[himata4113]

Hasn't the stock already collapsed below IPO price? Does that mean the IPO was simply overpriced? Do these people expect the stock to go down even further? Shorting is way more risky I don't see why this would be the case unless my questions turned out to be predictions.

[mrweasel]

I wouldn't say that it collapsed, it's only slightly under its IPO price, $134 vs. $135.

However it's not going up and later this month the first lockup period ends and people who got stock options are allowed to sell some of their stocks. These people don't care if the price is $134 or $135, because they go in much much lower, down to $30, from what I can tell. So starting this month there's going to be new shares available to buy, and the sellers are less critical of the price your offering.

[verzali]

Down to $124 already today...

[hattmall]

Yes, people expect it to trade much lower, around $40 per share, still would be a huge valuation for what the company has done. Goldman Sachs analysts had an extreme range, of like $6 Billion to $5T, but the consensus $2T required 100x revenue multiple by 2030. If revenue was less than 10x by 2030 it's less than $100B company, and only $6B if it remains flat. So a lot of downsides and the upside requires a continuation of some insane magic.

[kirubakaran]

> Goldman Sachs analysts had an extreme range, of like $6 Billion to $5T

What a weird way for them to say "we don't know"! It's like saying this house has 0 to 100 bathrooms.

[hattmall]

True, but it's the range from different analysts. Saying "we don't know" isn't really an option. Gotta say something when your IPOing a trillion dollar company.

[marcosdumay]

To keep the proportions correct, it's between a model house the size of a piece of paper or a normal 2-bedrooms.

[bigbuppo]

I would say it's more like 600 sq ft to 5000 sq ft. Nobody knows.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

"So you're saying there's a chance? It might actually be possible to have 100 bathrooms! I knew it!"

[AviationAtom]

I haven't seen anything saying $40. The lowest I have seen is $70.

[rconti]

From TFA:

> "I think it could be half over the course of the year," Noble said, adding that he believes a fair value for the shares is around $30, implying a decline of roughly 78% from current levels.

[AviationAtom]

That's an absurd valuation. Typically stocks are valued at what people are willing to pay, with earnings partially driving that value.

[unknownfuture]

I'd argue the opposite. If the price is largely vibes, you could see wild swings if sentiment changes dramatically. The bitcoin market is an excellent example of this. Worse, the recent BBB- rating on their bond issuance suggests a lack of lender confidence, and if their stock continues to decline those factors could compound.

[mattas]

A rational person isn't willing to pay more than the present value of future cash flows. Just like how a rational person wouldn't pay $101 for a $100 bill.

Where it gets fun is that: (1) we have people selling $100 bills for more than $100 and, (2) we have people gladly buying $100 bills for more than $100.

[axus]

Verizon + AT&T + Boeing was my estimate for SpaceX value.

[mikeryan]

I think the pullback from the initial IPO bump was expected. I think the news here is expectations that it has a lot more downside to come.

Particularly once it gets past the lockup period. If I had to guess I say a lot of folks are thinking a lot of people will sell post lock up and they’re timing their shorts around that date.

[anthonj]

Tbh I'm no5 sure I've even seen an IPO where the price didn't collapse initially.

[dofm]

More than half of IPOs fall below their price in the first year and AFAIK it’s something like more than half underperforming market over the first five.

Basically an IPO is a bad bet for a five year position. But SPCX is especially bad.

[downrightmike]

JPM still thinks its a $300 stock

[hnburnsy]

For months (years?) JPM thought Tesla was a $130 to $150 stock, until JPM helped out on the SPCX IPO, and wouldn't you know it, replaced the Tesla analyst, current target $475.

My point don't listen to ANY stock analysts.

>J.P. Morgan analyst Rajat Gupta just took over the investment bank's coverage of Tesla's stock (TSLA), and in doing so, he lifted the firm's rating to neutral from underweight. The previous analyst, Ryan Brinkman, was a fairly vocal Tesla bear who warned just two months ago that investors should treat the stock with a "high degree of caution."Brinkman's previous price target of $145 implied 65% downside from Thursday's closing price of $418.45. But Gupta has now raised J.P. Morgan's Tesla target to $475 in conjunction with the upgrade.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260605179/jp-...

[Alive-in-2025]

Tesla is another crazily overpriced stock but first my pointless take on spaceX.

(1) SpaceX has a huge number of restricted shares coming onto the market soon as this thread has discussed.

(2) SpaceX has incredible tech (reuse, internet, engines, scale, reliability), yet in the past week Japan demonstrated a rocket hovering and landing, and China launched a rocket to space and caught it/landed it. So SPCX tech is incredible, but China has basically done everything SpaceX has done except relaunch and launch reliably at scale.

Those aren't trivial things but I see within a couple of years there will be competitors doing what SpaceX has been doing. Matching the reliable launch will likely take longer. No one has anything like Starship and their fantastic engines, but that's not done yet. Let's not forget about upcoming space internet competitors. I put all this together and see they are crazily overvalued and still has potential to be do well too. I kept wanting to short it and short Tesla too, but Tesla has been stubbornly resisting me.

Tesla's PE is down to 357 at the moment. It has hovered around 400. Incredibly profitable and trustworthy (for non EVs) Toyota has a PE of 9.x. Nine! GM is 28, and Chinese companies are making the best EVs but more importantly have better battery and drivetrain tech in the field and faster charging. They are blocked from the US but apparently Canada will now allow them. Tesla doesn't have anything over them, including price. Tesla makes great cars, Musk is awful. I have an over 10 year old tesla and it is still a great car.

Tesla's future worth is because of meme stockness, optimus robots (which they still have been demoing with human remote control misleadingly), battery storage, xAI (eventually they'll do something worthwhile, right, more than illegal removing the clothes off people videos? at least they are making something off selling their extra inference capacity), and robotaxis.

robotaxi tech would cool if it worked, every few months Musk embarasses himself by announcing it's going nationwide by the end of the year or something similar that never happens. But is this going to make billions? Doubtful, and Waymo will be there to drive it down to not be that profitable. And waymo actually does 500k rides per week in 10 cities. Does tesla do 500 a week yet?

So Tesla is overvalued, and also, a miracle could occur and they could come up with software to make the robot do something useful - they are still overvalued even with that. They just don't have that great robot brain. Maybe LLMs will solve that eventually.

But tesla is at 350 PE, they need a reduction of about 15 times in stock price to get to a reasonable PE of 23. Their sales went up last quarter but they were behind their all time high sales and Musk destroyed their reputation. Let's say tesla is only 10x overpriced based on PE. So they should lose 90% of their stock price!? It's a meme stock but it should go down.

[jgalt212]

so does Jack Grubman, after being instructed to take a "fresh look" at it.

[ryandvm]

It is... as long as somebody else thinks so.