By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel is divided on SpaceX's IPO, with bulls focusing on immediate technical tailwinds and potential passive inflows, while bears caution about thin liquidity, volatility, and profitability concerns.
Risk: Extreme volatility due to thin liquidity (4% float) and potential exclusion from major indices until the float is expanded.
Opportunity: Immediate structural demand and constrained supply meeting oversubscribed demand, potentially driving the stock up despite profitability concerns.
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 is expected to begin trading Friday at an initial market value of about $1.77 trillion.
The S&P 500 requires positive earnings and at least 12 months of trading before a stock can join.
Tesla waited more than a decade after its IPO to enter the index.
On Friday, SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq in what would be the largest initial public offering (IPO) on record. The rocket and satellite company plans to sell about 556 million shares at $135 apiece, giving it an initial market value of about $1.77 trillion and raising about $75 billion. Investor demand has reportedly topped $250 billion -- more than three times what the company is seeking.
A market value of $1.77 trillion would make SpaceX about the seventh-most valuable company in the U.S. Yet nearly every company near that scale has something SpaceX won't: a spot in the S&P 500, the benchmark behind trillions of dollars of index funds.
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 »
So, could the stock join the index -- and how soon? Here's a closer look at the S&P 500's actual rules, and what Tesla's (NASDAQ: TSLA) long-delayed inclusion suggests about the answer.
Getting into the S&P 500 takes more than size. S&P Dow Jones Indices, which runs the index, requires a candidate to be a U.S. company with a market value of at least $22.7 billion -- a bar SpaceX would clear about 78 times over.
The tougher tests, however, come next.
For starters, at least 10% of a company's shares must be available for public trading, and a newly listed stock must trade for at least 12 months before it can be considered. SpaceX's IPO covers only about 4% of its roughly 13.1 billion shares outstanding.
Then there's the most demanding test: profitability. A candidate must report positive earnings under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in its most recent quarter, and its past four quarters combined must be profitable, too. SpaceX isn't close. Its prospectus shows a net loss of $4.9 billion in 2025, followed by a $4.3 billion net loss in the first quarter of 2026 alone.
That's not because the whole business loses money. SpaceX's connectivity segment, driven by the Starlink satellite internet service, grew revenue about 50% to $11.4 billion in 2025 and produced an operating profit of about $4.4 billion. But the artificial intelligence (AI) segment, built around the recently acquired xAI, lost about $6.4 billion at the operating level last year. And the company poured $12.7 billion into AI data centers and computing power last year.
Investors hoping the index might bend its rules recently got their answer.
In April, S&P Dow Jones Indices floated changes that would have shortened the waiting period and waived the profitability and float tests for megacap companies. But on June 4, the index provider said no changes would be made, noting the decision "preserves core index principles by maintaining consistent application of these key requirements."
Interestingly, the Nasdaq-100 is a different story. Under rules that took effect in May, a newly listed company ranked among the index's top 40 constituents by market value can be added after just 15 trading days. Funds tracking that benchmark, therefore, could become buyers of SpaceX within weeks.
For a sense of how this could play out, look at another company Elon Musk leads.
Tesla went public in June 2010 and didn't join the index until December 2020. Why did it take so long? The electric vehicle maker couldn't pass the earnings test until it posted a fourth consecutive quarter of GAAP profits in mid-2020.
Even then, the index committee passed Tesla over at its September 2020 rebalancing before announcing the addition in November. By the time the stock joined on Dec. 21, 2020, shares had climbed more than 50% from the announcement, and index funds needed to buy about $85 billion of Tesla stock -- the largest rebalancing in the index's history.
Could SpaceX follow a similar path?
The 12-month clock starts Friday, so the company couldn't even be considered until mid-2027. And the financial test may take longer. For SpaceX's trailing four quarters to add up to a profit, quarterly earnings would need to outweigh losses like the $4.3 billion reported in Q1. Starlink's momentum could eventually get it there -- the service counted 10.3 million subscribers at the end of March after its subscriber base doubled in 2025. But management's heavy spending on AI suggests near-term profits aren't the priority.
Of course, the index isn't everything.
Tesla delivered huge returns long before joining the S&P 500 -- shares soared about 400% in 2020 before the inclusion announcement -- and SpaceX could similarly reward shareholders on its own merits.
Still, I think the index question highlights what a SpaceX investment is today: a bet on a company choosing growth over profits. A wave of forced index buying could one day be a powerful catalyst for the stock, but it's just unlikely to come soon. After all, the S&P 500 isn't making a megacap exception here -- even for the largest IPO in history.
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 $439,038! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,277,804!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 942% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 206% 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 11, 2026. *
Daniel Sparks has clients with positions in Tesla. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. 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
"Near-term S&P 500 inclusion for SpaceX is unlikely due to float and profitability hurdles; only a significant balance-sheet move or a rapid profit turn could alter that trajectory."
SpaceX’s IPO would vault it into megacap territory, but S&P 500 inclusion isn’t a slam dunk. The 12-month clock starts on listing, and a $1.77T valuation doesn’t bypass the core hurdles: the float requirement (publicly traded shares ≈10% of total) and GAAP profitability over the trailing four quarters. SpaceX has reported GAAP losses in 2025 and Q1 2026, with Starlink profitable but AI and heavy cap spend weighing on margins. A sizeable secondary offering would be needed to lift public float to ~1.3B shares, a move that could irritate investors. Thus, near-term S&P entry remains unlikely; longer-term upside depends on profitability momentum and capital-structure moves.
But if management executes a large secondary to boost float and achieves sustained GAAP profit by 2027, the committee could revisit the eligibility calculus sooner than expected. In that case, market dynamics could flip quickly as index funds repriced SpaceX.
