategy/Bad Strategy — Richard Rumelt
The Outsiders — William N. Thorndike Jr.
The Intelligent Investor — Benjamin Graham
The Psychology of Money — Morgan Housel
What did you read that worked?
I'm just stating out on this, so I haven't gotten through everything I want to read yet. Right now I'm reading Financial Intelligence by Karen Berman and and Joe Knight. There's different versions, but I choose the one "for managers". So far it's done a good job making the material understandable for someone who doesn't have a degree in finance. This the one that's more relevant to the post and will help you start understanding how companies operate at a financial level.
For personal finance I have read
I Will Teach You To Be Rich by Ramit Sethi and A Random Walk Down Wallstreet by Burton G. Malkiel. The first sounds "click-batey" but that's because "I will teach you the boring effective way to manage you're finances" doesn't sell. The latter gets more into the weeds on investing. Bother are great (though Random Walk has been edited many times and the beginning of the book has become bloated, so I'd recommend skimming it a bit since it's just history on epic financial crashes).
I'm planning to read:
7 Powers — Hamilton Helmer
Good Strategy/Bad Strategy — Richard Rumelt
The Outsiders — William N. Thorndike Jr.
The Intelligent Investor — Benjamin Graham
The Psychology of Money — Morgan Housel
You do not need to study anything else. You can even be very successful in every stages of your life with it.
What I'm saying, is as soon as there is a real competitor pressure, ISPs can upgrade their deployments in under a year or two, even without touching buried copper. Of course they can also choose not to do that too :) .
On the other hand : "Starlink users typically experience download speeds between 45 and 280 Mbps, with a majority of users experiencing speeds over 100 Mbps. Upload speeds are typically between 10 and 30 Mbps."
That doesn't sound meaningfully different. What is the price difference ?
And come on 100/10 is not bad despite the other 10gig fiber
(and it's an area where it would need orders of magnitude improvements to address the density of cities, it's not really close at the moment)
In the past I've worked on consensus based protocols like the ones used in modern cellular systems; basically edge devices register with a controller system that then coordinates time slots for distribution/use of bandwidth for the limited spectrum. Adds a lot of complexity and requires highly accurate time synchronization mechanisms to have any hope of working, but they certainly could leverage something like that to further increase support at higher densities. That is, if they're not doing that already.
To decrease that latency in high density areas like cities they'd need to reach for something like terrestrial microwave relays to add more connection points from adjacent (in horizon) "freer skies"
Maybe some decent revenue offering sat to cell for the traditional carriers.
For the microseconds-chasers, there's microwave relay links, say between Chicago and New York (ref e.g. https://bullseye.ac/blog/economics/inside-the-world-of-high-...). Sending a signal up a few hundred km and down again a few hundred km adds way too much latency, and signal-hopping between fast-moving satellites adds way too much jitter for "such applications".
A normal person will probably never notice the difference between 4g and 5g because of what they use their phone for, and giving every household a proper fiberoptic line is probably a much better quality of life improvement. But ISPs dont want that future. They want everyone to be connected to these neighborhood hubs that don't require last-100m-cables and expensive construction. The same can probably be said for Starlink. It's "Good enough", and that's good enough to get sales. They don't care about the quality of the product they deliver, or if fiberoptics are superior. They care about sales.
I suppose "data centers in space" is the current answer but again, I'm suspicious about its feasibility.
Barring that, until we have another "killer app" besides Starlink, like a giant orbital space station or a moonbase, I'm curious whether there is enough demand.
We used to value businesses by their current returns, usually dividends paid to shareholders. And we treated any statements about their future plans as interesting but not something anyone should trust.
Now we value stocks on what their price will do in the near future, because the primary return to shareholders is an increase in share price, effectively speculation rather than dividends as the method of returning value to shareholders. So we're incentivising companies to be constantly pushing their share price up (rather than paying decent dividends), which does bad things to both the company and the economy as a whole.
It's not how the system was intended to work and we find ourselves on a treadmill of constant growth that is killing everything good.
So of course we price businesses based on the expected long term value of the shares, as best as we can guess it. But the fact that a company degrades in value as it "overgrows", and engorges itself to become an entity that can't innovate or do anything efficiently in itself goes into the price too. It's not as if a place like IBM doens't want to grow: We just know they won't.
