Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake
Posted by 1vuio0pswjnm7 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by miohtama 1 day ago
Google (now under parent company Alphabet) invested roughly $900 million as the majority of a ~$1 billion funding round alongside Fidelity Investments. This gave Google an initial equity stake of about 7–7.5% in SpaceX at a valuation of roughly $10–12 billion.
Comment by matwood 1 day ago
Comment by dgellow 1 day ago
Comment by georgeburdell 1 day ago
Comment by ballon_monkey 1 day ago
Comment by georgeburdell 22 hours ago
Comment by ballon_monkey 20 hours ago
Comment by ulfw 18 hours ago
instagram being a cheap tiktok clone is frankly an insult.
Comment by notfromhere 20 hours ago
Comment by mensetmanusman 19 hours ago
Comment by te_chris 16 hours ago
Oh, glad we managed to not miss out on the 2-sided ai slop panopticon
Comment by jdross 1 day ago
Comment by janderson215 1 day ago
From Claude via stockanalysis.com: META — institutions 67.51%, insiders 13.49%, float 2.19B of 2.54B shares outstanding. That leaves roughly 19% as retail/other.
SPCX — institutions 5.95%, insiders 46.47%, float only 638.65M of 13.17B shares. Residual is ~47.6%, but that is not retail.
Comment by notfromhere 20 hours ago
Comment by dragontamer 1 day ago
Your standard SPY or VTI investor doesn't know jack diddly squat about shareholder rights, nor do they ever plan to invoke them.
Comment by kelnos 1 day ago
You can always decide to pick an ETF that doesn't invest in the companies you don't like, or invest in individual stocks if you have the time and stomach for it.
Comment by dragontamer 1 day ago
I'm saying it's how the world works. The majority of pension funds (public or private) and 401k plans are simply passive index funds with nearly no direct voting rights (and at best very limited, indirect voting rights).
Comment by andsoitis 22 hours ago
That’s completely wrong.
Most 401k plans have by far more active fund options than passive fund options. Notwithstanding, more and more dollars are tilting towards the passive index funds, i.e. through consumer choice.
Where do you get your information from?
Comment by dragontamer 16 hours ago
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/passive-etfs-hit-tipping-poin...
Sometime last year, passive funds overtook active funds.
Comment by andsoitis 15 hours ago
Comment by dragontamer 6 hours ago
More money is in passive now than active. On a dollar basis, there are fewer votes purchased dollar for dollar.
Even then, active funds don't always offer proxy vote services so I'm not sure wtf active has to do with my original point: that investors today don't seem to give a rats ass about the vote.
Comment by DaedalusII 1 day ago
Comment by dragontamer 1 day ago
Oh, don't worry. I already know the answer. I'm asking if YOU can tell me the answer.
Comment by mpalczewski 1 day ago
Comment by dragontamer 1 day ago
I certainly can't buy individual shares in my 401k program. And very, very few programs I'm aware of ever offered that as an option.
Comment by Danox 17 hours ago
The managers ofsuch funds are lazy and invest in multiple mediocre companies, most of whom produce mediocre returns for example investing in 10 tech companies when only two or three of the companies actually accomplish anything won’t help you in the long-term.
Investing in one or two really good tech companies over time allowed me to retire early.
Comment by mpalczewski 23 hours ago
Comment by Danox 17 hours ago
Comment by reaperducer 18 hours ago
You can have a 401(k) without your employer. My wife has one and can buy and sell any stocks she wants.
Comment by DaedalusII 19 hours ago
Comment by dragontamer 6 hours ago
To Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. Who have crafted companies who have virtually no voting rights but get purchased up by the masses through passive index funds.
Comment by NuclearPM 1 day ago
This is laughable. Many shareholders don’t even know they own stock in these companies.
Comment by andsoitis 1 day ago
Comment by StilesCrisis 1 day ago
Comment by kelnos 1 day ago
And once you've left the company and roll those 401ks over into IRAs, you can put them at whatever financial institution you want, many of which have more or less unlimited flexibility (within legality) with regard to what you can invest in.
Now, I know many employees just sort of adopt an "autopilot" attitude and don't pay much attention to their retirement account investments, but that's on them for ignoring this stuff. (The lack of general financial literacy, in the US at least, continues to disappoint me.)
So: yes, there are some people who don't have much of a say in how their retirement fund is invested, but my feeling is that those people are a small minority. I do think a large number (perhaps even a majority) of people do have the ability to direct their retirement investments, but either don't know they can do it, or can't be bothered. Again, though, that's on them for not educating themselves and playing a more active role in their financial future.
