It's below where it opened trading on the first day which I guess is what the editorialised headline is supposed to mean. Trading opened at about 160 on the 12th and is about 155 now. Such fluctuations don't really mean much.
If the price moves down when a Starship test flight doesn't achieve all objectives that's probably a good opportunity to buy. Many people think "rocket go boom, must be bad" but to some extent it's expected during the development phase. They get more useful data about where the limits are when it doesn't work.
Of course there's limits to that, but SpaceX has a lot of cash to absorb failures, unlike in the early days.
Which is true, but silly. SpaceX's rocket business is currently a $4B/year business. SpaceX's $2T valuation has nothing to do with launching rockets, a little bit to do with being an ISP and a lot to do with AI hype.
Not convinced it means anything in one way or another.
I remember the same headlines right after Facebook's IPO. The discourse was very much that it was obvious that a website to connect with your friends wouldn't make money.
It certainly wasn't a StarCraft or gaming reference, though I'm not surprised it was interpreted that way (personally bowed out of RTS ~C&C1). I do think you've got a good millennial-cultural catch-phrase for the zeitgeist AI datacenter funk there, though!
The IPO price for SpaceX was _delusional_. The price now is delusional. Especially since it's so dependent on the US government for revenue and he's done everything possible to irritate the party that's about to take over the federal budget.
It was insane to me that a company that had less than thirty-billion in revenue was valued at more than a trillion. I'm not sure how the People in Charge didn't call bullshit.
The way exponential maths works, if a company really can grow at (for example) 10% per annum then it can grow into what looks initially like a very high PE multiple on current earnings surprisingly quickly.
This is why people sometimes use forward P/E but that does have the obvious drawback of the denominator not actually existing yet.
However with SpaceX the valuation is extreme and also can they grow at that rate for years on end? Potentially not
One thing I learned recently is that Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTI) is float-weighted. That means that SpaceX's percentage in the index is based on the value of the floating shares, not the total market cap. As a result, a fund like VTI, for now, doesn't have that much SpaceX. It will add more as the lockup periods expire and the float increases, but increasing float might also drive down the price.
Do 401k's know about pump-and-dump, but think they can time it to make profit? Or are 401ks "bound" to buy stocks?
It feels like a lot of retail buyers know the emperor is naked, but are still acting on greed, thinking they can "catch the falling knife" and time the market departure to profit from the hype...
I think it's much simpler. A lot of funds are tied to things like the NASDAQ-100, which SpaceX figured out how to get fast-tracked for. Once it's officially on the NASDAQ-100, stuff like QQQ has to buy it, whether or not people like the idea of it.
Of course active investors could do something like short Space X by exactly the amount that their funds have to more or less "cancel out" their investment, but most people aren't active investors.
The big indexes have a cooldown period before buying, which these scam artists attempted to radically shorten before the IPO, but they failed (at least partially). The S&P500, for example, will delay a year before adding it to the index. Nasdaq 100 was talked into reducing it to 15 days, so you might want to get out of the Nasdaq 100.
I got rid of all my QQQ, which was substantial, but I didn't convert all my vulnerable portfolio because I wanted to minimize how much I pay in taxes.
I now use the Interactive Brokers MCP to make a "pseudo QQQ" which has all companies except Tesla and SpaceX in there, and I otherwise use the same weights as the official QQQ. In order to avoid tax overhead, my rebalancing is buy-only, no selling, so it's not a perfect analog to QQQ but it's close enough and I at least got some of my capital out of SpaceX.
S&P still requires one year(?) profitability, which SpaceX has yet to achieve. The recent datacenter rentals might have pushed it into a profitable quarter.
Notably, today was the first batch of additions, which really does lend credence to the idea that it's just about people getting out after the forced buying. We'll see what happens in early July when it makes it into the Nasdaq 100.
What's that theory? Who are the "people getting out after the forced buying"? People who bought assuming there would be an increase in price due to forced buying?
Right. As the "short squeeze" dramas have shown, pump and dump victims these days can have a surprising amount of literacy on market dynamics. I would guess there's quite a lot of SpaceX investors who were convinced that the stock can't go down because the indexes have to buy it.
Still above the actual IPO price of 135.
It's below where it opened trading on the first day which I guess is what the editorialised headline is supposed to mean. Trading opened at about 160 on the 12th and is about 155 now. Such fluctuations don't really mean much.
-16.5% at the moment... Is the market reacting to the $20B bond offering news?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-22/spacex-ki...
so, are these bonds a good buy?
A rapid unscheduled financial disassembly.
If my schadenfreude grows anymore, I might burst into tears.
At least people stop shorting SpaceX on fundamentals. Shorting just increases the momentum.
SpaceX will swing wildly in future, also exploding/successful Starship flights and enthusiasm for moon landing/Artemis missions.
If the price moves down when a Starship test flight doesn't achieve all objectives that's probably a good opportunity to buy. Many people think "rocket go boom, must be bad" but to some extent it's expected during the development phase. They get more useful data about where the limits are when it doesn't work.
Of course there's limits to that, but SpaceX has a lot of cash to absorb failures, unlike in the early days.
Which is true, but silly. SpaceX's rocket business is currently a $4B/year business. SpaceX's $2T valuation has nothing to do with launching rockets, a little bit to do with being an ISP and a lot to do with AI hype.
Yes, they claim the TAM for AI is 24 trillion dollars. Do with that what you will.
The $2T valuation definitely depends on Starship working well. Orbital data centers have no chance of being profitable otherwise.
Not convinced it means anything in one way or another.
I remember the same headlines right after Facebook's IPO. The discourse was very much that it was obvious that a website to connect with your friends wouldn't make money.
