The Largest IPO in History Ignites Heated Debate: Is SpaceX Worth $1.77 Trillion?

marsbitPublished on 2026-06-11Last updated on 2026-06-11

Abstract

SpaceX's potential IPO is priced at $135 per share, aiming to raise $75 billion and valuing the company at approximately $1.77 trillion, which would make it the largest IPO in history. This valuation has sparked intense debate among investors. Bullish analysts, including major underwriters Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, argue the valuation is justified by SpaceX's long-term potential. They see it not just as a rocket company but as a future leader in space infrastructure, with key growth drivers being Starlink satellite internet, low-cost rocket launches, and future AI-related ventures. They project revenues reaching hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars by 2030-2040. ARK Invest's model suggests a 2030 enterprise value could reach $2.5 trillion. Bearish analysts from independent research firms like Morningstar, PitchBook, and New Constructs contend the IPO price is excessively high, already pricing in unrealistic future growth. Using DCF and sum-of-the-parts models, they estimate fair value between $780 billion and $1.7 trillion, significantly below the IPO target. They highlight risks such as the speculative nature of AI projections, over-dependence on Elon Musk, high growth expectations, and corporate governance concerns. Trefis set a target price of just $79 per share. While both sides acknowledge SpaceX's unique position in commercial space, the core disagreement centers on whether the $135 share price offers a reasonable margin of safety or is overly optimis...

Original Author: Biteye

Currently, the SpaceX IPO pricing is preliminarily set at $135 per share, with a planned fundraising scale of approximately $75 billion, corresponding to a fully diluted valuation of about $1.77 trillion. This essentially secures its position as the largest IPO in the history of capital markets.

If this scale is ultimately achieved, Musk's net worth is expected to surge by over $220 billion, challenging for the title of the world's first trillionaire.

However, heavy is the head that wears the crown. The reason the SpaceX IPO attracts such attention is not only its potential to become the largest IPO ever but also because the capital markets are already fiercely debating its valuation.

Is SpaceX really worth $1.77 trillion? With an extra $220 billion in his wallet, will Musk be able to sleep soundly?

🌟 The Bull Case: Underwriters Weave a Long-Term Story with Starlink + Rocket Launches + AI

Bulls believe investing in SpaceX is not merely about backing a rocket company but rather about getting an early stake in the future gateway to space infrastructure.

The $1.77 trillion valuation seems high, but if Starlink, low-cost launches, and AI businesses continue to deliver, $135 has a long-term story to support it.

Goldman Sachs @GoldmanSachs

X Followers: 1.132M | XHunt Rank: 12015 | Global top-tier investment bank, one of the core underwriters for the SpaceX IPO.

Core View: SpaceX's valuation should not be understood solely as a traditional aerospace company; Starlink and future AI business must be incorporated into the long-term growth model.

Goldman Sachs expects SpaceX's revenue in 2028 to be around $160 billion, exceeding $470 billion by 2030.

The AI division is considered the most aggressive part. Goldman Sachs projects SpaceX's AI-related revenue could reach approximately $322 billion by 2030.

Morgan Stanley @MorganStanley

X Followers: 742K | XHunt Rank: 32049 | Global top-tier investment bank, one of the core underwriters for the SpaceX IPO.

Core View: SpaceX's long-term value stems from the compound growth of "Space + AI," with a future revenue ceiling far higher than traditional aerospace companies.

Morgan Stanley similarly expects SpaceX's 2028 revenue to be around $160 billion.

More aggressive is the long-term forecast: by 2040, Morgan Stanley projects SpaceX's revenue could reach $3.4 trillion, with adjusted EBITDA exceeding $2.7 trillion.

If you're buying the gateway to space infrastructure for the next decade+, $135 is undervalued, but it will take a long time to realize.

Sacra

An independent research firm focused on private tech companies, specializing in deep-dive company analysis and valuation breakdowns.

Core View: Bullish on the business long-term, but $135 is not a low valuation; it's more like paying upfront for an option on SpaceX transforming from an aerospace company into a space infrastructure platform.

Sacra estimates SpaceX's 2025 revenue at approximately $18.7 billion, with Starlink contributing $11.4 billion, already becoming the company's most important profit center.

It believes SpaceX's core advantage lies in vertical integration: building its own rockets, launching them, deploying its own satellites, and controlling terminals and ground networks, creating a cost advantage difficult for competitors to replicate.

If only considering the current Starlink and rocket launch businesses, $135 is not cheap. If one believes SpaceX can further expand from an aerospace company into a comprehensive platform covering satellite internet, low-cost launches, and more space infrastructure, this price becomes easier to accept.

ARK Invest @ARKInvest

X Followers: 816K | XHunt Rank: 1637 | Innovation-focused investment firm led by Cathie Wood, long-term tracker of disruptive technology assets.

Core View: While SpaceX's $1.77 trillion valuation is high, it's not entirely without support when considering the long-term opportunity through 2030.

