Accessibility help Skip to navigation Skip to main content Skip to footer

Alphaville SpaceX

Add to myFT

Get instant alerts for this topic

Manage your delivery channels here Remove from myFT

Here’s that ‘SpaceX’s IPO is overvalued by 114%’ research in full

Notes on a panhandle

© Reuters

current progress 0%

Bryce Elder

Publishedyesterday

Jump to comments section Print this page

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Getting a lot of banks involved in an IPO has a side benefit: it subdues the potential for criticism. Every firm brought into the tent by an issuer, beyond a vested interest in being nice, has to abide by the rules. In the US, these include a blackout period for publishing research of 40 days for lead underwriters and 25 days for everyone else.

With SpaceX using 23 banks for its capital raise, independent research about the record-breaking float has been very hard to come by. That alone is our reason to raise awareness of a couple of notes from the team at Morningstar.

Their headline findings are:

  • The stock’s probably worth $63 per share, a 53 per cent discount to the $135 issue price.

  • SpaceX probably has an addressable market of about $129bn, rather than the $1.6tn claimed in its S-1 filing.

  • In a (metaphorical) moonshot scenario, where SpaceX pioneers orbital data centres and captures 20 per cent of AI computing capacity by 2040, the company would be worth $1.97tn, or $154 per share.

  • Morningstar assigns only a 7 per cent per cent chance of the moonshot scenario happening.

  • For Starlink, Morningstar estimates the global market to be worth about $129bn, which is rather less SpaceX’s estimate of $1.6tn. “[T]echnical constraints and unit economics limit the business primarily to lower-density markets,” it says.

Here’s a link to the full note on SpaceX valuation, and here’s its note on Starlink market sizing. Space cadets and attached bankers, do please tell us in the comments what Morningstar gets wrong.

Note: headline changed post publication to refer to the premium rather than the discount.

Reuse this content(opens in new window) CommentsJump to comments section

Follow the topics in this article

Add to myFT

Add to myFT

Add to myFT

Add to myFT

Add to myFT

Comments

Close side navigation menu

Search the FTSearch

Subscribe for full access

Read Original at Financial Times