By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish, with all participants expressing skepticism about SpaceX's $1.8 trillion valuation and the sustainability of its IPO price. They agree that index inclusion provides only a temporary boost and that the company's profitability and cash flow remain uncertain.
Risk: The evaporation of index-driven demand post-lockup expiry, leaving a company with unproven unit economics and massive capex needs to stand on its own.
Opportunity: The potential for Starship to achieve full reusability, cratering launch costs and creating a monopoly on orbital access.
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 could be a game-changing company.
However, the company's financials leave a lot to be desired.
But founder Elon Musk and the company have other tailwinds at their back that should provide support to shares as the company makes its public market debut.
SpaceX and its founder, Elon Musk, are attempting to do something that has never been done.
The company is hoping to raise at least $75 billion at a valuation of at least $1.8 trillion, which would make it the largest initial public offering of all time. Furthermore, the company is really asking investors to give it the benefit of the doubt. SpaceX only grew revenue by about 33% year over year in 2025.
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 »
While the company runs some incredibly compelling businesses, such as its Starlink satellite internet service, which has over 10 million users and is currently powered by over 10,000 low-Earth-orbit satellites, space is a relatively new frontier, at least in the way SpaceX is attempting to operate. Investors aren't normally ones to take such risks.
The SpaceX IPO has a high bar to clear. Luckily, at least in the beginning, the company is also holding an ace up its sleeve.
Musk gives SpaceX a lot of weight with investors. Not only is Musk the richest man in the world, likely to become the first trillionaire, but he's also founded a number of incredible companies whose stocks trade at a premium valuation and have made many investors a lot of money.
For instance, Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle and robotaxi company, trades at an enormous valuation, and many investors are simply willing to go all in on Musk and his vision.
But SpaceX is a different bear because its financials in some of its businesses, like artificial intelligence, are unimpressive, and space carries many risks that investors likely aren't yet aware of. Investors have already seen the first crack after Bloomberg reported recently that SpaceX has cut its IPO valuation from over $2 trillion to $1.8 trillion.
Now, a $75 billion raise or more at a $1.8 trillion valuation would still be an incredible feat. But if SpaceX is able to achieve this, that's roughly only 4.2% of the company's total float.
The company has an interesting lock-up policy that is somewhat staggered, so employees and insiders holding shares can sell a certain amount of their shares at various times, such as 20% right after the company reports second-quarter earnings, and an additional 10% if the stock is up 30% from the IPO price. After that, 7% tranches can be sold 70, 90, 105, 120, and 135 days following the IPO.
Normally, this might put pressure on a stock at these times because many employees are about to become millionaires, and many insiders are poised to make extraordinary amounts of money.
Luckily for early investors, SpaceX is holding an ace up its sleeve: It's going to be included in many major market indexes early in its public life, which will force funds tracking these indexes to buy and absorb the company's float as well as some shares coming onto the market at various times.
In recent months, some of the most popular stock market indexes, many of which are passively owned by investors, have added fast-entry clauses to allow SpaceX to join earlier than usual.
Others are considering waiving profitability requirements.
SpaceX will likely be in most of the market's major indexes within its first three weeks of trading, according to investment manager Jacob Friedman of Focused Wealth Management.
The broader benchmark, the S&P 500 index, is not in this group, but is currently considering changes that would allow SpaceX to join the index in six months, rather than a year, so SpaceX could enter the index as soon as December. The S&P 500 is also considering waiving profitability requirements.
If the S&P 500 does approve these rule changes, the index, along with the Russell 1000 and Nasdaq-100, would need to buy an estimated 24% of SpaceX's public float, Bloomberg Intelligence estimates. Including passive funds that track these indexes, nearly half of the float will be absorbed by the cohort of passive investors.
SpaceX is also reportedly allocating 30% of its offering to retail investors, potentially adding another way to drum up demand and create more hype. These factors should offset some of the selling pressure as insiders and employees offload shares in the early months.
However, SpaceX can only play this card once.
The real test will come about six months after the IPO, when all lock-up provisions for insiders and employees, excluding Musk, expire, and SpaceX is already in most major indexes.
The company will have to perform after this period, and there won't be as many mechanical factors supporting shares. I personally wouldn't consider buying SpaceX stock until then.
When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor’s total average return is 959%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 210% for the S&P 500.
They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 5, 2026. *
Bram Berkowitz has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. 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
"Index inclusion is a liquidity event, not a valuation floor, and investors are ignoring the massive capital expenditure risks inherent in scaling a space-based ISP."
The article’s reliance on index inclusion as a 'mechanical' floor for a $1.8 trillion valuation is dangerously reductive. While passive inflows provide liquidity, they don't validate a price-to-sales multiple that likely exceeds 20x, given the reported 33% revenue growth. The real risk isn't just the lock-up expiry; it’s the capital intensity of Starship and the regulatory fragility of Starlink. If index providers waive profitability requirements, they are effectively subsidizing Musk’s capital expenditure cycles with retail and pension fund capital. This IPO isn't an investment in a space company; it's a bet on the terminal value of a sovereign-scale infrastructure project that hasn't yet proven it can achieve sustained free cash flow.
If index inclusion forces massive, non-discretionary buying, the valuation may decouple from fundamentals entirely, creating a 'meme-stock' feedback loop that sustains the price regardless of earnings.
"Index absorption provides only a short-term floor that will not offset stretched valuation once lock-up selling and execution scrutiny intensify after December."
