By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX, citing interconnected risks between Starlink's deteriorating margins and the speculative xAI infrastructure spending, as well as the potential impact of the August lockup expiry on the stock price.
Risk: The interconnected risks between Starlink's margins and xAI funding, as well as the potential impact of the August lockup expiry on the stock price.
Opportunity: The potential for Starship's reusability to slash launch costs and Starlink's margins expanding as scale hits.
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 →
While investors spent the week focused on a brutal sell-off in chip stocks, rocket maker and satellite internet company SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) quietly kept falling. Shares slid 5.4% on Friday to close at $123.99. That marked a sixth straight daily decline, an all-time closing low for the stock's brief public life, and a level below the $135 price from its June initial public offering (IPO).
The slide has been more of a drip than a crash, which may be why many investors haven't registered it. But the cumulative damage is significant.
Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »
Shares peaked at $225.64 shortly after their debut, so the stock has lost about 45% of its value in roughly a month.
So is this newly cheaper SpaceX finally worth buying? I don't think so.
There hasn't been a single blow. Instead, several pressures have stacked up.
In late June, SpaceX priced $25 billion of senior notes in its first bond offering as a public company. The notes come due between 2031 and 2056, at interest rates running from 5.35% to 6.65%. Management said the proceeds would repay the borrowings under its bridge loan facility in full (debt largely tied to folding Elon Musk's xAI and X into SpaceX ahead of the IPO), with anything left over going to general corporate purposes (likely including more AI infrastructure). The offering was a reminder of just how expensive the company's artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions will be.
Then came this week's AI reckoning. Semiconductor stocks sold off hard as investors questioned whether the boom in AI infrastructure spending can persist. That reassessment has been a headwind for anything priced on AI ambitions, and SpaceX, which is now part rocket maker, part satellite internet provider, and part AI company, qualifies.
Finally, on Thursday, the company aborted a Starship test flight moments before launch.
"Some of the engines didn't start, triggering an automatic launch abort," Musk wrote on X.
A scrubbed launch is a routine setback. But it capped off a rough week.
What matters more is what investors actually get at $124. SpaceX generated $18.7 billion of revenue in 2025, and it lost $4.9 billion for the year.
Starlink, the company's satellite internet service, is the engine. The segment produced $11.4 billion of revenue in 2025, or 61% of the company total. And its subscriber base keeps climbing, compounding from 2.3 million at the end of 2023 to 8.9 million at the end of 2025 to 10.3 million by the end of March. That is exceptional growth.
However, the average Starlink customer is paying less over time. Monthly revenue per user has stepped down from $99 in 2023 to $66 in the first quarter of 2026. In other words, Starlink's growth is coming from adding users, not from charging them more. That's fine for now, but it could become a problem if subscriber growth ever slows.
The AI business is the expensive part. That segment, built around xAI, generated just $3.2 billion of revenue in 2025. It's also behind most of the new debt -- the June bond sale retires borrowings SpaceX took on to bring xAI in-house.
Now for the valuation. At $124 per share, SpaceX still commands a market value of about $1.6 trillion. That works out to more than 80 times the company's trailing sales, for a business losing billions of dollars a year. For perspective, a multiple of 20 is often considered generous for a fast-growing company when it's based on earnings -- not sales.
Put another way, even with the stock down about 45%, the market is still pricing in a future in which Starlink keeps compounding, Starship works, and the AI bet pays off in a big way -- all at once.
Of course, SpaceX owns assets nobody else has: the world's dominant rocket program and a satellite internet business without a true peer.
And investors will learn a lot soon. The company's first quarterly report since going public is coming, and insider lockup expirations begin rolling off in August.
But owning singular assets doesn't automatically make a stock worth more than 80 times sales. At $124, shares are arguably cheaper than they've ever been -- and still not cheap.
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 $371,842! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,244,783!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 900% — 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 18, 2026. *
Daniel Sparks and his clients do not have positions 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
"At 80x sales and persistent losses, SPCX is not yet cheap despite the 45% drop, but Starship and Starlink optionality could justify re-rating if Q2 earnings confirm trajectory."
The article frames SpaceX (SPCX) at $124/share — down 45% from its June 2025 IPO peak of $225 — as still overvalued at >80x trailing sales on $18.7B 2025 revenue and a $4.9B net loss. Starlink (61% of rev, 10.3M subs) shows decelerating ARPU ($99→$66), while xAI-driven AI bets and new $25B debt at 5.35-6.65% underscore cash burn. The aborted Starship test and AI-sector selloff add near-term pressure. Yet missing context: Starship's reusability could slash launch costs 10x by 2027-28, Starlink margins are expanding as scale hits, and xAI synergies with real-time orbital compute remain unpriced. First post-IPO earnings and August lockup expiry loom as catalysts.
Even if Starship succeeds and Starlink margins expand, execution risk on AI infrastructure ROI plus $25B incremental debt could force further equity dilution or covenant breaches if revenue growth slows below 30% annually.
"SpaceX is being mispriced as a growth stock when it is currently functioning as a capital-draining vehicle for Elon Musk's broader, unproven AI ecosystem."