Comment by Danox 17 hours ago
Comment by Danox 17 hours ago
Comment by CamperBob2 1 day ago
Many people wouldn't support SpaceX and Tesla if they knew more about Musk. Conversely, some other people who don't know much about him might want to support his companies.
Comment by dgellow 1 day ago
Comment by miohtama 1 day ago
There were disputes around SpaceX secondary market/special purpose vehicle shares before the listing, but they were all settled out of court, AFAIK.
Comment by timmmmmmay 18 hours ago
Comment by dgellow 12 hours ago
Comment by inemesitaffia 53 minutes ago
Look for articles about SpaceX ownership pre 2024
Here's an article from 2023
https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/09/06/did-elon-musk-l...
It's worth asking you where you conceived this claim and what happens with the similar ones
Comment by panarky 1 day ago
One exception is GOOG / GOOGL which both trade actively, and there's not much difference in price.
The mechanism for a price divergence could be accumulation of the 10x shares to seize control, but even if you could buy the entire float, it wouldn't be enough to take control, so that mechanism never happens.
Comment by Polizeiposaune 1 day ago
By voting rights, they have 10x (founder stock), 1x (trading as GOOGL), and 0x (trading as GOOG). The class with 10x voting rights does not trade publicly. The class with 1x voting rights does not have enough voting power to control the direction of the company so there is no real difference in perceived value between GOOG and GOOGL.
Employee stock awards are IIRC all in restricted shares of GOOG (0x voting rights) so they don't dilute the power of the founders.
Comment by panarky 1 day ago
Interestingly, the 10x shares held by Brin and Page constitute only 11% of the economic value of Alphabet, but 51% of the voting control.
And the 10x shares automatically convert to 1x shares upon transfer or inheritance, so if the founders cash out or die, the 10x supervoting power disappears.
Comment by pyuser583 1 day ago
Comment by decimalenough 1 day ago
Comment by chii 1 day ago
it should be, but the market might be a bit irrational.
Comment by edoceo 1 day ago
Comment by dzonga 1 day ago
he might have a large miss with the metaverse, & maybe current a.i effort. but in terms of being ruthless with competition & acquiring competition he did his job well as CEO.
musky on the other hand - overpromising and underdelivering.
Comment by inemesitaffia 1 hour ago
Please stop with the disinformation
Comment by hbarka 1 day ago
Comment by laughing_man 1 day ago
Comment by kasey_junk 1 day ago
But Texas is making a push very specifically around giving less shareholder protections.
Comment by laughing_man 1 day ago
Comment by kasey_junk 1 day ago
B) we literally don’t know if it’s illegal or not yet. The reason investors like Delaware is that there is tons of decided case law and courts that are expert and fast at deciding these issues so you’d get quick predictable answers.
But those answers have lots of rights to minority shareholders which the modern dictator founders hated. So Texas made a play for them with the specific pitch that they will give much less support of minority shareholders.
Comment by dgellow 12 hours ago
Comment by cavisne 1 day ago
Comment by UltraSane 22 hours ago
Comment by lesuorac 1 day ago
If you're investing in an Elon company you better believe in the man because he's always ran them however he wants. Seems fine for the voting shares to reflect that since he's been running companies for decades; you had the opportunity to know what you're getting into.
If for some reason you're invested into some total market index or the like and you don't like the companies that it invests into then maybe you shouldn't invest according to those rules.
Comment by trimbo 1 day ago
Sure, I'm cherrypicking the success stories but I don't think it's the only signal people should use.
Comment by paulryanrogers 1 day ago
Comment by elif 1 day ago
By traditional business metrics it looks toxic but compared to a typical tech unicorn it's not really outstanding.
Considering it's a tech unicorn with strategic and financial leverage like no other (their own global Internet infrastructure, access to arbitrary billions in capital, ability to build the biggest chip fab in the world), it's certainly fair to call it a gamble, but to call it failing is a stretch imo.
Comment by cinntaile 1 day ago
Comment by stevenjgarner 1 day ago
Comment by mindslight 1 day ago
(man, I wish I could get people to throw money at me for all of my outstanding projects that I buy some parts for and would be nice to do "some time")
Comment by hnbad 1 day ago
Comment by ballon_monkey 1 day ago
Comment by matwood 1 day ago
Comment by TurdF3rguson 1 day ago
Comment by disgruntledphd2 13 hours ago
Comment by TurdF3rguson 10 hours ago
We'll have to wait and see I guess.
Comment by matwood 10 hours ago
Comment by disgruntledphd2 8 hours ago
This seems more likely to me, but we'll see I guess.
