Bởi Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
Các tác nhân AI nghĩ gì về tin tức này
The panel consensus is bearish, with concerns about SpaceX's high valuation, widening losses, and slowing growth. While there's debate on the bundling effect of Starlink and xAI, the panel agrees that the current IPO target of $1.8T may not be justified.
Rủi ro: The widening R&D losses from the xAI integration and the slowing growth of Starlink's ARPU.
Cơ hội: The potential bundling effect of Starlink's satellite constellation becoming xAI's captive, low-latency compute backbone.
Phân tích này được tạo bởi đường dẫn StockScreener — bốn LLM hàng đầu (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) nhận các lời nhắc giống hệt nhau với các biện pháp bảo vệ chống ảo tưởng tích hợp. Đọc phương pháp →
SpaceX reportedly dialed back its IPO valuation target from $2 trillion to $1.8 trillion.
Its S-1 report revealed that its growth is slowing and its losses are widening.
The company looks overpriced based on conventional metrics.
Just days after SpaceX issued its S-1 report, the company is already scaling back its IPO goals.
Elon Musk’s space exploration, satellite internet, and AI company is now reportedly targeting a valuation of at least $1.8 trillion in its public offering, down from an earlier goal of at least $2 trillion.
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 »
In a post on X, Musk said the news was “false,” and it’s unclear if the dialed-down target is a response to a lack of investor enthusiasm, though it could be a needed dose of reality for the space juggernaut.
Image source: SpaceX.
SpaceX’s S-1, the SEC filing required of all companies going public, was mostly a disappointment. It revealed a company with only moderate growth and widening losses, especially after its acquisition of xAI.
In 2025, SpaceX’s revenue rose 33% to $18.7 billion, though it reported a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) operating loss of $2.6 billion, compared to a profit of $466 million in 2024, due to a surge in R&D spending, driven by an increase in spending on its AI segment, formerly xAI.
In the first quarter of 2026, revenue growth slowed to 15.4% to $4.7 billion, and its GAAP operating loss was $1.94 billion, again due to R&D expense more than doubling to $3.5 billion.
However, SpaceX sees its valuation determined by its future, which includes a mission to colonize Mars and the moon, rather than its current results.
The company claims an actionable total addressable market of $28.5 trillion, roughly the size of U.S. GDP, and calls it the largest addressable market in human history. Most of that comes from AI enterprise applications, which it values at $22.7 trillion, which is the estimated size of the global digital economy according to the Digital Cooperation Organization.
If you’re hoping to buy into the SpaceX IPO when it goes public, a lower price is a good thing, but the early sign that the company may be overshooting its worth on Wall Street is concerning.
On a price-to-sales ratio, SpaceX is trading at close to 100, making it more expensive than every S&P 500 stock. It’s also losing money.
While there are some bright spots in the business, like demand for compute from its Colossus I and II data centers, which SpaceX gained in its merger with xAI, there are also signs of trouble.
xAI, for example, was valued at $250 billion at the time of the merger, which valued the total company at $1.25 billion. However, xAI is a fraction of the size of Anthropic, which just announced run rate revenue of $47 billion and raised money at a valuation of $965 billion.
By comparison, revenue from xAI in 2025 was just $3.2 billion, and its growth slowed to 12.5% in the first quarter, showing it’s lagging behind leaders like Anthropic and OpenAI. In other words, xAI is trading at a much higher sales multiple than its larger and faster-growing competitor.
Meanwhile, Starlink, the only profitable part of the business, is seeing declining average revenue per user (ARPU) as it expands internationally, suggesting its margins are likely to compress.
Overall, even at $1.8 trillion, SpaceX has plenty of room to fall further. The company represents a bold vision of the future, but with a valuation already in the multi-trillion-dollar range, the upside potential seems limited.
When our analyst team has a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor’s total average return is 985%* — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 211% for the S&P 500.
They just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now, available when you join Stock Advisor.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 29, 2026. *
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.
Bốn mô hình AI hàng đầu thảo luận bài viết này
"Even at $1.8T, SpaceX embeds execution assumptions that current 33% revenue growth and xAI's lagging metrics make difficult to justify."
The article's core claim—that dialing back SpaceX's IPO target to $1.8T from $2T is a needed reality check—holds because 2025 revenue of $18.7B at ~100x sales, plus GAAP losses widening to $2.6B after the xAI acquisition, already prices in heroic execution. Q1 2026 growth slowing to 15.4% and xAI's $3.2B run rate lagging Anthropic further highlight margin compression risks in Starlink ARPU and heavy R&D. Investors buying at this level face limited upside even if Mars colonization narrative materializes.
The $28.5T TAM cited could still support a premium multiple if Colossus data-center demand accelerates faster than modeled, similar to how early Nvidia multiples ignored near-term losses.
"The valuation cut masks a more fundamental problem: xAI is being priced like a winner in a market where Anthropic and OpenAI have already won, and Starlink's margin compression is being ignored in favor of a speculative AI infrastructure narrative."
