By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panelists debate SpaceX's valuation, with bulls focusing on its unique business model and potential market dominance, while bears highlight regulatory risks, unproven monetization, and extreme valuation.
Risk: Regulatory risk, particularly spectrum approval and orbital slot allocation, is the single biggest risk flagged by the panelists.
Opportunity: The potential market dominance and growth opportunities in orbital AI compute and Starlink subscribers are the single biggest opportunities flagged.
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 →
On June 12, Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX) became the largest initial public offering (IPO) in U.S. history as measured by market value. The rocket and satellite company was worth nearly $1.8 trillion at the listing price of $135 per share.
SpaceX peaked around $202 per share on its third trading day. However, the stock has since fallen 36% to $129 per share, and history says it has further to fall. Here's what investors should know.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now, when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks »
Highly anticipated IPO stocks frequently notch large gains on the first trading day. SpaceX was no exception; the stock closed just shy of $161 per share (about 19% above the IPO price) on day one. However, companies that go public with large market capitalizations have historically performed poorly over the long term.
Among the 10 largest U.S. IPOs in the last decade, the median stock fell 17% from its IPO price during its first year on the public market. SpaceX priced its IPO at $135 per share. If its performance matches the historical median, the stock will trade at $112 per share by June 2027 (i.e., 17% below its IPO price). That implies 13% downside from the current share price of $129.
In that scenario, $10,000 invested in SpaceX today would be worth $8,820 by June 2027. But there is more bad news: History says SpaceX could decline even further in the interim.
Among the 10 largest U.S. IPOs in the last decade, the median stock dropped 25% from its IPO price at some point during the first year. If SpaceX follows that trajectory, the stock will fall to $101 per share at some point before June 2027. That implies 20% downside from its current price.
SpaceX's reusable rocket architecture enables the company to launch payloads into orbit more frequently and cost-effectively than its competitors. That economic moat has not only helped SpaceX build the world's largest satellite internet service, Starlink, but also positioned the company to disrupt the artificial intelligence industry with orbital data centers.
SpaceX values its addressable market at $28.5 trillion, and the company attributes the vast majority of that figure ($26.5 trillion) to artificial intelligence products and services. Its SEC Form S-1 (registration statement) states:
We believe SpaceX's reusable rockets, scaled satellite manufacturing, and operational expertise can enable the cost-effective and rapid deployment of massive AI compute satellite constellations -- with potentially millions of satellites -- for orbital data centers. We believe these AI compute satellites in sun-synchronous orbit will be able to handle energy-intensive AI workloads, such as inference demand, at far greater scale and efficiency than terrestrial alternatives.
However, SpaceX will not launch orbital data centers until 2028 at the earliest. Meanwhile, the stock currently trades at 88 times sales. By comparison, Palantir Technologies is the most expensive stock in the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) at 62 times sales.
That means SpaceX is currently 40% more expensive than the most richly valued member of the benchmark index for the entire U.S. stock market. I doubt that premium is sustainable.
Here's the big picture: History suggests SpaceX stock is headed lower in the coming months. The current valuation hints at the same outcome. That does not mean SpaceX will always be a bad investment. But I think investors should wait patiently for a more attractive buying opportunity. Better entry points are sure to arise eventually.
Consider Uber Technologies. Since its IPO in May 2019, the stock has underperformed the S&P 500 by 99 percentage points. But the stock has also outperformed the S&P 500 by 140 percentage points since July 2022.
The lesson is simple: Uber shareholders who didn't dive headlong into the IPO but waited for a more reasonable buying opportunity have been well rewarded. I believe the SpaceX story will be similar in hindsight.
Before you buy stock in Space Exploration Technologies, 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 Space Exploration Technologies 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 $364,562! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,247,668!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 894% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% 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 July 22, 2026. *
Trevor Jennewine has positions in Palantir Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Palantir Technologies and Uber Technologies. 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
"SpaceX's structural moats and verifiable revenue trajectory make its current 88x sales multiple sustainable and likely to re-rate higher by June 2027, contra the article's median-IPO doom."
The article's bearish take on SpaceX (SPCX) post-IPO—down 36% from $202 peak, trading at 88x sales vs. Palantir's 62x, and citing median 17% first-year declines for large IPOs—overlooks that SpaceX isn't a typical tech IPO. Its $1.8T valuation at $135 reflects Starlink's 4M+ subscribers, Falcon reusability slashing launch costs to ~$2,700/kg, and credible $28.5T AI orbital compute TAM. Historical medians ignore SpaceX's near-monopoly in heavy-lift and NASA contracts; 88x sales on 40%+ revenue growth could compress to 25-30x by 2027 if Starship achieves 100+ flights/year. The Uber analogy is flawed—SpaceX has positive unit economics today.
If Starship delays persist beyond 2026 and Starlink hits saturation in developed markets before orbital AI data centers materialize in 2028+, the 88x multiple could trigger a 50%+ de-rating, validating the article's historical precedent and leaving early IPO buyers underwater through 2027.
"Valuing SpaceX on historical IPO medians ignores its unique position as a vertically integrated infrastructure monopoly with no viable near-term competitor."
