By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel is largely bearish on SpaceX's upcoming Nasdaq-100 inclusion, citing unsustainable valuation, high capex, and unproven Starship economics. While Gemini argues for a geopolitical tailwind, others contend that national security value doesn't guarantee cash flow certainty.
Risk: Unproven Starship economics and high capex leading to unsustainable cash burn rate
Opportunity: Potential massive unmet demand and compressed buying window due to the 'fast track' rule
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 →
Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX) delivered one of history's biggest stock market events just recently: the largest initial public offering ever. SpaceX, raising $75 billion in the operation, then saw its shares rise nearly 20% from the $135 offer price on its first day of trading. And the exercise of an overallotment option brought the total of funds raised to more than $85 billion.
Since that time -- the IPO was on June 12 -- all eyes have been on SpaceX stock. Investors may be intrigued by the offer itself, but also by the company's leader, Elon Musk, and his ambitious projects. Now, a new milestone lies right around the corner. SpaceX is set to join the Nasdaq-100, an index including the largest non-financial companies on the Nasdaq, on July 7.
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 »
Will SpaceX soar after that time? History offers a compellingly clear answer.
First, let's consider why investors are so interested in SpaceX -- and this has to do with the company's interesting mix of growth businesses and its leadership. SpaceX is, as the name suggests, an expert in rocket launches. It aims to make launches cheaper and more efficient through its reusable technology -- and so far, it's made significant progress here. For example, NASA says that SpaceX's Falcon 9 back in 2010 reduced launch costs by a mind-boggling 85%. The goal now is to reduce costs by more than 99%, and a key step is just ahead: SpaceX aims to launch its fully reusable spacecraft, Starship, with payloads later this year.
SpaceX's second business is also closely linked to space: It's the satellite-based connectivity unit, Starlink, and is currently the company's biggest revenue driver. Last year, it brought in $11.4 billion on SpaceX's total of $18 billion. And Starlink membership, soaring from 2.3 million three years ago to more than 10 million today, offers us reason to be optimistic about growth.
Finally, SpaceX's third business is artificial intelligence (AI). Now, this might not seem space-related -- but it actually is. One of this unit's goals is to operate data centers in space, and the practical -- and cost-saving -- part of this is that SpaceX may use its own rockets to make this happen. And SpaceX also may use its rockets for the transport needs of Starlink.
So SpaceX's businesses are diversified, yet they are complementary at the same time. And each may deliver a considerable amount of growth. Some investors also like the idea that Elon Musk is at the helm since he is known for being ambitious and innovative.
All of this is very positive, but it's also important to keep in mind that some of SpaceX's biggest goals involve technology that hasn't been fully developed or proven. And in order to develop that technology, SpaceX must invest billions of dollars. In fact, capital expenditures for its AI business last year reached $12 billion and helped push the company to a net loss. All of this represents risk. So even though SpaceX may be an exciting company, it's not the best investment for every investor, particularly at today's price.
At the current level, the stock trades at more than 100x sales, so it isn't cheap.
Now, let's consider the upcoming Nasdaq-100 entry. This is due to the new "fast track" procedure that offers companies admission after only 15 trading days -- as long as they are among the 40 biggest in the index in terms of market value. SpaceX makes the cut and will join as of July 7. This means that funds tracking the Nasdaq-100 must add SpaceX shares, and this buying activity may lift the stock.
But this doesn't necessarily mean the stock will soar, as history shows us. A look at recent Nasdaq-100 additions -- added June 22 of this year -- didn't result in significant gains for those players.
A look back farther in time, to 2024, when Palantir Technologies, Strategy, and Axon Enterprise joined the Nasdaq-100, shows all three actually declined in the 10 days to follow.
So, while SpaceX could see a slight pop, as funds scoop up the shares, significant positive movement isn't guaranteed. What does this mean for you? In any case, short-term stock movements shouldn't be a concern. When investing, it's crucial to hold onto stocks for the long term, at least five years, to truly benefit from the company's growth. So, you shouldn't worry about buying SpaceX before a particular event, such as this Nasdaq-100 entry.
Instead, it's a better idea to take your time and consider the company's upcoming earnings reports before deciding whether to get in on this exciting but risky 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 $385,055! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,228,089!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 902% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 209% 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 2, 2026. *
Adria Cimino has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Axon Enterprise, Palantir Technologies, Rocket Lab, and Teradyne. The Motley Fool recommends Astera Labs. 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
"The Nasdaq-100 inclusion is a technical liquidity event that will likely be used by early IPO investors as an exit window rather than a catalyst for sustained price appreciation."
The article presents a classic 'index-inclusion' trap. While the mandatory buying from passive ETFs tracking the Nasdaq-100 creates a temporary liquidity floor, a valuation of 100x sales is detached from fundamental reality—it assumes perfect execution on Starship and exponential Starlink adoption. The 'fast-track' entry is a liquidity event, not a value event. Investors are essentially front-running institutional rebalancing at a peak valuation. With capital expenditures ballooning to $12 billion annually, the cash burn rate is unsustainable without constant capital market access. I expect the 'index-inclusion pop' to be quickly faded by institutional profit-taking as the market pivots back to the company's precarious path to free cash flow positivity.
If SpaceX achieves a monopoly in orbital heavy-lift, the 100x sales multiple could be justified as a 'platform' valuation, similar to early-stage cloud providers that grew into their multiples.
