By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's IPO, with key concerns being the reliance on unproven revenue streams, regulatory hurdles, potential dilution, and the risk of overestimating the TAM.
Risk: Reliance on unproven revenue streams and regulatory hurdles
Opportunity: None explicitly stated
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 →
Last Friday, Elon Musk's Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX) went public, opening at $150 per share. Since hitting the Nasdaq, SpaceX, the stock has surged as high as 50%. However, as of June 18, the shares were hovering at about $190 -- a bit less than 30% above the opening-day price.
Below, I'll analyze some commentary from two Wall Street analysts and share their opinions on whether SpaceX stock has further room to run.
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 »
Oppenheimer analyst Timothy Horan initiated coverage on SpaceX stock just before the shares began trading in the initial public offering (IPO). Horan gives SpaceX an outperform rating and a $190 price target. At the time the report was published, this implied roughly 40% upside from SpaceX's offering price of $135. Relative to SpaceX's current price of $190, however, Horan's target implies no gains for the shares.
Horan's stance rests on SpaceX building what he calls a vertically integrated artificial intelligence (AI) ecosystem featuring both consumer and enterprise data, a large language model (LLM) via xAI's Grok, and GPU hardware from Nvidia, all stitched together through leading manufacturing and engineering talent.
Taken together, Horan sees a $10 trillion total addressable market (TAM) by 2035 as SpaceX's operations converge across space-based orbital data centers, communications, and cloud computing. Key drivers in Horan's model include plans for 10,000 Starship launches per year, plus recent AI infrastructure deals with Anthropic and Google.
It's important to note that Horan emphasized near-term risks of investing in SpaceX stock, including momentum-driven valuation multiples, an unproven orbital data-center market, regulatory hurdles surrounding space exploration, and governance risks tied to Elon Musk.
Morningstar equity research analyst Nicolas Owens published a detailed discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis that assigns SpaceX a fair value of $63 per share. This equates to a value of roughly $780 billion for the company -- about 70% below SpaceX's current market cap.
Morningstar's model values SpaceX based on the company's core segments: launch operations, Starlink, and AI. Per the assumptions in the DCF, Starship and Starlink contribute a combined $40 per share to SpaceX's fair value, given each segment carries "better visibility and relatively lower uncertainty" compared to the company's AI ambitions, which Owens calls a moonshot.
In Morningstar's most optimistic scenario, Owens applies a bullish stance to SpaceX's AI infrastructure aspirations by modeling rapid orbital data-center deployments, which lead to a huge capture of the AI compute market. Under these conditions, Owens assigns a share price of $154 to SpaceX by 2040. This is important to call out because even under the most long-term, blue-sky conditions, Owens still essentially sees SpaceX as completely overvalued.
The gap between Horan's $190 price target and Owens' $63 fair value highlight two very different risk tolerances and time horizons when it comes to investing in SpaceX stock.
Horan's forecast suggests SpaceX will deliver on its most ambitious timelines and capture a meaningful portion of future orbital AI infrastructure demand. Horan's target is in line with the current market value. By contrast, Owens' analysis treats SpaceX's current valuation as pricing in too much certainty when it comes to unproven technologies and aggressive growth assumptions.
Given the split between these analysts, investors chasing SpaceX's post-IPO momentum face elevated volatility from a wide range of possible future outcomes. Investors who prioritize capital preservation should wait for more concrete evidence of Starship's progress or for any price consolidation that brings SpaceX stock closer to a more conservative fair value.
Position sizing, milestone tracking, and the fact that both reports were issued around the time of SpaceX's public market debut are important to keep in mind, regardless of which framework resonates more with investors.
SpaceX's next meaningful move will likely depend less on initial sentiment and more on whether the company starts translating its ambitious visions into measurable revenue and profit margin widening in the coming quarters. For now, the easy money has likely been made in SpaceX stock.
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 $417,305! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,293,148!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 936% — 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 June 20, 2026. *
Adam Spatacco has positions in Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Nvidia. 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 current price hinges on unproven near-term monetization of Starlink, Starship, and AI infra; without tangible revenue evidence, the upside remains optionality rather than a proven investment."
SpaceX’s IPO introduces a highly speculative bet on a multi-line, capital-intensive AI/space ecosystem. The article lays out two stark verdicts: an optimistic $190 target vs. a cautious $63 fair value, highlighting a risk/return split. Missing context includes how soon SpaceX can monetize Starlink, Starship launches, and AI compute via Grok, and whether the orbital data-center thesis can deliver clear unit economics. Key risks are reliance on unproven revenue streams, regulatory and governance hurdles around a Musk-led transition, and potential dilution from future equity or debt raises. It’s a volatility-driven, optionality play, not a simple buy-and-hold core idea.
However, if SpaceX lands a few marquee Starlink or AI-infrastructure contracts with clear margins, the path to profitability could emerge sooner than skeptics expect, potentially re-rating the stock quickly.
"The article describes a non-existent IPO for a private company, rendering the price action and analyst targets entirely fictional."