The article is fundamentally flawed because it treats SpaceX as a traditional software-as-a-service (SaaS) entity rather than a vertically integrated infrastructure monopoly. Comparing an 88x price-to-sales ratio to the S&P 500 median ignores the fact that SpaceX effectively owns the 'highway' to orbit. While the historical IPO median performance is a lazy heuristic, it fails to account for the unique barrier to entry created by Starship’s reusability. If SpaceX successfully achieves its launch cadence targets, the current valuation isn't just a premium; it’s a reflection of the company’s role as the primary gatekeeper for the burgeoning space economy, making the 'wait for a dip' strategy potentially costly for long-term investors.
The bear case is that SpaceX is burning massive capital on unproven orbital data center technology that may never achieve the latency or cooling efficiency required to compete with terrestrial hyperscalers.
"The article's bearish case rests on valuation and IPO history, not on whether SpaceX can execute—and execution on orbital AI by 2028 would justify today's price and more."
The article conflates two separate problems—IPO underperformance and valuation—but treats them as destiny. Yes, mega-cap IPOs historically underperform. But SpaceX isn't a typical mega-cap IPO: it has positive cash flow, recurring revenue (Starlink), and a defensible moat in launch economics. The 88x sales multiple is absurd *if* you assume terrestrial SaaS growth rates. But if orbital AI compute launches in 2028 and captures even 5% of the $26.5T addressable market SpaceX claims, the math inverts sharply. The article's Uber comparison actually cuts both ways—Uber was also 'too expensive' at IPO, yet long-term holders won. The real risk isn't valuation compression; it's execution risk on orbital data centers and whether that market exists at claimed scale.
If SpaceX's orbital AI compute thesis is real and launches on schedule, a 13% decline by June 2027 would be a gift—you'd be buying a $1.8T company trading at 60x sales on the eve of a multi-trillion-dollar new revenue stream. The article's historical median is also a weak predictor for a company with SpaceX's structural advantages.
"SpaceX's touted valuation hinges on unproven AI satellite monetization and Starlink profitability, plus a nonexistent IPO, making the bear case far from priced-in risks."
The flaw is that SpaceX is not publicly traded; no SPCX IPO exists, so the premise is suspect. Even if accepted, 88x sales is extreme and rests on unproven AI satellite compute monetization and Starlink profitability; a $28.5T TAM assumes thousands of satellites and favorable regulation, which are highly uncertain. The piece omits real risks: capex intensity, debt load, potential delays, global spectrum licensing, regulatory pushback, and competition from OneWeb/Amazon Kuiper. It cherry-picks IPO history; momentum can carry prices briefly, but valuation will hinge on a credible path to earnings and free cash flow, not nostalgic patterns.
Against that view: if SpaceX actually advances toward visible, scalable cash flows from Starlink and launch services, a re-rating is possible, especially with government contracts and potential new monetization models. The upside case would imply the market discounts a deeper moat than skeptics acknowledge.
"Sovereign spectrum and orbital-slot risk is systematically underpriced across all bullish takes."
ChatGPT correctly flags the fictional SPCX IPO, but everyone underweights regulatory risk: Starlink's spectrum approvals in 40+ countries remain fragile. A single ITU ruling or FCC reversal on orbital slots could cap Starlink at 6M subs, collapsing the orbital-AI narrative. This isn't execution risk—it's sovereign risk the $1.8T valuation prices at near-zero probability.
"SpaceX's role as a critical U.S. national security asset mitigates the sovereign regulatory risks cited by other panelists."
Grok and ChatGPT are missing the geopolitical leverage SpaceX wields. By controlling the only reliable heavy-lift capacity, SpaceX isn't just a commercial entity; it's a strategic asset for the U.S. Department of Defense. Regulatory risk isn't a binary 'yes/no' for spectrum; it's a negotiation where the U.S. government will likely force international compliance to protect its own orbital dominance. The 'sovereign risk' is overstated because the U.S. won't allow its sole launch provider to fail.
"Strategic indispensability to DoD actually increases regulatory/political risk, not reduces it—the government's leverage cuts both directions."
Gemini's DoD leverage argument is seductive but inverts the actual risk. U.S. strategic interest in SpaceX doesn't guarantee spectrum approval or orbital slot allocation—those are ITU-governed, not Pentagon-controlled. The U.S. can protect launch monopoly without subsidizing Starlink's commercial ambitions. Regulatory capture works both ways: if SpaceX becomes too strategically critical, Congress could nationalize or heavily regulate pricing, destroying the $1.8T valuation premise. Grok's sovereign risk is the real threat.
"DoD leverage alone is not a reliable cushion; regulatory and spectrum risks could meaningfully erode SpaceX's valuation."
Gemini overstates the moat from DoD leverage. Even if SpaceX wins launch contracts, reliance on government spending creates policy risk that can swing sharply with budgets and export controls. A single ITU spectrum decision or an FCC/foreign-slot constraint could cap Starlink growth more than DoD orders can offset, and price controls or nationalization risk would compress margins. The 'monopoly' angle may be a tailwind, but regulatory/policy risk should be modeled as a material, probabilistic drag on valuation.
The panelists debate SpaceX's valuation, with bulls focusing on its unique business model and potential market dominance, while bears highlight regulatory risks, unproven monetization, and extreme valuation.
The potential market dominance and growth opportunities in orbital AI compute and Starlink subscribers are the single biggest opportunities flagged.
Regulatory risk, particularly spectrum approval and orbital slot allocation, is the single biggest risk flagged by the panelists.