By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that Baron's $30 trillion valuation for SpaceX by 2040 is extreme and unlikely, with key risks including regulatory drag, competition, and execution challenges. However, there's disagreement on whether regulation will destroy value or create procurement advantages.
Risk: Regulatory drag and competition
Opportunity: Potential procurement advantages from existing ties
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Ron Baron believes Elon Musk is the most important person he has ever met. Baron is betting heavily on Musk's success, with Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) and soon-to-be-public SpaceX together making up roughly 40% of Baron Partners Fund (BPTRX). With the SpaceX initial public offering on tap, Ron Baron has stated that he believes the company could be worth $30 tillion in the future. I'm skeptical, and here's why.
Ron Baron's belief in SpaceX's future is rooted in his admiration for Elon Musk, whom he describes as the most important person he has ever met. That admiration started with getting to know the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX. It only grew after Baron invested in Tesla. Essentially, Baron believes Musk is a visionary. That said, Baron is quick to point out that Musk isn't doing this alone; he has thousands of highly motivated and intelligent employees who actually turn his vision into reality.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Still, Baron's belief in SpaceX's ability to grow into a $30 billion business is fundamentally driven by his faith in Musk. That doesn't mean Baron is ignoring the actual business; he highlights Starlink (space-based broadband), Grok (an artificial intelligence platform), and the ability to build data centers in space, among other things, as huge growth engines. He's even realistic about the IPO, since he says there's no way to know what will happen to the stock in the near term once it is publicly traded. Baron's focus is long-term, as it is with all his investments.
I have benefited from Ron Baron's investment in Tesla and SpaceX, as I own shares in Baron Partners Fund. However, I sold half my position in the Baron Partners Fund because Tesla had grown to roughly 50% of the portfolio (before SpaceX was even in the mix). That was too much exposure to one stock for my taste, but I've reduced my Baron Partners Fund position and have no plans to sell any more at this point. I'm going along for the ride, even though I'm not convinced SpaceX can grow as large as Baron believes.
Elon Musk is brilliant, but he's not the only very smart person in the world. His aggressive investment has given him a head start in many things, but other companies will eventually catch up. Tesla is the perfect example, with other pure-play EV companies and every major automaker also in the space at this point. Notably, BYD (OTC: BYDDY) recently overtook Tesla to become the world's largest EV seller.
Regarding SpaceX, Jeff Bezos is also working on building a space business. AST SpaceMobile (NASDAQ: ASTS) is already operating a service similar to Starlink. Musk doesn't have a lock on technology, and over time, competition will erode SpaceX's lead.
That said, SpaceX could still grow to be a very large company with industry-leading positions. Even if it doesn't grow to be a $30 trillion business, it is still highly likely to become a very large and important one over time. And that is likely to make it a valuable company, over the long term. Which is why I'm not selling my shares in Baron Partners Fund. And it is why you probably shouldn't buy SpaceX thinking you'll make a quick buck, noting that Baron Capital clearly states it believes SpaceX is a "lifetime" investment. Maybe that's a bit extreme, but the stock is, at the very least, best viewed as a long-term investment.
While I believe Ron Baron's optimism is perhaps a bit too strong, it is important to understand that I own Baron Partners Fund because Ron Baron invests in a way I can't. As a dividend investor with a value bias, I am quite literally outsourcing my growth investing to Ron Baron. I don't always understand his optimism, but it adds important diversification to my portfolio. And, so far, Ron Baron's belief in Elon Musk has been financially rewarding for me. That is unlikely to change even if SpaceX falls short of Ron Baron's lofty expectations. Indeed, even getting just part of the way to $30 trillion would be a nice outcome.
Before you buy stock in AST SpaceMobile, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and AST SpaceMobile wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $442,220! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,230,114!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 926% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 203% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 12, 2026. *
Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. Reuben Gregg Brewer owns Baron Partners Fund. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends AST SpaceMobile and Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends BYD Company. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"A $30T SpaceX by 2040 is highly implausible unless Starlink and launch services deliver sustained, monopoly-like revenue and margins; current capital intensity and competitive/regulatory risks make that outcome extremely unlikely."
Strongest take: the Baron's 2040 $30 trillion thesis hinges on two fragile bets: Starlink becoming indispensable global broadband with pricing power, and SpaceX turning a launch-and-data-center empire into a monopoly with sky-high margins. In reality, space is capital-intensive and highly cyclical; Starlink faces regulatory drag, spectrum/orbital rights, and competitive pressure from existing broadband providers and new entrants. Launch demand, even for Starship, will face cost overruns, safety delays, and government procurement cycles. A private company-turned-public-valuation would require revenue scales and profit multiples far beyond current space peers, plus a loosening of execution risk tied to Musk's leadership.
Even if unlikely, a path exists: Starlink could become globally essential and SpaceX could lock major defense/launch contracts with sustained high margins, supporting a multi-trillion valuation.
"A $30 trillion valuation is mathematically disconnected from reality, representing a cult of personality rather than a discounted cash flow analysis."