ARK Invest's open-source valuation model for SpaceX shows an expected enterprise value of approximately $2.5 trillion by 2030. According to its model, the bull case scenario is around $3.1 trillion, and the bear case scenario is around $1.7 trillion.

ARK's core logic is that SpaceX's value comes not just from rocket launches but from Starlink's global satellite internet network, low-cost launch capability, and future space infrastructure businesses.

Based on ARK's projections, the IPO subscription price of $135 still has some upside potential.

🌟 The Bear Case: Independent Firms Believe IPO Valuation is Already Severely Overextended

The bear camp does not deny that SpaceX is one of the world's most unique commercial aerospace assets, nor do they deny Starlink's long-term value.

However, they believe the $1.77 trillion IPO valuation has already priced in too much future growth, especially given the significant uncertainty surrounding the AI business.

Morningstar @MorningstarInc

X Followers: 238K | XHunt Rank: 98209 | Globally renowned independent investment research firm, commonly using fundamental analysis and DCF models to assess company value.

Core View: SpaceX is a good company, but the IPO valuation is clearly on the high side.

Using a DCF model, Morningstar gives SpaceX a fair value estimate of approximately $780 billion, only about 45% of the IPO target valuation of $1.77 trillion.

In Morningstar's breakdown, the valuation for SpaceX's core launch business + Starlink is approximately $611 billion, with the xAI / AI-related business valued at around $170 billion on a probability-weighted basis.

Morningstar also highlights two risks: Musk is a key figure at SpaceX, and the company's valuation carries a significant "Musk premium." After the IPO, selling pressure may arise as lock-up periods expire for early shareholders and employees.

Morningstar believes the $135 price is clearly expensive and not suitable for rushing into the IPO; there may be better buying opportunities post-IPO.

PitchBook @PitchBook

X Followers: 48K | XHunt Rank: 49174 | Global platform for private equity, venture capital, and private company data, covering valuations and financing information for numerous private companies.

Core View: Around $1.5 trillion is acceptable, $1.75 trillion is expensive, but not entirely irrational.

PitchBook uses a Sum-of-the-Parts model to estimate SpaceX's fair value range between $1.1 trillion and $1.7 trillion, primarily focusing on the launch business and Starlink, not entirely reliant on the xAI narrative.

The $135 price is already near or slightly above the upper end of PitchBook's valuation range – not cheap, but not completely outrageous if one takes a long-term view on Starship and Starlink execution.

New Constructs @NewConstructs

X Followers: 5675 | XHunt Rank: - | Independent equity research firm focusing on financial quality, valuation risks, and reverse DCF analysis.

Core View: SpaceX is not worth participating in at a $1.75 trillion valuation; it advises investors to avoid the IPO.

New Constructs rates SpaceX as Unattractive. They argue that the $1.75 trillion valuation implies excessively high future growth and profit requirements. SpaceX would need to simultaneously become one of the highest revenue and profit-generating companies in the U.S. stock market to justify this price.

Risks cited include: inadequate internal accounting controls at SpaceX, public investors having almost no voting rights, a large portion of IPO proceeds potentially used to repay debt, potentially misleading non-GAAP metrics, and related-party transaction risks.

To justify a $1.75 trillion valuation, SpaceX's revenue may need to reach $1.1 trillion by 2035, implying an average annual growth rate of about 50% over the next decade. New Constructs believes such growth rates have almost no historical precedent.

New Constructs' judgment is the most direct: the risk-reward at this price is unfavorable, and they recommend not participating in the IPO.

Trefis @Trefis

X Followers: 2661 | XHunt Rank: - | Independent U.S. stock valuation platform that derives target prices by breaking down business models.

Core View: SpaceX is an exceptionally unique company, but the $135 offering price is clearly overvalued.

Trefis acknowledges SpaceX's long-term advantages in commercial aerospace, Starlink satellite internet, and low-cost launches but argues these advantages do not mean investors should ignore price.

Trefis gives SpaceX a target price of approximately $79 per share, far below the $135 IPO price.

🌟 Final Thoughts

Whether from the bull or bear side, most essentially acknowledge that SpaceX is one of the world's most unique commercial aerospace companies.

The real point of contention is whether the $135 price offers any margin of safety.

📈 Bulls believe buying SpaceX is about the long-term story of Starlink, low-cost launches, AI, and future space infrastructure.

📉 Bears argue that $135 has already priced in expectations to the fullest.

Currently, the $SPCX IPO subscription is already oversubscribed by 4 times, indicating that despite the valuation debate, capital enthusiasm for SpaceX remains high.

🙋 So the question is: Will you participate in the $SPCX IPO? Do you think Musk's $220 billion gain is well-deserved, or will it keep him up at night?

Related Questions

QWhat is SpaceX's proposed IPO share price and what would the corresponding fully diluted valuation be?