"SpaceX's Nasdaq-100 entry will likely create a 2-3 week technical bid from index funds, but the 100x+ sales multiple means any pop is a selling opportunity, not a buying signal."
The article's historical comparison is weak. Palantir, Strategy, and Axon declined post-Nasdaq-100 entry in 2024, but those were mature, already-public companies with established valuations. SpaceX is fundamentally different: a $75B IPO with 20% first-day pop suggests massive unmet demand, not saturation. The 'fast track' rule creates a compressed buying window for index funds—potentially 2-3 weeks of forced buying into a stock with limited float. The real risk isn't the index entry itself; it's that SpaceX trades at 100x+ sales with $12B capex losses and unproven Starship economics. The article correctly flags valuation risk but dismisses near-term technical tailwinds too casually.
If index inclusion triggers a modest pop followed by profit-taking, the stock could easily give back 5-10% within two weeks, making the entry point worse than waiting. The comparison to Netflix and Nvidia's 2004-2005 picks is survivorship bias dressed as predictive power.
"SPCX's massive post-IPO size and 100x sales valuation mean Nasdaq-100 inclusion will not overcome the execution risks highlighted by heavy capex and ongoing losses."
The article correctly flags that SPCX's July 7 Nasdaq-100 inclusion via the fast-track rule is unlikely to trigger a sustained rally, citing flat-to-down moves in Palantir, Axon, and others after their additions. With an $85 billion IPO already priced in at over 100x sales, passive ETF inflows will likely be absorbed by existing liquidity rather than lifting the share price. The $12 billion AI capex that drove last year's net loss underscores execution risk on unproven Starship and orbital data-center projects, making near-term earnings the real catalyst to watch instead of index mechanics.
The fast-track rule could still produce outsized rebalancing demand from Nasdaq-100 trackers that exceeds the historical sample of smaller additions, temporarily overriding valuation concerns.
"Near-term upside from Nasdaq-100 inclusion is uncertain and hinges on an unverified IPO reality plus genuine earnings power; without that, any rally is likely to be limited and susceptible to a sharp reversal."
The article treats SpaceX's Nasdaq-100 entry as a near-term growth catalyst, but the premise rests on an IPO that, by most public records, seems inconsistent with SpaceX's private status as of 2026. If the listing is real, the argument still overstates index-flow effects—historical Nasdaq-100 adds often produce modest moves, not a moonshot. More importantly, SpaceX's fundamentals remain fragile: massive capex, ongoing net losses, and a valuation well over 100x sales; success hinges on Starlink monetization and Starship milestones, any misstep risks a sharp rerating. The real risk is hype masking weak earnings power.
Even if the listing is real, index inflows can drive a short-term pop; and if Starlink monetization accelerates, the stock could re-rate faster than skeptics expect. Those are big ifs, though.
"SpaceX's status as a critical national security infrastructure asset justifies a valuation premium that ignores traditional cash-burn metrics."
ChatGPT is right to question the premise, but everyone is missing the geopolitical tailwind. SpaceX isn't just a tech stock; it’s a national security asset. If the Nasdaq-100 inclusion happens, the 'forced buying' isn't just passive rebalancing—it's institutional positioning for a company that effectively holds a monopoly on US orbital access. The valuation is absurd by traditional metrics, but the scarcity premium of a sole-source heavy-lift provider makes the 100x sales multiple a floor, not a ceiling.
"Geopolitical moats don't override valuation gravity without a credible path to positive free cash flow."
Gemini's geopolitical monopoly argument is seductive but conflates two things: scarcity value and equity valuation. Yes, SpaceX holds strategic leverage—but that doesn't translate to 100x sales multiples unless Starlink generates $7-8B annual revenue at 40%+ margins. National security doesn't exempt companies from cash-flow math. The 'floor, not ceiling' claim needs a path to profitability, not just moat strength.
"Monopoly status alone cannot justify 100x sales without a clear path from capex-heavy losses to free cash flow."
Gemini's national-security monopoly claim overlooks that even sole-source defense contractors like Lockheed trade at 1.5-2x sales because revenue is capped by appropriations cycles. SpaceX's $12B capex and Starship execution risk mean any orbital-access premium still requires Starlink to deliver $8B+ in high-margin recurring revenue by 2027. Without that bridge, index flows will hit the same valuation wall seen in prior adds.
"A 100x sales valuation requires durable, high-margin Starlink cash flows; without that, Nasdaq-100 inflows are unlikely to sustain the rally and capex/funding risk will drive a sharp rerating."
Gemini's 'monopoly' angle overstates equity value: national-security value doesn't equal cash flow certainty. A scarcity premium needs a repeatable, high-margin Starlink revenue stream to justify 100x sales; absent that, the stock relies on volatile capex-financing and government funding cycles, which are discretionary and prone to delays. Even if Nasdaq-100 inflows occur, the payoff hinges on steady Starlink monetization and Starship milestones—anything else invites rapid rerating when milestones miss.
The panel is largely bearish on SpaceX's upcoming Nasdaq-100 inclusion, citing unsustainable valuation, high capex, and unproven Starship economics. While Gemini argues for a geopolitical tailwind, others contend that national security value doesn't guarantee cash flow certainty.
Potential massive unmet demand and compressed buying window due to the 'fast track' rule
Unproven Starship economics and high capex leading to unsustainable cash burn rate