[wrsh07]

> There are a lot of retirements on the line just by this fact

1) I would expect anyone close to retirement to have a fairly balanced portfolio.

2) if they don't include SpaceX and the stock does >10x in the next year, they'll end up doing terribly on the benchmarks. SpaceX is big, but if they invest early, it won't be a ridiculous % of the portfolio. Even if one overpays by 2x, since it's under .1% of the total portfolio. If it went to zero nobody would lose their shirts, they'd lose <.1% of their portfolio.

[JohnMakin]

Am I misreading 2) or are you saying you think there’s a reasonable chance spaceX market cap could become 10+ trillion in the next year?

[wrsh07]

i'm not saying they will justify that market cap, but Tesla always hit market cap numbers years before they could possibly be justified and once they were justified the stock price would go right up again into nonsense territory

[Saline9515]

Tesla ipo'd at $1.6 bil. SpaceX is roughly x1000 that.

[wrsh07]

Right, I mean Tesla had generated lifetime revenue of 150mm, SpaceX did >18 billion last year. They have a monopoly on cheap space flight, just signed a big data center contract with a big user of compute (and built that data center quickly), have good internet service, etc etc

Seems worth at least 100x, and it doesn't seem surprising that it gets an extra 10x

[Saline9515]

Revenue is not a basis for valuation otherwise Walmart would be more valuable than Nvidia, Apple and Google combined. And I agree that SpaceX would be correctly valued at 180b.

Space TAM is not so large. Starlink ARPU is decreasing fast as well. And they rent the data center because Grok doesn't have enough usage, overall it's a bad usage of capital.

[wrsh07]

> Revenue is not a basis for valuation otherwise Walmart would be more valuable than Nvidia, Apple and Google

This is a confused take

Revenue is an excellent basis for comparison of valuations if the growth rates are similar. Nvidia is worth what it is because of its vertical growth rate

If company A makes a 100U this year and I think it's going to double by the end of the year (to 200U) I would rather hold shares of that than company B which makes 150U per year and it's growing 10% yoy.

Next year I'll have a company making 200U, whereas B will only be making 165U. So I would pay more for A today than I would for B.

As an aside, Apple and Google sum to more revenue than Walmart and have better growth. So your claim was correct five years ago and the growth rates have literally shown you why Apple and Google have higher market caps

I haven't even gotten to explain the space TAM, but suffice to say black car tam was small before Uber. (What % of black car cabs did Uber provide in their first year offering the service)

[Aperocky]

Even Mars becoming a state would not support that kind of valuation.

[supertroop]

No cfpa would claim #1. At retirement you are not balanced, you are in low risk funds or bonds.