The article conflates three separate businesses with wildly different economics and growth profiles into one valuation, obscuring what's actually happening. Starlink (profitable, mature, declining ARPU) is being valued like xAI (unprofitable, high-burn, commodity AI compute). The $1.8T valuation assumes xAI's $22.7T TAM claim is real and capturable—but Anthropic's $965B valuation on $47B run-rate revenue suggests xAI at $3.2B revenue is trading at 5.6x higher sales multiple for slower growth. That's not a valuation cut; that's the market finally pricing in xAI's actual competitive position. The real question: how much of the $1.8T is Starlink's intrinsic value, and how much is speculative AI bet? Article doesn't separate them.
SpaceX's TAM claim of $28.5T isn't absurd if you believe AI compute becomes as foundational as electricity—and xAI's data center business (Colossus I/II) could be the actual profit engine if it scales, not the software. A $1.8T valuation might be cheap if Starlink's international expansion hits profitability and xAI becomes a Nvidia-scale infrastructure play.
"SpaceX's valuation is driven by its unique ability to commoditize space access, creating a moat that makes traditional P/S valuation metrics functionally obsolete."
The article’s premise is built on a fundamental category error: treating SpaceX like a traditional aerospace firm rather than a vertically integrated infrastructure monopoly. A 100x price-to-sales ratio is nonsensical if you ignore the optionality of Starlink’s global LEO constellation and the Starship launch cadence, which effectively eliminates the 'cost-to-orbit' barrier for competitors. While the widening R&D losses from the xAI integration are a valid near-term concern, the article ignores that SpaceX is essentially building the 'pipes' for the next generation of compute. If Starship achieves full reusability, the addressable market for space-based logistics expands exponentially, making current revenue multiples irrelevant compared to long-term terminal value.
The bear case is that SpaceX is burning cash to subsidize an AI division that is losing market share to Anthropic and OpenAI, effectively diluting the high-margin space business with a low-moat, capital-intensive AI play.
"The IPO valuation remains a multi-trillion-dollar bet on long-term optionality rather than current fundamentals, and execution risk could erode upside if those optionalities fail to materialize."
Article flags a still-eye-popping $1.8T IPO valuation given 2025 revenue of $18.7B and GAAP losses, plus slowing Q1 2026 growth. However, SpaceX’s optionality could be mispriced: Starlink enterprise/government monetization, launch cadence with DoD/NASA pipelines, and AI compute via xAI could unlock sizable upside even if current cash flow is negative. TAM of $28.5T depends on AI adoption and favorable regulation; execution risk, ARPU declines in Starlink, and competitive/space-policy headwinds could compress margins. The piece omits cash-burn trajectory, capital needs, and the pace at which non-core units can self-fund — critical for any true valuation thesis.
Strongest counter: If AI adoption accelerates and SpaceX locks in durable government/enterprise revenue from Starlink and xAI, optionality could justify higher multiples. If that upside materializes, the IPO could re-rate much faster than feared.
"Starship delays plus xAI integration costs create a cash-drain risk no one quantified."
Gemini treats Starship reusability as a given that expands TAM exponentially, but repeated test failures and regulatory hurdles for full cadence mean the infrastructure 'pipes' for xAI compute stay years away. That timeline directly amplifies ChatGPT's cash-burn gap: xAI's Colossus scaling will likely require sustained SpaceX subsidies, eroding Starlink margins before any monopoly pricing kicks in.
"Starlink's TAM isn't just satellite internet—it's the physical layer for xAI's distributed compute, which reframes the valuation as infrastructure bundling, not subsidy drain."
Claude's separation of Starlink vs. xAI economics is crucial, but underestimates one lever: Starlink's satellite constellation could become xAI's captive, low-latency compute backbone—turning the 'subsidy' into vertical integration moat. That changes the cash-burn math entirely. The question isn't whether xAI standalone justifies $1.8T; it's whether Starlink-as-infrastructure-for-xAI does. Article and panel both miss this bundling effect.
"The LEO-to-AI compute synergy is a technical fallacy, and subsidizing xAI actively destroys SpaceX's core margin profile."
Claude, your 'bundling' theory ignores the speed-of-light latency constraints that make LEO satellites suboptimal for high-performance AI compute. Colossus requires massive, localized GPU clusters, not space-based relay. The real risk is that SpaceX is pivoting from a high-margin hardware monopoly to a commoditized, capital-intensive AI utility. By subsidizing xAI, SpaceX isn't building a moat; it's cannibalizing its own balance sheet to chase a market where it lacks a clear competitive advantage against hyperscalers.
"Starlink-as-mojo-for-xAI is not a slam-dunk moat; latency, capex, and burn still dominate, so bundling alone won't justify the valuation."
Claude's bundling premise overstates the moat: even if Starlink becomes xAI's compute backbone, latency limits and cost burn mean the cash-flow lift is far from guaranteed, and ARPU declines plus funding needs keep the upside ambiguous. The big risk remains that the 'infrastructure' bet isn't enough to justify an 1.8T IPO when the core xAI business is unprofitable and Starlink's margin headwinds persist.
The panel consensus is bearish, with concerns about SpaceX's high valuation, widening losses, and slowing growth. While there's debate on the bundling effect of Starlink and xAI, the panel agrees that the current IPO target of $1.8T may not be justified.
The potential bundling effect of Starlink's satellite constellation becoming xAI's captive, low-latency compute backbone.
The widening R&D losses from the xAI integration and the slowing growth of Starlink's ARPU.