Comment by wildzzz 1 day ago
Companies generally don't just jump into a totally new market unless they've already got some experience.
The SpaceX acquisitions of xAI and X have absolutely nothing to do with space. While I'm sure SpaceX software engineers benefit greatly from cheap access to Grok, it and X have no relevance to the core business of SpaceX. It's the same level as "huh?" if Boeing decided to buy up an AI company and social media platform. The only reason xAI and X are even part of SpaceX is because Musk fucked himself with being forced to buy Twitter and he decided to bundle them with an actually profitable company.
Comment by rabf 1 day ago
X can supply training data to to Xai and Grok is heavily integrated into X so there is some synergy there.
Comment by xnickb 1 day ago
Comment by browningstreet 1 day ago
He broke through that professional firewall when he merged xAI with SpaceX and then pushed it to go public as he did. I also posit that Gwynne Shotwell is weirdly undervalued for what she's accomplished and what she's put up with, and I think that will show up some time in the future.
There was enough technical analysis to show that even Musk's cult feed can't overcome the significant financial hardships he laid on SpaceX. I personally think it was his jump the shark move. He can't really go up again after this. He no longer has any untainted assets for mega-exploits.
Comment by AustinDev 1 day ago
Gwynne is fiercely loyal to Elon. I don't expect to see significant strife between them.
Comment by Mountain_Skies 1 day ago
Comment by laughing_man 1 day ago
Without looking, can you tell me who the COO of ULA is?
Comment by sdenton4 1 day ago
Comment by ambicapter 1 day ago
Comment by sdenton4 22 hours ago
Comment by consensus1 1 day ago
Comment by miohtama 1 day ago
Comment by infinitewars 1 day ago
Comment by hn_throwaway_99 1 day ago
Seems similar to me as when Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board many years back because their products started to overlap, especially mobile.
Comment by onlyrealcuzzo 1 day ago
Twitter by itself is lucky to be worth $15B anymore.
The space portion of SpaceX is easily worth 10x that.
xAI is theoretically the hype machine that makes up the remainder of the value.
Comment by cowboy_henk 1 day ago
At SpaceX’s valuation, even a 1-2% increase in share price due to some astroturfing on the platform they themselves own basically pays back the cost of acquiring twitter.
Comment by mrits 1 day ago
Comment by dopa42365 1 day ago
Comment by jamiequint 1 day ago
It's insanely profitable they did $7.2bn in EBITDA on $11.4bn in revenue in 2025.
Comment by elif 1 day ago
And SpaceX has become their favorite place to put money over the last 5 years.
Comment by cineticdaffodil 1 day ago
Comment by johncearls 14 hours ago
Comment by nairboon 1 day ago
Comment by bpodgursky 1 day ago
A huge mistake, I'm sure the relevant parties have been punished appropriately.
Comment by consensus1 1 day ago
Comment by miohtama 1 day ago
Investors are buying Musk, like they were buying Warren Buffett with Berkshire Hathaway. Long-term shareholders are not buying space; they are buying Musk. This has been clear to everyone since the beginning; it has been well communicated (look at SpaceX governance rules in Texas), and there is nothing mystical about it.
It's very likely Musk will roll everything up into a single Musk conglomerate.
Comment by SecretDreams 1 day ago
Whether this trend continues or not indefinitely will largely determine if incestors start looking for the door.
Comment by miohtama 1 day ago
In defence of Mr Musk, despite his character flaws, Tesla is the only Western electric car company in the top 20, and this includes Korea and Japan. Also, SpaceX is ~90% of the world's commercial rocket launch capacity.
But this does not mean SpaceX would be correctly priced at the moment. It may be expensive, but SpaceX is going to have many years to come to reap the benefits of their hard work building the business.
Comment by jeltz 1 day ago
WV is number 6 in the top 20, and BMW is number 10. And while Tesla has good sales now their lack of innovation is a huge risk.
https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/blog/list-of-global-top-e...
Comment by lindig 1 day ago
This conflates the quality of the product with the value of the business. There is no contradiction between Tesla cars selling well because they fit a market and Tesla the business not being a good investment.
Comment by groby_b 1 day ago
Which is going not too badly for the shorts, so far. There's a reason almost 50% of the float is loaned out.
We'll see once the earnings call rolls around.