The article's premise is fundamentally flawed because it treats SpaceX as a traditional equity. This is a venture-style play masquerading as a public stock. Trading at 80x sales is absurd if you view it as a telecom or aerospace firm, but it is standard for a platform play capturing the entire orbital economy. The real risk isn't the valuation multiple; it's the integration of xAI. If SpaceX is forced to subsidize Musk’s AI ambitions via high-yield debt, the capital structure becomes toxic. Investors are currently pricing in the 'Musk Premium' while ignoring the 'Governance Discount' that comes with folding speculative AI entities into a capital-intensive rocket business.
If Starlink achieves global monopoly status in low-latency connectivity, the 80x sales multiple will look like a bargain in hindsight, as the company will essentially own the infrastructure layer for the next generation of global internet.
"SpaceX's valuation isn't just expensive — it requires simultaneous success in three unrelated businesses (rockets, satellite internet, AI infrastructure) while Starlink's core unit economics are actively deteriorating."
The article conflates valuation with investment thesis. Yes, 80x sales is absurd for a loss-making company — that's defensible. But the article buries the actual story: Starlink's unit economics are deteriorating (ARPU down 33% in two years) while the company burns $4.9B annually. The xAI bet is speculative infrastructure spending, not revenue. The real risk isn't the stock price — it's whether Starlink's subscriber growth can offset collapsing margins, and whether xAI ever becomes profitable. The article treats these as separate concerns when they're interconnected: if Starlink margins compress further, SpaceX loses its cash engine for funding xAI losses.
Starlink's ARPU compression may reflect intentional market penetration strategy in developing regions, and 10.3M subscribers growing 16% QoQ suggests the flywheel is working; if Starship becomes reliable, launch revenue could scale dramatically and shift the entire margin profile.
"The core claim: 80x trailing sales is not justified by risk-adjusted near-term cash flows; any miss on Starlink monetization, Starship cadence, or xAI traction could trigger a sharp multiple re-rating."
SpaceX trades at an eye-watering multiple for a company with near-term losses and a heavy debt load tied to xAI and Starlink expansion. The article flags headwinds like an 80x trailing sales multiple, $25B of new notes, and ARPU erosion, but it glosses three critical risks: Starlink’s long-run monetization hinges on sustained user growth and price discipline; Starship cadence and reliability remain unproven and could delay revenue and drive higher capex; and the AI bets rely on non-guaranteed government or enterprise demand. A downside scenario remains plausible if any one engine stalls, making the current multiple pricing optimistic unless near-term profitability materializes.
Against my stance: SpaceX's asset moat could still generate durable cash flows if Starlink closes multi-year gov/enterprise deals and Starship achieves reliable cadence. If those outcomes materialize, the stock could re-rate despite today’s high multiple.
"August lockup expiry introduces a technical overhang that could drive further downside irrespective of operational progress."
Claude correctly flags interconnected risks between Starlink margins and xAI funding, but nobody has addressed the August lockup expiry catalyst. With 45% post-IPO decline already pricing in much of the execution risk, insider sales could trigger a further 15-20% technical selloff regardless of Starship test outcomes or subscriber adds. This near-term liquidity event overrides longer-term orbital economy narratives.
"The lockup expiry will act as a catalyst for a fundamental re-rating, not just a technical liquidity event, due to the toxic cross-subsidization of xAI."
Grok, you are fixated on the August lockup as a technical floor, but you are ignoring the 'Governance Discount' Gemini mentioned. Institutional investors aren't just selling because of liquidity; they are selling because the capital structure is being cannibalized to fund xAI. If the lockup expiry coincides with a negative Starship update, we aren't looking at a 20% technical dip—we are looking at a fundamental re-rating toward a distressed valuation as the market finally prices in the cross-subsidization risk.
"Insider lockup expiry becomes a credibility test on xAI—heavy selling by founders would validate the governance discount faster than any earnings miss."
Gemini and Grok are both right, but they're describing the same phenomenon from different angles. The August lockup isn't just a technical event—it's the moment when insiders' incentives (cash out) collide with institutional skepticism about xAI capital drain. But neither addresses the real tell: if insider selling is heavy despite Starship success, that signals management itself doubts the AI thesis. That's more bearish than either lockup timing or governance concerns alone.
"The August lockup is a liquidity event, not a fundamental catalyst; the real risk is cash burn and debt load, not insider timing."
Grok, the August lockup as a near-term catalyst may be overstated. Insider supply dynamics are not destiny: many insiders’ exits can be offset by automatic repurchases, option exercises, or reallocation within the sponsor networks, making the price impact uncertain. The bigger risk remains SpaceX’s burn and debt load, plus Starship/Starlink execution a priori. If any of those miss, the lockup alone won’t cushion a rerating.
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX, citing interconnected risks between Starlink's deteriorating margins and the speculative xAI infrastructure spending, as well as the potential impact of the August lockup expiry on the stock price.
The potential for Starship's reusability to slash launch costs and Starlink's margins expanding as scale hits.
The interconnected risks between Starlink's margins and xAI funding, as well as the potential impact of the August lockup expiry on the stock price.