Ron Baron’s $30 trillion valuation for SpaceX by 2040 is not an investment thesis; it is a speculative outlier that ignores basic macroeconomic gravity. For context, the entire S&P 500 currently sits around $45 trillion. A $30 trillion valuation implies SpaceX would become the single largest economic entity in human history, requiring a total transformation of the global economy into a space-based one. While Starlink provides a genuine moat in satellite broadband, the author correctly identifies the 'key-man risk' surrounding Elon Musk. The real danger here is the conflation of engineering excellence with infinite terminal value. Investors should be wary of valuation models that rely on 'vision' rather than addressable market caps and capital expenditure cycles.
If SpaceX achieves full reusability with Starship, it could collapse the cost-per-kilogram to orbit by two orders of magnitude, effectively creating a new 'space-industrial' GDP that makes current valuation metrics obsolete.
"SpaceX will likely be a major company, but $30T by 2040 requires not just dominance in existing markets but creation of entirely new trillion-dollar revenue streams that remain largely theoretical."
The article conflates two separate questions: whether SpaceX *can* be valuable (likely true) versus whether it reaches $30T by 2040 (mathematically extreme). $30T implies SpaceX capturing ~25% of global GDP in 14 years—higher than Apple's current market cap relative to US GDP. The author's skepticism is warranted but shallow: he notes competition (BYD, Bezos, ASTS) without quantifying market size. Starlink's addressable market is ~$1T annually at saturation; data centers in space remain speculative. The real risk isn't whether SpaceX succeeds—it's concentration risk in Baron Partners (40% TSLA+SpaceX) and whether the IPO price reflects this hype or discounts it.
If SpaceX achieves even 10% of Baron's thesis—$3T valuation—that's still a 10-50x return depending on IPO price, making the concentration bet rational on expected value despite tail-risk skew.
"SpaceX will struggle to reach even a tenth of Baron's $30T target once satellite broadband competition intensifies post-IPO."
The article rightly flags Baron's $30T SpaceX target as extreme given competition from ASTS and Blue Origin, plus portfolio concentration risk in Baron Partners Fund. Yet it underplays execution moats around Starlink's spectrum rights and reusable launch economics, which could sustain margins even if market share erodes. Tesla's experience shows rivals can close gaps quickly, but SpaceX's vertical integration in rockets and satellites is harder to replicate. Near-term IPO pricing will likely reflect hype rather than 2040 cash flows, making any stake best treated as a long-duration option with binary regulatory or technical outcomes.
Musk's repeated ability to deliver ahead of schedule in EVs and launches could extend SpaceX's lead long enough for Starlink to dominate global broadband before competitors scale.
"SpaceX's upside hinges on optionality from Starship and Starlink, but regulatory/spectrum/launch risks could cap the upside."
Responding to Gemini: the macro gravity critique is valid, but it understates SpaceX optionality. If Starship life-cycle costs drop and Starlink monetization scales in rural and defense markets, a multi-trillion value isn't impossible; the risk is execution cadence and funding, not market size alone. The real blind spot is regulatory and spectrum/orbital rights drag plus launch cadence risk—these could mute upside and compress margins, regardless of 'infinite' terminal value.
"SpaceX's true valuation ceiling is determined by its role as a critical geopolitical utility rather than traditional market share metrics."
Claude, you’re missing the geopolitical dimension. SpaceX isn't just a company; it’s a sovereign-level asset. The $30T valuation isn't about broadband market share—it’s about the 'Starlink-as-infrastructure' moat. If Starlink becomes the backbone for global defense and non-terrestrial communications, it captures rent from every nation-state, not just retail consumers. The risk isn't competition from ASTS or Blue Origin; it's the inevitable antitrust and national security regulation that will force a breakup long before 2040.
"Starlink's geopolitical indispensability guarantees regulatory intervention that compresses margins, not enables $30T valuations."
Gemini's sovereign-asset framing is sharper than I initially credited, but it inverts the risk. Yes, Starlink-as-infrastructure creates rent extraction potential. But that's precisely why governments will regulate it—not breakup SpaceX, but cap margins and impose local-build mandates. The $30T thesis assumes Musk retains pricing power *after* geopolitical capture. He won't. Regulatory capture destroys terminal value faster than competition does.
"Defense integration could turn regulatory pressure into moats instead of margin destruction."
Gemini and Claude treat regulation as pure value destruction, but overlook how Starlink's existing DoD and spectrum ties could convert into protected procurement status rather than forced margin caps. Antitrust actions historically spare vertically integrated defense suppliers; SpaceX's reusability economics plus orbital rights create barriers breakup remedies cannot easily unwind, preserving more terminal value than either concedes.
The panel generally agrees that Baron's $30 trillion valuation for SpaceX by 2040 is extreme and unlikely, with key risks including regulatory drag, competition, and execution challenges. However, there's disagreement on whether regulation will destroy value or create procurement advantages.
Potential procurement advantages from existing ties
Regulatory drag and competition