Comment by rabf 1 day ago
Comment by wongarsu 1 day ago
Comment by dmix 1 day ago
Comment by bdangubic 1 day ago
The funniest thing you can write… Can’t believe people still write “Robotaxi” after 12+ years of failed promises… wild wild stuff
Comment by dmix 1 day ago
Ramping up Cybercab production is definitely high risk play. Which is counter to OP's point that Tesla is now just some boring non-visionary company, especially combined investments in humanoid robots and semiconductors.
If Tesla was just looking to make safe easy money they wouldn't be making huge gambles on new markets.
Comment by miohtama 1 day ago
Comment by jeltz 1 day ago
Comment by dmix 1 day ago
Comment by bdangubic 1 day ago
Comment by mhitza 1 day ago
I think Musk's luck is running out, he's been too political this past year and he seems to also have run out of geek "street cred". Remember youtubers visiting (whatever the Tesla trade show was called) were more perplexed than impressed with what has been shown. Similar sentiment seen across trade shows (like CES) where everything was AI and no one seemed to ask themselves "why are we putting AI in this?". The answer, of course, for startups and stock listed companies, to make themselves more valuable on paper.
Investors would probably be aware of that if they run any kind of sentiment analysis on online social media content. And at the same time there's some pull-out from tech stock. So maybe some are starting to realise that things are too shaky for their risk profile?
Comment by mrits 1 day ago
Comment by wasfgwp 1 day ago
Comment by ajmurmann 1 day ago
Comment by mhitza 1 day ago
Because I find your words surprising since critique is what I was raised with in the late 90s early 2000s. Offline and in the media.
At the same time your definition of criticizing is very lax, when I'm stating banal opinions and a broad observation.
Comment by Applejinx 1 day ago
Comment by SecretDreams 1 day ago
If only some billionaires (trillionaires?) could strike a better balance between successful and human. Especially since most wealth is actually wealth transfer from the poor and from taxpayer coffers to the rich.
Comment by gritspants 1 day ago
Comment by SecretDreams 23 hours ago
But, fundamentally,bro become a billionaire, you exploited some people at some point in the process. Their mere existence is not ideal for society. And their assets would be better served distributed to the masses. Unfortunately, we also lack many good and strong governments and policies - so I wouldn't feel great just transfering their wealth to the governments of the world for said distribution, either.
Comment by consensus1 1 day ago
Comment by edoceo 1 day ago
Comment by consensus1 1 day ago
Comment by wasfgwp 23 hours ago
You are implying that any successful person should strive to achieve something like that? Or what point are you even trying to trying to make?
Comment by hnbad 23 hours ago
Comment by zaik 23 hours ago
Comment by dgellow 1 day ago
Comment by hnbad 23 hours ago
Comment by Fire-Dragon-DoL 1 day ago
/s
Comment by alberth 1 day ago
Comment by miohtama 1 day ago
"It's quite amazing how this values SpaceX at 10bn, less than 50% of WhatsApp."
Somebody was wise a decade ago.
Comment by justinhj 1 day ago
Since then Starlink has succeeded, reusable rockets are a reality, ISS crewed spaceflight restored to US.
I expect all that had an impact on the valuation. Personally I wouldn't invest in Elon because his stock is a wild ride but space x has achieved a lot.
Comment by 3form 1 day ago
Comment by mvdtnz 19 hours ago
Comment by blitzar 14 hours ago
make (secret or new information) known.
Comment by wenbin 1 day ago
Alphabet’s investment holdings (eg, spacex, anthropic..) are worth in the same order of magnitude of BRK’s (~$300B)
The track record of google’s M&A is pretty good.
Except for search and cloud, many of Google’s important products were from M&A - Maps, Docs, android, doubleclick, youtube , deep mind, etc.
Comment by glimshe 1 day ago
Comment by theptip 1 day ago
So on that front, while I didn’t guess this, it does sound like a good investment.
Furthermore, while I am skeptical about the “DC in space” thing in the short term, and Musk’s timelines are, generously, something like P99.9 outcomes, it seems plausible that in 10 years it might make sense. And at that point Google will want to put their TPUs in orbit, too.
Comment by benoau 1 day ago
Comment by adastra22 1 day ago
Comment by cromka 14 hours ago
Comment by lkbm 1 day ago
Comment by adastra22 1 day ago
Comment by cromka 14 hours ago
Comment by adastra22 12 hours ago
Comment by downrightmike 1 day ago
Comment by joenot443 1 day ago
Comment by aeternum 1 day ago
The earth is limited in the amount of thermal energy it can radiate.
Comment by bogzz 23 hours ago
Comment by aeternum 20 hours ago
From an energy POV, the chemical launch energy required for orbital insertion is 900GJ per satellite (when amortized) whereas the satellite produces 18,900GJ over its 5-yr lifetime, and far more if it lasts longer.