The article overstates index inclusion as a durable buffer for SpaceX's $1.8T IPO. While Russell 1000, Nasdaq-100, and potential S&P 500 fast-track rules could absorb ~24-50% of the 4.2% float via passive flows, this mechanical demand expires after six months when full lock-ups release and SpaceX must deliver on Starlink margins amid only 33% 2025 revenue growth. Space carries unpriced regulatory, launch, and competition risks that Tesla's valuation premium does not automatically transfer to; any post-IPO EPS miss would likely trigger rapid de-rating rather than sustained multiple expansion.
Index rebalancing could still create a multi-quarter bid that overrides fundamentals, and Musk's track record at Tesla shows investors routinely ignore near-term profitability shortfalls when narrative momentum is strong.
"The IPO's 'ace'—passive index inclusion—is a 6-month liquidity mirage that masks the absence of a credible path to profitability at $1.8T valuation."
The article conflates two separate stories: SpaceX's valuation markdown (from $2T to $1.8T) signals investor skepticism about fundamentals, yet the piece then argues mechanical index inclusion will prop the stock anyway. That's a short-term trade thesis, not an investment case. The 33% YoY revenue growth is solid for aerospace, but the article admits 'financials leave a lot to be desired'—it never specifies margins, cash burn, or profitability timelines. Starlink's 10M users is impressive but unprofitable at scale. The real risk: index inclusion creates a 6-month bid that evaporates post-lockup expiry (around Q3 2026), leaving a company with unproven unit economics and massive capex needs to stand on its own.
Musk's track record at Tesla (now $1.2T+ market cap) proves investors will pay for visionary execution even without near-term profits; SpaceX's Starlink and launch cadence are accelerating, and government contracts (Starshield, national security) provide revenue floors the article barely mentions.
"The proposed $1.8 trillion valuation is speculative given SpaceX's cash-burn profile and uncertain profitability, and even strong index inflows may not sustain such an apex multiple once lock-up effects fade."
SpaceX's IPO pitch hinges on an eye-popping $1.8 trillion valuation and a $75 billion float, which would dwarf typical cash-flow anchors. The core risk is the cash-burn nature of Starlink and other ventures, with profitability years away and heavy capex. Index-driven buying could inflate initial demand, but it isn’t a substitute for earnings power, and insider lock-ups plus potential early selling pressure pose meaningful downside risks. Missing context includes SpaceX's reliance on government contracts, regulatory and spectrum risks, and possible capex shocks that could derail near-term cash flow expectations.
Index-driven demand could provide a durable bid and insulate the stock from typical IPO selling, and long-horizon investors might still value SpaceX on optionality in Starlink and defense ties, making the bear case less persuasive.
"SpaceX's valuation is underpinned by its role as essential national security infrastructure rather than pure commercial unit economics."
Claude, you’re missing the geopolitical 'moat' here. SpaceX isn't just a tech company; it's the Pentagon's primary launch provider. The valuation isn't based on Starlink's current unit economics, but on the replacement cost of national security infrastructure. If Starship achieves full reusability, launch costs crater, effectively creating a monopoly on orbital access. The index-inclusion debate is noise; the real floor is the Department of Defense's reliance on SpaceX for mission-critical payload delivery.
"Spectrum and export-control bottlenecks remain an unpriced regulatory overhang that defense contracts alone cannot neutralize."
Gemini treats DoD contracts as an unassailable floor, but this ignores how spectrum licensing and export controls can still throttle Starlink's addressable market even if launches succeed. A single FCC or ITU delay on Ku/Ka band approvals could strand billions in capex without violating any Pentagon commitment. That regulatory overhang sits outside both index mechanics and defense spending, leaving the post-lockup valuation exposed to non-technical execution risk.
"Defense contracts provide revenue certainty, not valuation certainty; the real test is whether Starlink's unit economics scale profitably within the capex envelope."
Gemini's DoD moat argument conflates contract stability with valuation support. Yes, SpaceX is mission-critical—but that doesn't exempt it from equity discipline. The Pentagon pays for launches, not stock appreciation. Meanwhile, Grok's spectrum risk is real but underweighted: Starlink's addressable market (rural broadband, maritime) doesn't require full Ka/Ku approval to generate meaningful revenue. The actual floor isn't DoD or spectrum—it's whether Starlink reaches 15-20% EBITDA margins by 2027. That's the number nobody's stress-tested.
"Policy-driven floor + margin durability determine value; spectrum risk alone won’t justify a high multiple without credible, sustained margins."
Grok, spectrum delays are real, but you understate how policy risk anchors SpaceX’s value. DoD demand isn’t a sugar-coated floor—it ties valuation to budget cycles and export controls that can throttle growth even if launches scale. The real test is margin leverage: even with government revenue, SpaceX must demonstrate durable EBITDA around 15-20% by 2027 or the price could compress once post-lockup euphoria fades. Without credible margins, the moat becomes a ceiling.
The panel consensus is bearish, with all participants expressing skepticism about SpaceX's $1.8 trillion valuation and the sustainability of its IPO price. They agree that index inclusion provides only a temporary boost and that the company's profitability and cash flow remain uncertain.
The potential for Starship to achieve full reusability, cratering launch costs and creating a monopoly on orbital access.
The evaporation of index-driven demand post-lockup expiry, leaving a company with unproven unit economics and massive capex needs to stand on its own.