As for speculation rather than dividends, I suspect the real medium why this happens isn't just need for infinite growth: Again, as growth expectations slow down, price moderates: See Paypal vs Stripe. The issue is mroe of a principal-agent situation, as it's very difficult for the median shareholder to, say, force Zuck to stop spending money on the metaverse. And it's not just at the top level: We have a lot of incentives in organizations for people to push for more hires, even when there's very little value to be had. Anyone with a long career can see how much less tense a growing company is that one that has decided its headcount is stuck for a long time, or possibly shrinking.
Principal Agent problems are just much more annoying to put a blame on, because instead of being able to blame some exec all on their own, we get to look at ourselves too, and how what is good for us differs so much from what is good for employers too. The blame is spread thinly, and the behaviors that would lead to more efficient companies are also worse for workers. Then it's suddenly people easier to like, and we don't like where "try to be profitable at the most optimal size" takes us.
Only boring stable companies that have no growth like Coca-Cola make sense only valuing without further growth.
The East India company (an example of capitalism gone very very wrong) was speculatively founded with £4m (in today’s money) and went on to corner half of global trade.
This rose-tinted past of honest capitalism did not exist.
Investing in future prospects encourages companies to plan for the future, rather than extract what they can from the present. The stock price is a big motivation for execs, so they can only invest in R&D if the market understands why it makes sense to spend money now in expectation of future profits.
> but does the expected business growth justify this valuation?
What was the expected value of investing in a colony in the Americas? It’s very hard to quantify. Most of them failed, but some people got very very rich.
Data centers in orbit certainly seem like a pipe dream, but SpaceX certainly has the technology it needs to put them there, and that's a huge competitive advantage (like it was for Starlink) if they do turn out to be feasible.
> They also have the most advanced internet infrastructure in the world and are poised to replace legacy ISPs and even mobile carriers in the coming decade.
That's quite the claim. I believe Starlink is a great business, the largest sat business for a long while to come (unlike space datacenter) but even if you are, very, very bullish on it, its not enough to justify the price.
You basically need to believe that:
- Launch market to 10x and grow faster then it ever has for decades
- Starlink goes from already being amazing systematically crushing terrestrial competition.
- xAi wins the AI race (this is almost absurdly optimistic)
- AI data-center becoming a insanely thing (also absurdly optimistic)
And even then this is hard to justify. And I certaintly don't believe 3. or 4. And 1 is a stretch. And while I believe in Starlink continued growth, terrestrial infrastructure still has lots of advantages for cities, where most people actually live.
Luckily these specific spacex LEO sats decay pretty rapidly (unless they've made them more advanced recently, I haven't followed closely as of late.) So I guess they'll keep themselves busy at least refreshing the fleet.
The $16B is not profit its revenue, and I strongly suggest to learn the difference before investing. The $8B figure is EBITDA, also known as, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, AND amortization.
For a company running around 9500 LEO satellites with a less than 5 year lifespan, depreciation is the business.
Their FCC filings show that about 500 satellites deorbited just in the first of half of 2025 alone, and they were all under 5 years old. The estimates for constellation sustenance are currently at $5-8B per year in satellite manufacturing (about $500K each) and launch costs are about $3M each. That is the real capex that EBITDA hides. Net income has never been disclosed and probably for good reason...
And lets not even mention the $19 billion EchoStar acquisition who is almost certainly! not included in the $8 billion EBITDA figures reported...
The most critical is that xAI is excluded from the number. XAI had a $1.46B net loss in Q3 2025 on just $107M in revenue, accelerating from $1B the prior quarter. They were burning $1B a month at the time of filing. This pig was then merged into SpaceX in Feb 2026 along with X/Twitter. So start with $8B EBITDA, subtract $5-8B satellite replacement, subtract $4-6B per year in xAI losses, subtract interest and taxes specially amortization and you are very very deep in the red. Once audited financials go public, every analyst with a calculator and a working brain will see this.