"The current valuation relies on an unsustainable assumption that AI capital expenditures will yield immediate, high-margin returns before the company faces a liquidity crunch or equity dilution."
The $1.77 trillion valuation for SpaceX is aggressive, pricing in near-perfect execution of both Starlink’s scaling and the xAI integration. While the Nasdaq-100 inclusion offers a near-term liquidity catalyst, the underlying financials are concerning: a $4.3 billion quarterly loss driven by massive AI capital expenditure suggests the company is essentially subsidizing its compute infrastructure with Starlink's operating cash. Investors should be wary of the 4% float; such thin liquidity on a massive IPO often leads to extreme volatility. Unless Starlink’s subscriber growth accelerates beyond current projections to offset the AI burn, this stock faces significant downward pressure once the initial retail frenzy subsides.
If the AI infrastructure build-out creates a proprietary moat that slashes future operational costs for both Starlink and SpaceX’s launch operations, the current losses are merely front-loaded R&D rather than structural inefficiency.
"Nasdaq-100 inclusion within 15 trading days, combined with 4% float scarcity, will generate forced passive demand that matters far more than S&P 500 timing, but sustainability depends entirely on whether Starlink's $4.4B operating profit can eventually offset xAI's losses."
The article frames S&P 500 inclusion as a distant catalyst, but misses the immediate structural demand. SpaceX enters at $1.77T with only 4% float — creating severe scarcity. Nasdaq-100 inclusion in weeks will force $50B+ in passive flows. Tesla's 400% pre-inclusion run suggests the index story is a sideshow; the real driver is constrained supply meeting $250B+ oversubscribed demand. The profitability gap ($4.3B Q1 loss) is real, but Starlink's $4.4B operating profit and 50% YoY growth suggests path to GAAP profitability within 18-24 months if AI spending moderates. Article underweights near-term technical tailwinds.
SpaceX's $12.7B AI capex burn and xAI's $6.4B operating loss signal Musk is prioritizing moonshots over earnings—the opposite of what drives S&P inclusion or sustained index demand. If AI losses accelerate, the profitability timeline extends indefinitely, and the stock becomes a speculative bet on unproven xAI economics, not a quasi-utility play.
"Nasdaq-100's 15-day rule creates a faster passive-buying catalyst than the article's S&P focus implies."
The article correctly flags S&P 500 barriers—12-month history, 10% float, and GAAP profitability—but underplays the Nasdaq-100's May rule change allowing top-40 names after just 15 trading days. With a $1.77T valuation, SpaceX (SPCX) would rank high enough for near-term inclusion, triggering passive inflows sooner than the mid-2027 S&P timeline. Starlink's 50% revenue growth and $4.4B operating profit contrast sharply with xAI's $6.4B losses and $12.7B capex, yet the article glosses over how quickly subscriber momentum (10.3M) could flip four-quarter GAAP results positive. Tesla's 2020 experience shows index buying can still amplify moves even after delays.
Nasdaq-100 inclusion could be delayed if S&P's float or profitability precedents influence other index committees, muting any early catalyst.
"Nasdaq-100 timing is not guaranteed; thin 4% float implies volatile trading and potentially disappointing passive inflows, making the Nasdaq catalyst uncertain."
Pointing out Grok's Nasdaq-100 timing may be the riskiest linchpin in this debate. Top-40 after 15 trading days sounds decisive, but index committees retain discretion and liquidity screens; a 4% public float is dangerously thin, likely to deliver outsized volatility and unpredictable streaming of passive flows. If early demand fades post-pop, the supposed near-term catalyst could evaporate, pushing the SpaceX thesis back and heightening downside risk on IPO pricing.
"The 4% float is a structural barrier that will likely trigger index exclusion or delay due to liquidity concerns, not a tailwind."
Claude and Grok are ignoring the regulatory 'poison pill' of the 4% float. Index committees are risk-averse; they prioritize liquidity to ensure tracking error remains manageable for ETFs. A stock with such extreme scarcity isn't a 'technical tailwind'—it's a volatility trap that risks being excluded from major indices entirely until the float is expanded. Institutional appetite will hit a wall if they cannot execute large block trades without moving the market 5% intraday.
"Thin float creates volatility and tracking error, but doesn't automatically trigger index exclusion—it just makes the stock harder to own at scale."
Gemini's liquidity trap concern is real, but both Gemini and ChatGPT are conflating two separate risks: index *eligibility* versus index *performance*. SpaceX can trade on Nasdaq with 4% float and face volatility without being excluded—exclusion requires active committee rejection, not just thin liquidity. The float problem delays S&P 500 entry, not Nasdaq listing. Claude's $50B passive inflow math assumes demand materializes despite volatility; Gemini assumes it won't. Neither has proven the other wrong yet.
"Nasdaq inclusion hinges more on valuation rank than float, unlike S&P hurdles."
Gemini overstates exclusion risk from the 4% float. Nasdaq-100's updated top-40 rule after 15 days focuses on market cap rank, not S&P-style liquidity screens, and has tolerated thin floats in past inclusions like some tech names. The unexamined link is whether xAI's $6.4B losses could still trigger discretionary rejection even if valuation qualifies SpaceX quickly.
The panel is divided on SpaceX's IPO, with bulls focusing on immediate technical tailwinds and potential passive inflows, while bears caution about thin liquidity, volatility, and profitability concerns.
Immediate structural demand and constrained supply meeting oversubscribed demand, potentially driving the stock up despite profitability concerns.
Extreme volatility due to thin liquidity (4% float) and potential exclusion from major indices until the float is expanded.