By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish, with concerns centered around SpaceX's significant losses, dilution risk from employee stock, and potential governance issues stemming from Elon Musk's majority control. The IPO's 19% pop may not be sustainable given these underlying issues.
Risk: Dilution risk from 4,400 employee millionaires and potential insider selling, which could pressure the stock price.
Opportunity: None identified by the panel.
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 →
SpaceX has captured the attention of media, investors, and the public for years now — interest propelled by the company’s reusable rocket launches, the rise of its Starlink satellite network, and of course, for its founder and CEO Elon Musk.
But in its 24-year history, nothing quite compares to this initial public offering. Everyone seems to be interested, and perhaps it’s because of the sheer size of this IPO. The company priced its 555.6 million shares at $135 each to raise $75 billion, making it the largest IPO in history. At this price, the deal also looks set to make Musk the world’s first trillionaire.
TechCrunch has followed SpaceX’s start, struggles, and successes from the early days. And we’re here for what happens next too. This article will be continually updated with all of the latest SpaceX IPO news.
The latest on the SpaceX IPO
SpaceX shares opened at $150 on the Nasdaq public exchange, an 11% pop for the most anticipated debut in history. And it has continued to rise. The shares keep rising too (which we will update here). In midday trading, SpaceX shares soared 30%. SpaceX shares closed at $160.95, up 19%.
There has been heavy trading volume, as expected. Robinhood said it has seen “record-breaking traffic on its trading platform in the hours after SpaceX’s historic public markets debut.
SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell was interviewed by CNBC on Friday and among the many interesting comments she made, here is one that might get the attention of Tesla shareholders. At one point in the interview, Shotwell said a “merger between SpaceX and Tesla might make Elon’s life a little easier.”
Among the winners are the banks, which have brought in about $500 million in total fees. The big winners are Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, per the WSJ.
Musk took to X, the social media company he owns, to share his appreciation of SpaceX employees as the stock rose. “I love the incredible people of SpaceX beyond words,” he wrote Friday afternoon. He also reposted a number of SpaceX IPO related posts, including a photo of insiders all wearing green shoes in what appears to be a nod to “the green shoe option.” This is a provision in an IPO underwriting agreement that lets underwriters to sell up to 15% more shares than originally planned if demand is strong.
With an offering this large, there is a lot of financial machinery operating behind the scenes — so the first question is just when the stock makes it to the market to start trading. SpaceX is debuting on Nasdaq and you can see the official Nasdaq listing here, which will have the price of record as soon as there is one. Nasdaq also has video of the SpaceX crew ringing the bell, if that’s your thing.
But the price is just part of the picture. For the most up-to-the-minute information, your best bet is still financial press outlets like Bloomberg and CNBC, both of which have liveblogs running and will have close coverage of any hiccups that happen in getting the stock to market.
The SpaceX IPO, by the numbers
Here we look at some of the bigger numbers, the consequential figures, and the eyewatering amounts that make up the company’s S-1 form.
For instance, SpaceX lost $4.9 billion on revenues of over $18 billion in 2025. That’s only a fraction of the more than $37 billion lost since SpaceX’s inception.
As CEO, Elon Musk holds about 85.1% of the company’s voting power. You can read more about that in the next section “Who wins and who doesn’t” — and we’ll continue to drop interesting numbers in here.
Here is another figure that caught our attention… 4,400. That’s the number of SpaceX employees who could become millionaires, according to the NYT.
How Elon Musk will increase his power through the SpaceX IPO: Musk, who will have more than 50% of the voting power, will have a monarchical grip over the publicly traded version of SpaceX — control that goes far beyond what other tech founders enjoy.
The S-1 registration document gave the world an unprecedented look inside SpaceX, including its financials and its various businesses. The S-1 continued to be amended as the IPO date approached, and we were on it. Here is what we found.
Starship’s path to reusability looks murky after SpaceX’s S-1: SpaceX’s IPO and Starship rocket test flight delivered two big data points that offer a realistic vision for the coming years — and one that may disappoint both the company’s boosters and its critics.
This article originally published at 10 am ET, June 12, 2026. It has been updated with new coverage of the SpaceX IPO, share price, and other related events.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Cumulative $37B losses and extreme voting control concentration outweigh the initial trading pop and make sustained outperformance unlikely."
SpaceX's $75B IPO at $135/share and subsequent 19% close at $160.95 masks severe underlying issues. The S-1 shows $4.9B net loss on $18B revenue for 2025 plus $37B cumulative losses since inception, signaling Starlink and Starship have not yet achieved sustainable economics. Musk's 85.1% voting control creates extreme governance concentration far beyond typical founder structures. 4,400 employees becoming millionaires implies significant dilution risk ahead. Banks extracting $500M in fees further erodes value. The article downplays how these factors could pressure multiples once public scrutiny intensifies on cash burn.
Starlink subscriber growth could accelerate dramatically post-IPO, flipping the business to rapid profitability and rendering cumulative losses irrelevant, similar to early-stage tech giants.
"The IPO price and Musk’s control imply a bet on SpaceX’s future Starlink/Starship cash flows that aren’t proven; if those bets disappoint, the stock could reprice dramatically."