Also the revenue is largely circular... Over 70% of Falcon 9 launches in 2025 were internal Starlink missions so SpaceX is its own biggest customer. Starlink is 70% of total revenue. The so called "launch business" and "internet business" are the same capital cycle booked as two revenue lines ;-)
Replace legacy ISPs? Really? Starlink has 0.2% residential market share after 5 years, with declining ARPU ($85 avg vs $120 US) and congestion already emerging at 10M subs. It is a niche rural/maritime ISP, not an AT&T killer.
And on the valuation? NVIDIA for example, who has an almost actual monopoly on AI chips, with $216B revenue, and $120B net income, at 56% margins, trades at 20x revenue. Tesla…. already considered absurdly overvalued at P/E 355, trades at 15x. Amazon at 3x. Meta at 10x. SpaceX wants 110x !! times revenue, with no audited financials, unknown net income, and a freshly absorbed money losing AI company. Even on bullish 2026 projected revenue of $24B, it's 73x so nearly 4x NVIDIA multiple, and NVIDIA actually prints profit...
Starship on another side is very very far from routine... 11 flights, 5 failures. But notice on thing...In 2025 alone on Flight 7 the upper stage exploded from harmonic vibrations. Then Flight 8 exploded from propellant mixing. Flight 9 was destroyed on reentry...Ship 36 exploded on test stand ...the first V3 booster exploded during pressure testing and was scrapped.
See a pattern here? Each failure from a different root cause. So multiple unsolved failure modes, not iteration. It has never reached orbit, never caught a ship, never demonstrated orbital refueling.
This offering is the most scandalous ever and the structure tells you everything. The filing is confidential, REAL financials only need to go public 15 days before the roadshow. Nasdaq is literally changing its index rules effective May 1 to allow a fast track Nasdaq-100 entry in 15 trading days. This is a rule that never existed before, and is made for this IPO, forcing billions in passive index buying on day one.
Public float is just 3% to 4%. This is one of the tightest floats for any major US IPO in modern history, and I have been following the markets for 20 years. They do 30% retail allocation what is three times the norm and tells you exactly who the target buyer is.
Given this level of rule bending, dont be shocked if the S-1 with real audited numbers quietly drops at the last legally permissible moment, maybe minutes before the IPO? ensuring hype and retail commitments are fully baked, before anyone really looks at what the financials actually say.
It will be a wildly successful IPO. Same playbook as Tesla 2010, just with more zeros and fewer functioning prototypes.
https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?is=TGpEdM2Y7sknP-cW
The IPO will go great, because the company will float a fairly small issuance. The big shareholders will not immediately sell. They will hold on and maybe even buy to support the price.
Then, after 15 days, it will enter the indexes and everyone's 401k will start auto-buying this stock.
You might say this is an obvious flaw in how the indexes work if they start immediately accept a brand new IPOed stock with limited float. You'd be right, which is why they won't list for a year.
At least they wouldn't until Elon got them to change their rules: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-30/nasdaq-cl...
Smells like great fiduciary responsibility!
If anything this just proves that the Overview Effect (traveling to space changes you) is just BS, Bezos and the others never changed.
SpaceX's valuation only makes sense if you buy into their mission of creating a civilization on Mars, and that the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation is the vehicle that creates this future. If SpaceX achieves this, it would be the most valuable company ever created. It would be worth $10s of trillions.
I personally believe SpaceX has a 70% chance of achieving its Mars ambitions. So I find the current $1.75 trillion valuation very logical, if not a little underpriced.
If you believe there's a SpaceX won't achieve these ambitions, which I'd assume most people in this thread belong to, then you'd assign a <1% chance of this happening. Then you'd value the company based on it's financials, at a more realistic $200B. You'd explain the 8x valuation gap though a mixture of financial engineering and Elon grifting, both of which I agree are happening.
The current $1.75 trillion valuation comes from the ratio of people in camp A to camp B.
Starlink is close to causing the kessler syndrome. https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...
When I was young and naive I believed Elon, at least I've figured out his shtick now, plus his connections with that man.
Regulate them.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/spacex-generated-ab...
Will mankinds's mouth be larger than its stomach?
Found the Emperor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa
> In the United States, SpaceX accounts for five of every six launches into space, according to Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.
That's why.
I'm a little disappointed now.