Comment by wiml 1 day ago
Comment by TJSomething 1 day ago
Comment by adastra22 1 day ago
Comment by teravor 1 day ago
> Data centers in space?
the investment happened 10 years agoComment by DaedalusII 1 day ago
Comment by infecto 1 day ago
Comment by melenaboija 1 day ago
Comment by cromka 1 day ago
Comment by jeffbee 1 day ago
Comment by inemesitaffia 35 minutes ago
Comment by cromka 1 day ago
Everything else you said draws from some regular consumer experiences. That's not what I am talking about here.
Comment by colechristensen 1 day ago
Comment by decimalenough 1 day ago
Comment by lesuorac 1 day ago
Rather than co-locating media servers into ISPs you can stick them into space so they're just closer.
Space in NYC isn't cheap. Space in space is free.
Comment by HDBaseT 18 hours ago
Most people in the developed world are probably under 500km away from the nearest data centre, with most connections being established over fibre.
A space DC would require wireless communications, over longer distances. The latency is higher. Not to mention, Jitter, Latency and Packet Loss are pretty consequential to video streaming, specifically real time or live broadcasts.
Comment by lpribis 1 day ago
... what?
Say what you want about starship etc etc, but space in space is far from free and will be for a long time.
Comment by lesuorac 20 hours ago
Space is free; you don't even pay property taxes.
Transportation costs are not but that's the whole reason you invest into (at the time) a space transportation company.
Comment by lpribis 11 hours ago
Comment by lesuorac 1 hour ago
Like what is your argument? A new technology is expensive? That's why you invest into bringing the costs down.
Google invested into balloons to share internet (Loom). Which they eventually gave up on but the correct decision is to try new things and then evaluate their future success. Not just armchair decide that change is scary.
I'm not saying space data centers should happen tomorrow but just that ruling them out completely for YouTube is foolish. Like Sports often send the video feed through space back to earth to be processed. You can skip a step there by just sending it to space, processing it there, and then send it back down to subscribers.
Comment by nonethewiser 1 day ago
Comment by andxor 1 day ago
This may be a narrative violation on HN, but the quality of Google's management is exceptional.
Comment by seatac76 1 day ago
Comment by lesuorac 1 day ago
In-house is Google's moat. The big piece right now is LLMs where in-house TPUs allow cheaper internal costs. If Cloud customers want to rent Nvidia GPUs that's fine since they're paying. But Search and etc get an edge on competitors by not.
The bigger problem with in-house is the failure to out-house it. Kubernetes shouldn't been new. Things should be done like AWS where the internal APIs are the external APIs.
Comment by SwellJoe 1 day ago
I don't think anybody at Google has sent that email, yet. Maybe Sergey and Sundar don't use Google products, anymore. Maybe they have a special Google just for billionaires that doesn't suck.
Comment by throwaw12 1 day ago
Comment by rsynnott 1 day ago
Comment by rf15 1 day ago
Comment by 230581abv 1 day ago
Comment by downrightmike 1 day ago
Comment by knodi 1 day ago
Comment by ajross 1 day ago
"The Market", at this scale, means "You find the buyer(s) yourself and work up the deal with a hundred lawyers and PR staff and hope the contract negotiation stays secret".
Comment by TheAtomic 1 day ago
Comment by ajross 1 day ago
Comment by dgellow 1 day ago
Comment by imagent 1 day ago
Comment by smnscu 1 day ago
Comment by thaumasiotes 1 day ago
Comment by blitzar 1 day ago
Comment by Mtinie 1 day ago
Comment by dgellow 1 day ago
Comment by kingleopold 1 day ago
Comment by sidcool 1 day ago
Comment by hiddencost 1 day ago
One consequence of booking the revenue is that they're going to have to report a loss when they sell it.
It's possible there's some tax shenanigans at play (idk): report the profit, mark it against their massive AI capex, sell later when they can book a loss. (I'm not sure if it works that way, it wouldn't for an individual, but maybe they can find a way to trigger a stepped up basis.)
Comment by WarmWash 1 day ago
Comment by embedding-shape 1 day ago
Comment by lotsofpulp 1 day ago
Or is Alphabet greedy for holding onto the equity instead of selling it for cash? Or is throwaw12 greedy for wanting to sell something after a 100x return?