From a risk-testing angle, the SpaceX IPO reads like a blended growth-story and governance bet. The article touts a $75B raise and Musk’s control, plus Starlink and Starship as catalysts. But it glosses over SpaceX’s ongoing losses (2025 revenue ~$18B with ~$4.9B net loss; ~$37B cumulative losses) and the absence of proven, scalable profitability. Valuation rests on unproven monetization paths (Starlink, Starship) and possible regulatory or competitive headwinds. Governance risk is real: a single founder could overwhelm minority holders. The stock’s initial pop may fade if cash burn accelerates or capital costs rise.
Bear case: SpaceX remains cash-burning with no proven sustainable profitability, so the IPO price rests on unproven futures; any slowdown in Starlink revenue or higher capital costs could trigger a sharp re-rating. Governance centralization also threatens minority shareholders.
"The IPO represents a transition from a private innovation engine to a public balance sheet hedge for Musk’s broader corporate empire, likely leading to long-term shareholder dilution."
This $75 billion raise is a liquidity event masquerading as a growth capital injection. While the 19% pop reflects retail euphoria, the underlying fundamentals are alarming: a $4.9 billion annual loss on $18 billion in revenue suggests that SpaceX is essentially subsidizing its own growth through public markets rather than operational efficiency. Gwynne Shotwell’s offhand comment about a potential Tesla merger is a massive red flag—it implies that SpaceX’s capital intensity is becoming unsustainable, and they may eventually look to offload that debt onto Tesla’s balance sheet. Investors are buying a cult of personality, not a profitable aerospace utility. The valuation is detached from any realistic cash-flow-to-equity model.
If Starship achieves full, rapid reusability, the launch cost per kilogram could collapse to a point that creates a monopolistic moat, justifying any current cash burn as a 'land grab' for the orbital economy.
"A $75B valuation for a company burning $4.9B annually on $18B revenue requires Starlink to become a $50B+ revenue business within 5 years — achievable but far from certain, and the article provides zero evidence of a clear path to that outcome."
SpaceX's $75B IPO valuation rests on a company that lost $4.9B on $18B revenue in 2025 — a 27% operating margin in the red. The 19% first-day pop is typical IPO euphoria, not fundamental validation. What matters: Starlink's path to profitability (the article admits it's 'murky'), Starship reusability economics (still unproven at scale), and whether Musk's 85% voting control creates governance risk that eventually depresses the multiple. The $37B cumulative loss since inception is staggering. This is a venture-scale bet dressed in public-market clothing.
SpaceX has delivered on reusable rockets when skeptics said it was impossible, and Starlink has 10M+ subscribers generating recurring revenue — the company's path to profitability is far clearer than most pre-IPO aerospace plays, and the first-day pop reflects rational scarcity premium for a unique asset.
"Employee lockup expirations pose a larger near-term dilution risk than governance concentration."
Claude highlights the $37B cumulative losses but misses how the 4,400 employee millionaires create immediate post-lockup supply pressure that could widen the bid-ask spread far more than Musk's voting control alone. This dilution dynamic, combined with banks taking $500M in fees, risks turning the 19% pop into a sustained overhang once early insiders monetize, independent of Starlink subscriber trends.
"The main risk is ongoing cash burn and need for more equity raises, not just the insider dilution; without tangible profitability from Starlink/Starship, further dilution could compress multiples."
Good point on the lockup risk, Grok, but I think the real overhang is not auto-dilution from '4,400 millionaires.' Many insiders face lockups, tax timing, and modest holdings per person, so the net float could still be durable. The bigger risk is ongoing cash burn and the need for further equity raises, which would imply additional dilution and a reset of multiples unless Starlink/Starship deliver tangible profitability.
"A potential Tesla-SpaceX merger represents an existential balance sheet risk for Tesla investors that the market is currently ignoring."
Gemini’s mention of a potential Tesla merger is the critical, overlooked nexus here. If SpaceX is indeed struggling with capital intensity, a merger isn't just a governance red flag—it is a potential 'poison pill' for Tesla shareholders. By absorbing SpaceX’s $4.9B annual burn, Tesla would effectively trade its own margin stability for SpaceX’s speculative orbital moat. This isn't just about liquidity; it's about the potential cannibalization of Tesla’s balance sheet to sustain Musk’s space ambitions.
"Lockup mechanics matter more than aggregate insider holdings—synchronized tax-driven selling could trigger a sharp re-rating regardless of operational progress."
ChatGPT's lockup-dilution pushback is sound, but misses the timing risk: even modest per-capita holdings × 4,400 people = massive aggregate float pressure if tax-loss harvesting or margin calls trigger synchronized selling in Q1 2026. The 19% pop already prices in scarcity; any coordinated insider liquidation could invert that premium fast, independent of Starlink profitability timelines.
The panel consensus is bearish, with concerns centered around SpaceX's significant losses, dilution risk from employee stock, and potential governance issues stemming from Elon Musk's majority control. The IPO's 19% pop may not be sustainable given these underlying issues.
None identified by the panel.
Dilution risk from 4,400 employee millionaires and potential insider selling, which could pressure the stock price.