Facebook was profitable
What's your point? If people were skeptical of Facebook even if it was profitable then it reinforces the grandparent comment's point.
SpaceX is too with the Anthropic/Google deal
Not is: might be.
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM
AD TERRAM!
YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS!
It certainly wasn't a StarCraft or gaming reference, though I'm not surprised it was interpreted that way (personally bowed out of RTS ~C&C1). I do think you've got a good millennial-cultural catch-phrase for the zeitgeist AI datacenter funk there, though!
I wish I could train Claude to end every statement it utters with "YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITION PYLONS".
And have it be permanently embedded.
For the sake of clarity, it's well above its historic IPO price, but near or slightly below where it began trading that day once it officially opened.
Historic IPO price? It opened at $160 10 days ago, did it not? Currently it is below that price. What historic price are you referring to?
IPO price was $135
Wait for tomorrow...
The IPO price for SpaceX was _delusional_. The price now is delusional. Especially since it's so dependent on the US government for revenue and he's done everything possible to irritate the party that's about to take over the federal budget.
It was insane to me that a company that had less than thirty-billion in revenue was valued at more than a trillion. I'm not sure how the People in Charge didn't call bullshit.
There are no people in charge.
The way exponential maths works, if a company really can grow at (for example) 10% per annum then it can grow into what looks initially like a very high PE multiple on current earnings surprisingly quickly.
This is why people sometimes use forward P/E but that does have the obvious drawback of the denominator not actually existing yet.
However with SpaceX the valuation is extreme and also can they grow at that rate for years on end? Potentially not
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
why would you even invest into this bubble
because i am smarter than the next guy and will know when to get out.
Marketing and promotion.
I think it was completely obvious from the outset that this was a pump and dump scam. I'm waiting for the insider trading charges to hit.
No insiders have been able to sell yet, and won't for another couple months.
Elon and some major early investors are locked up for a whole year.
US doesn't enforce laws concerning financial crimes anymore. Or laws on milk purity, either.
pump and dump scheme, but your 401k bought some.
One thing I learned recently is that Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTI) is float-weighted. That means that SpaceX's percentage in the index is based on the value of the floating shares, not the total market cap. As a result, a fund like VTI, for now, doesn't have that much SpaceX. It will add more as the lockup periods expire and the float increases, but increasing float might also drive down the price.
Looks like the holdings update at the end of each month. Check back in ~8 days and look for SPCX!
https://advisors.vanguard.com/investments/products/vti/vangu... (there's a search by ticker under Holdings)
They didn't even start on the dump part yet. Only initial 5% of the shares are trading so far.
Do 401k's know about pump-and-dump, but think they can time it to make profit? Or are 401ks "bound" to buy stocks?
It feels like a lot of retail buyers know the emperor is naked, but are still acting on greed, thinking they can "catch the falling knife" and time the market departure to profit from the hype...
I think it's much simpler. A lot of funds are tied to things like the NASDAQ-100, which SpaceX figured out how to get fast-tracked for. Once it's officially on the NASDAQ-100, stuff like QQQ has to buy it, whether or not people like the idea of it.
Of course active investors could do something like short Space X by exactly the amount that their funds have to more or less "cancel out" their investment, but most people aren't active investors.
A lot of them are heavily invested in index funds that added SpaceX at IPO due to market cap.
The big indexes have a cooldown period before buying, which these scam artists attempted to radically shorten before the IPO, but they failed (at least partially). The S&P500, for example, will delay a year before adding it to the index. Nasdaq 100 was talked into reducing it to 15 days, so you might want to get out of the Nasdaq 100.
I got rid of all my QQQ, which was substantial, but I didn't convert all my vulnerable portfolio because I wanted to minimize how much I pay in taxes.
I now use the Interactive Brokers MCP to make a "pseudo QQQ" which has all companies except Tesla and SpaceX in there, and I otherwise use the same weights as the official QQQ. In order to avoid tax overhead, my rebalancing is buy-only, no selling, so it's not a perfect analog to QQQ but it's close enough and I at least got some of my capital out of SpaceX.
S&P still requires one year(?) profitability, which SpaceX has yet to achieve. The recent datacenter rentals might have pushed it into a profitable quarter.
They can solve that with “creative accounting”.
Notably, today was the first batch of additions, which really does lend credence to the idea that it's just about people getting out after the forced buying. We'll see what happens in early July when it makes it into the Nasdaq 100.
What's that theory? Who are the "people getting out after the forced buying"? People who bought assuming there would be an increase in price due to forced buying?
Right. As the "short squeeze" dramas have shown, pump and dump victims these days can have a surprising amount of literacy on market dynamics. I would guess there's quite a lot of SpaceX investors who were convinced that the stock can't go down because the indexes have to buy it.
Palantir -6.98%
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/PLTR/
Context?
Just a thing I noticed in a sidebar when I opened the link.
Let's grab some popcorn.
- Price/Sales about 128x (NVIDIA had a peak of a 40x at its peak)
- Bought Twitter per 44 billions. Inflated its valuation to $250 billion just by integrating it into X.AI
- EnterpriseValue/EBITDA about 219x (30x for scaleup business) and negative Price-to-Earnings
- Low free-float trick (minimal public shares available)
Even the market efficiency hypothesis struggles to justify it
If the Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI deals stay afloat, the numbers are much better.
Spare a thought for the investors who bought SPCX at $218 on the 16 June at 10:00AM...They REALLY needed that stock....
That's bad for ETF owners too. Funds will be legally forced to buy a tightly restricted supply that will pump the price even more