Comment by tonyhart7 1 day ago
100 billion is nothing if that money can put you in better spot at technology landscape
Comment by grim_io 1 day ago
Comment by fancyfredbot 1 day ago
Comment by SwellJoe 1 day ago
Comment by lefty2 1 day ago
Comment by fco356pal 1 day ago
Comment by nonethewiser 1 day ago
Comment by throwaway27448 1 day ago
Comment by dmix 1 day ago
Comment by throwaway27448 1 day ago
EDIT: cleaned up my comment; removed a more inflammatory claim about corruption in the private sector.
Comment by consensus1 1 day ago
Comment by sportsracersss 1 day ago
Comment by throwaway27448 18 hours ago
We cannot answer this question without completely rearranging how we grant contracts. It doesn't matter: any single provider of a service will fuck us over. Even fucking libertarians can see this
Comment by yieldcrv 1 day ago
Corruption that stands out to me would be regarding starlink, Elon got the FCC to change power emission rules to hamper competitors with better satellites, but the competitors were able to comply and offer a better service still, while starlink’s existing fleet cannot. meaning elon still would actually have to compete and make a new starlink fleet, which he is doing now. (Basically competitors dont need a base station, and future starlink wont meed a base station either, direct to device ubiquity high speed service is coming) but before that path, he then tried to get an exception from the fcc regulation he promulgated, which was extremely grimy. The fcc didn’t go along.
Comment by dmix 1 day ago
Didn't SpaceX petition to lessen the rules around geostationary power limits? Why would less rules be corruption? Because it disfavors legacy incumbents? Amazon also benefited from the new rules.
Comment by yieldcrv 1 day ago
they tried to limit the ability of direct to device competitors to function, as the current starlink fleet is practically useless for direct to device. they got their regulatory change, and it didn't limit the ability of direct device competitors to function. THEN their petition came.
Comment by dmix 23 hours ago
Comment by yieldcrv 23 hours ago
all you have to do is imagine being an investor in the smaller companies that had to navigate around the unnecessary rule change, and spend more time helping the FCC see why Elon was coming back to get starlink exempted from the rule
what stands out to me is that in other countries that we aren't conditioned to respect, we call the exact same interplay "corruption". there is no nuance, there is no "well its not bushels of cash in a back alley, it's a campaign donation and following the process proscribed by the legislature and unexpected court rulings", its just "corruption"
Comment by yieldcrv 1 day ago
Its how it declines to that point at another 70% loss from $1.5 trillion that people are worried about
Comment by piloto_ciego 1 day ago
For what it’s worth, I get it. I have found Musk insufferable for the last decade since he attached himself to the right and got into drugs, however I think SpaceX is undervalued right now.
1. They are literally the only company on earth with a reliable partially reusable launch system. There are a few people trying, but everyone else is way behind.
2. When they eventually (hopefully) get Starship right, we will see a price drop in the cost of transportation to orbit we have never seen. When I did the numbers a few years ago, the price for space mining to be comparable to terrestrial mining was around $20-60/kg to orbit. They’d effectively be the ONLY way to access that. That’s one of a gazillion things that becomes possible with cheap access to space. UPS becomes a competitor at those prices… it’s game changing.
3. They are basically dominating the satellite internet world. Nothing compares. Starlink is amazing, especially here in Alaska, I suspect they will eventually have a phone, which will be revolutionary.
4. A gazillion government contracts, Star shield, and arguably point to point QRF shuttle (after starship). The defense implications alone mean that they are going to be around indefinitely.
I don’t know, but I think people are sleeping on this.
Comment by stevefan1999 1 day ago
In a world of money, every bit you can earn, you have to earn, while I know it is immoral to sell the data for spying purposes, morality alone don't mean shit now, that I never see any capitalists and corpo dogs have any kind of morality anyway, except when massive backslash, congress hearings and boycotts, which is, ahem, Meta/Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. But given the unique position Musk used to have in Trump's government and his right leaning position he is safe to do so. At least for now, he is immune to holding congress hearing for a scandal I suppose.
And not to mention that Grok is literally trained over X/Twitter, and keep in mind Bluesky is federated and strangely, no one seems to be scraping it over ActivityPub. I believe Thread is also built on the same foundation but it's sure that Meta made good measures for antiscraping, I expected as a data oriented company.
Alas, keep in mind SpaceX merged with xAI and nonetheless don't forget their data side
Comment by piloto_ciego 1 day ago
All these come together with orbital data centers…
Comment by tenuousemphasis 15 hours ago
Only if you remain wilfully ignorant of thermodynamics.
Comment by kristianp 1 day ago
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/11/technology/google-investm... , https://archive.md/f0BxC
[2] https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-raises-30-billion-s...
Comment by sportsracersss 1 day ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/05/google-to-pay-spacex-920-mil...