This article contains a massive factual error: SpaceX is not a publicly traded company on the Nasdaq under the ticker 'SPCX'. Treating this as a legitimate IPO analysis is dangerous; it appears to be a hallucinated or satirical premise. If we look past the fake ticker, the valuation gap between Oppenheimer's $190 target and Morningstar's $63 fair value is classic 'tech-platform' vs. 'industrial-utility' modeling. Horan is pricing in a multi-trillion dollar AI infrastructure moat, while Owens is tethering the stock to tangible launch and satellite cash flows. Without audited public financials or a real ticker, any 'momentum' cited is purely speculative noise rather than market-driven price discovery.
If an investor assumes the article is describing a hypothetical scenario for a future IPO, the 'bullish' case rests on SpaceX's unique monopoly in heavy-lift launch capacity, which creates a barrier to entry no other private or public competitor can currently breach.
"SpaceX's current valuation prices in aggressive execution timelines that have never been achieved in aerospace history, while the bull case itself only justifies mid-single-digit annual returns over a decade."
This article presents a textbook valuation disconnect ($190 vs. $63 fair value), but conflates two separate problems. First: the IPO pop is normal and mostly priced in—we're already 30% up, not 50%. Second: Horan's $10T TAM thesis rests on 10,000 Starship launches annually by 2035, which requires not just technical success but regulatory approval, launch cadence scaling, and orbital data-center economics that remain entirely unproven. Morningstar's DCF ($63) assumes Starlink + launch ops alone justify ~$40/share; that's defensible. But the article buries the real risk: even Morningstar's bull case ($154 by 2040) implies 19% annualized returns from here—worse than S&P 500 historical average—while assuming everything goes right. The momentum has likely peaked.
If Starship reaches even 500 launches/year by 2030 (not 10,000) and orbital compute becomes real, Horan's thesis compresses into a 5-7 year window, not 2035—making $190 cheap on a risk-adjusted basis.
"SPCX at $190 already embeds optimistic assumptions that leave little margin for Starship or orbital AI execution shortfalls."
The split between Oppenheimer's $190 target and Morningstar's $63 DCF for SPCX reveals valuation hinging on unproven orbital data centers and 10,000 Starship launches yearly to reach a $10T TAM by 2035. At current levels near $190, the stock already prices in aggressive AI ecosystem wins via xAI Grok and Nvidia GPUs, yet near-term risks around regulatory approvals, Musk governance, and Starlink margin expansion remain underweighted. Momentum from the IPO surge to 30% gains likely fades without visible revenue acceleration in launch or communications segments over the next two quarters.
Morningstar's model may undervalue rapid Starship iteration success, where even partial capture of AI compute demand could justify re-rating well above $190 if deployment timelines compress.
"Even granting a hypothetical IPO, the model rests on 10,000 Starship launches/year by 2035 to reach a $10T TAM, a highly implausible assumption that would break under modest delays or regulatory hurdles."
Gemini correctly flags a fatal flaw: SPCX as a public ticker is not verifiable; treating this as an IPO analysis undermines credibility. More importantly, even granting a hypothetical IPO, the piece banks on 10,000 Starship launches per year by 2035 to justify a $10T TAM—an assumption that would require near-perfect regulatory approvals, cost declines, and Starlink margin expansion. A single mid-cycle delay or regulatory hurdle could crush the bull case.
"The focus on TAM ignores the inevitability of massive equity dilution required to fund the infrastructure-heavy orbital data center thesis."
Claude and Grok are ignoring the capital structure risk. Even if Starship achieves 500 launches, the massive R&D burn rate for orbital compute necessitates endless dilutive equity raises. If SpaceX remains private, the 'IPO' hype is a liquidity trap for retail investors. The $10T TAM thesis is a red herring; the real question is whether SpaceX can maintain its launch monopoly without cannibalizing margins through price wars as competitors like Blue Origin finally scale.
"The valuation gap isn't just about TAM timing—it's about who bears the capex burden and dilution risk in a Musk-controlled structure."
Gemini's capital structure point is underexamined. Even if Starship succeeds technically, SpaceX's orbital compute ambitions require billions in capex. If the IPO is real, equity dilution becomes inevitable—and retail investors absorbing that dilution while institutional holders (Musk, early VCs) maintain control creates a classic governance trap. Morningstar's $63 DCF may not discount dilution adequately.
"Dilution and governance traps only appear after an actual IPO, making private-era valuation debates premature."
Claude ties dilution to governance but skips that SpaceX stays private today, so retail faces zero immediate equity raises or control loss. The actual sequencing risk is Musk routing AI compute spend through xAI first, leaving SPCX with only launch and Starlink cash flows for years even after any listing. Regulatory launch caps then bind margins faster than any model assumes.
The panel consensus is bearish on SpaceX's IPO, with key concerns being the reliance on unproven revenue streams, regulatory hurdles, potential dilution, and the risk of overestimating the TAM.
None explicitly stated
Reliance on unproven revenue streams and regulatory hurdles