Comment by m101 1 day ago
Comment by bombcar 1 day ago
Comment by rubyfan 1 day ago
Comment by brainwad 1 day ago
Comment by throwatdem12311 1 day ago
Comment by ur-whale 1 day ago
Comment by outside1234 1 day ago
Comment by jddj 1 day ago
Comment by Aboutplants 1 day ago
Comment by dagaci 1 day ago
Comment by forrestthewoods 1 day ago
Comment by carlosjobim 1 day ago
Comment by simianwords 1 day ago
Comment by jdsfijfdsifs 1 day ago
Comment by OhNoNotAgain_99 1 day ago
Comment by dfasifsaf 1 day ago
Comment by the__alchemist 1 day ago
Comment by matwood 1 day ago
Comment by pier25 1 day ago
Comment by hansmayer 1 day ago
But you don´t get to to that. Would be like "Excluding my business costs, my company profits are the same as my revenue".
Comment by delecti 1 day ago
Comment by overfeed 1 day ago
Comment by mr_toad 1 day ago
You can, and for tax purposes you must. The bean counters hate that you can’t deduct capex.
Comment by aoeusnth1 1 day ago
Comment by jhpankow 1 day ago
Comment by next_xibalba 1 day ago
Comment by hansmayer 1 day ago
Comment by throwaw12 1 day ago
Google has hardware, software ecosystem, mobile ecosystem, controls browser, has access to 2B+ users, has talent to come up with ideas - perfect spot for AI
Comment by conartist6 1 day ago
Comment by matwood 1 day ago
Comment by etempleton 1 day ago
Comment by adabyron 1 day ago
Comment by mr_toad 1 day ago
Comment by ariwilson 1 day ago
Comment by conartist6 1 day ago
Comment by AznHisoka 1 day ago
Would I bet that other humans would believe that? Nope.
Comment by jeremyjh 1 day ago
Comment by infecto 1 day ago
Comment by conartist6 1 day ago
Comment by infecto 1 day ago
Comment by the__alchemist 1 day ago
Comment by legulere 1 day ago
Comment by onlypostonce 1 day ago
Comment by vkou 1 day ago
Comment by chasd00 1 day ago
Comment by mr_toad 1 day ago
Comment by zulux 1 day ago
The market hasn't been working on fundamentals for a long time. I have a fair amount of value stocks and a bunch of cash lying around, so I'll be ok.
I really feel for anybody trying to invest to grow right now; there's no obvious safer play.
Comment by nubg 1 day ago
Comment by chasd00 1 day ago
Vanguard’s total market fund (VTSAX). Just setup a monthly purchase and forget about it. Turn wealth building into a time problem instead of a skill/luck/cash problem. (Assuming time is on your side)
Comment by the__alchemist 1 day ago
Comment by gizajob 1 day ago
SpaceX I actually bought at the IPO price because I think the company will be around in 30 years time, so as fraudulent and mispriced as it is, having a small holding over that kind of horizon I believe will be profitable. And I want to be that kind of old-timer who can chuckle at buying it at the IPO and holding through the crash and still holding when they are on Mars and beyond and SPCX is worth multiples of what it is today.
Comment by toast0 1 day ago
Oh, me too. The way it writes things that look like they address my question, and then links references that totally don't makes me dread Googling in a way I hadn't yet. For probably five years, I've been doing DDG first and Google when I DDG doesn't work well and usually Google doesn't either, so I already have dread for Google, but this makes it worse.
Comment by the__alchemist 1 day ago
> So your short could work, but it’s not going to work for google’s involvement in an AI-bubble, it’s predicated on the entire market tanking
Is indeed a required assumption. Major return is not going to happen with this, Not losing a big chunk of my money is the goal!
> SpaceX I actually bought at the IPO price because I think the company will be around in 30 years time, so as fraudulent and mispriced as it is, having a small holding over that kind of horizon I believe will be profitable. And I want to be that kind of old-timer who can chuckle at buying it at the IPO and holding through the crash and still holding when they are on Mars and beyond and SPCX is worth multiples of what it is today.
I think that's a fine play as well. The short is more of an "This IPO price doesn't make sense; sell within a year after it settle"
Comment by negura 18 hours ago
elon whom you gave your money to will still be a disgusting creature
Comment by gizajob 6 hours ago
Comment by hahahaa 1 day ago
Comment by IAmGraydon 1 day ago
Comment by jsnell 1 day ago
[0] By net income. By operating income, still like top 5 to top 10 depending on how you interpret the numbers.
Comment by hahahaa 1 day ago
Also when shorting you are betting against the machine of capitalism. It's like very rare and abnormal for today to be a GFC or Enron sort of day rather than a business as usual. You need a lot of skill to short a top 50 comompany. Anyway good luck.
Comment by DanHulton 1 day ago
I’ve always been hesitant to short stocks because of the old adage “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” and the market has a REAL vested interest in seeing these companies not explode.
Good luck on this one, genuinely, because you may need it.
(That said, if you DO win big on this one, I think we’re all fucked, so maybe I shouldn’t be wishing you TOO much luck. =) )
Comment by the__alchemist 1 day ago
Comment by wbsun 18 hours ago
Comment by Rover222 1 day ago
Comment by rhyperior 1 day ago
Comment by deadbabe 1 day ago
Anthropic and OpenAI though will likely be dead, killed by cheap open weight LLMs and local LLMs.
Comment by maipen 1 day ago
Even in the last Elon Musk interview by The Economist, he admited that it's likely China will win at the end.
The gap is so close now. Opinions matter not, the Chinese will have their own GPUs, RAM and everything they need.
Giants like google and spacex are the few that can handle it because their business is not only about shipping the best models.
Comment by Fricken 1 day ago
Comment by deadbabe 20 hours ago
Google has vast product lines, AI is just a feature in them. They only need AI good enough to deliver value.
Anthropic is basically nothing beyond Claude, and most average people do not give a shit about frontier intelligence, AI became more than enough for them a few versions back.
Comment by api 1 day ago
It will also crash the price of chips globally. These high prices are kind of artificially buoyed by the fact that China can’t obtain ASML machines. This keeps China’s vast proven ability to scale manufacturing off the playing field.
This is so clearly the Chinese century. Doesn’t mean the US, EU, etc become backwaters. England was a huge influence on the 20th century. It does mean that China will drive tech and the global economy forward.
Comment by lorreyfum 1 day ago
Comment by akersten 1 day ago
Comment by lorreyfum 23 hours ago
Comment by bdangubic 1 day ago
Comment by andxor 1 day ago
Comment by VirusNewbie 1 day ago
Comment by teddyX 1 day ago
Comment by alfiedotwtf 1 day ago
Comment by minraws 1 day ago
But yes the stock could go down much further and I hope they are willing to show the losses if they can show this as gains today.
Imagine the next call being about how their 95$B went to sub 30B$..
Will that be a negative line item. I don't see the point in disclosing this stake as earnings.
But I do get that accounting was made as a tool for companies to show off.
Comment by HFguy 1 day ago
Comment by minraws 1 day ago
Comment by consensus1 1 day ago
Comment by locallost 1 day ago
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/20/spacex-fundi...
Comment by passwordoops 1 day ago
Actually more like $14.1 and whatever value the other $80 is worth when they sell. Which is probably going to be worth well North of whatever is lost on the $14.1 B long-term... All part of the scam to inflate the value of the AI bubble
Comment by newsclues 1 day ago
Comment by formvoltron 1 day ago
Comment by kennywinker 1 day ago
Comment by minton 1 day ago
Comment by shakna 1 day ago
[0] https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01762...
Comment by TheOtherHobbes 1 day ago
Comment by rsynnott 1 day ago
Comment by consensus1 1 day ago
> “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?” Musk states on 13 December 2013.
> “any day 1st - 8th . play it by ear if you want. always space for you,” Epstein replies.
> Musk then sends several emails relaying his schedule, and the two settle on 2 January as a date for the visit. The email exchange ends with Epstein telling Musk that he would need to remain in New York and sending his regrets that they could not meet.
> “Bad news- Unfortunately , my schedule will keep me in New York . I was really looking forward to finally spending some time together with just fun as the agenda. so i am very disappointed. Hopefully we can schedule another time in the near future,” Epstein wrote.
> In November 2012, Epstein sent Musk an email asking “how many people will you be for the heli to island”.
> “Probably just Talulah and me. What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk replied, in an apparent reference to his former wife Talulah Riley.
> Musk followed up with an email on 25 December in response to another Epstein message that encouraged him to visit and offered use of his helicopter.
> “Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I’m looking for,” Musk wrote.
> “Understood , I will see you on st Barth, the ratio on my island might make Talilah uncomfortable,” Epstein responded.
> “Ratio is not a problem for Talulah,” Musk said.
> On 2 January 2013, Musk sent Epstein an email suggesting that the visit wouldn’t take place saying: “Logistics won’t work this time around.”
Comment by DoctorOetker 1 day ago
Comment by pavlov 1 day ago