ASpaceX's proposed IPO price is $135 per share, which would result in a fully diluted valuation of approximately $1.77 trillion.

QAccording to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, what is the core narrative supporting the bullish case for SpaceX's high valuation?

AThe bullish case, as presented by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, revolves around SpaceX being a long-term investment in future space infrastructure, combining growth from Starlink, low-cost launch services, and future AI-related business segments.

QWhat is Morningstar's fair value estimate for SpaceX and how does it compare to the proposed IPO valuation?

AMorningstar's fair value estimate for SpaceX is approximately $780 billion, which is only about 45% of the proposed $1.77 trillion IPO valuation.

QWhat are some of the key risks associated with SpaceX's IPO as highlighted by New Constructs?

ANew Constructs highlighted several key risks: the valuation implies extremely high future growth requirements, insufficient internal accounting controls, minimal voting rights for public investors, the possibility of IPO proceeds being used to repay debt, potentially misleading non-GAAP metrics, and risks related to related-party transactions.

QWhat is the main point of contention between the bullish and bearish perspectives on SpaceX's IPO according to the article's conclusion?

AThe main point of contention is whether the IPO price of $135 per share provides a reasonable margin of safety. Bulls see it as justified by long-term growth in space infrastructure, while bears believe it already fully prices in optimistic future expectations.

Related Reads

Robinhood, the First Stock in the Predictive Market Concept

The online brokerage Robinhood, which previously partnered with prediction market platform Kalshi to offer event contract trading to its users, is now becoming a direct competitor. This shift began after Robinhood, through a joint venture, acquired and rebranded a CFTC-regulated exchange (now Rothera Exchange). Robinhood's motivation stems from the rapid growth of prediction markets on its platform, which significantly boosted its "other transaction revenue." Recognizing that its vast retail user base is the most critical asset, Robinhood aims to capture more value by routing orders to its own exchange instead of sharing fees with Kalshi. It strategically launched its Rothera platform during the high-traffic 2026 FIFA World Cup, successfully processing tens of millions of contracts in its initial days. This move signals a pivotal power shift in the prediction market industry: control over user distribution and access is emerging as a more decisive advantage than the underlying market infrastructure itself. The future competition may increasingly revolve around which platforms control the major user gateways.

marsbit4m ago

Robinhood, the First Stock in the Predictive Market Concept

marsbit4m ago

After Tokenization of Assets, How to Exit?

Title: How to Exit After Asset Tokenization? Author: Symbiotic Compiled by: Hu Tao, ChainCatcher Summary: Tokenization addresses how assets go on-chain but largely leaves the redemption question unresolved. While tokenized assets can settle instantly, the underlying redemption for assets like treasuries, private credit, or real estate can take from T+1 to 180 days. This gap hinders DeFi adoption of Real World Assets (RWAs). Three emerging models aim to provide instant exit liquidity, differing primarily in their capital structure and efficiency: 1. **Balance Sheet Model (e.g., Grove Basin):** A single entity (like Sky) provides immediate liquidity from its balance sheet, acting as a bridge during the settlement period. It offers simplicity and deep initial liquidity but is constrained by a single entity's capacity and risk appetite. 2. **Asset-Specific Vault Model (e.g., Upshift Clear):** Independent liquidity providers fund dedicated vaults for each supported asset, earning fees. It decentralizes capital sources but isolates liquidity and capital per asset, leading to potential fragmentation. 3. **Shared Liquidity Layer Model (e.g., Symbiotic Liquid Lane):** A shared capital pool supports multiple RWA types simultaneously. Funds remain productive between redemptions (e.g., earning yield in lending markets). Exits are settled via a competitive RFQ market. This model aims for higher capital efficiency, scalability across assets, and serves longer-duration assets like private credit. Key differentiators are: 1) Source of capital and risk bearer, 2) Redemption pricing mechanism, 3) Capital efficiency, 4) Scalability to new asset types, and 5) Composability. The shared liquidity layer model represents a move from piecemeal solutions toward scalable infrastructure, enabling T+0 exits by pooling capital, maintaining yield, and using competitive pricing, thus enhancing RWA utility in DeFi.

marsbit12m ago

After Tokenization of Assets, How to Exit?

marsbit12m ago

After Tokenizing Assets, How to Exit?

After tokenization, a key unresolved issue is providing holders with a reliable exit mechanism, as underlying asset settlement (taking days to months) lags far behind on-chain token settlement. Three primary models for instant liquidity have emerged, differing in their capital structure and efficiency: 1. **Balance Sheet Model (e.g., Grove Basin):** A single, well-capitalized entity (like Sky) provides immediate liquidity from its own reserves. This offers simplicity and deep initial liquidity but is constrained by that single balance sheet's capacity and risk appetite, limiting scalability. 2. **Dedicated Vault Model (e.g., Upshift Clear):** Independent liquidity providers (LPs) fund separate vaults for each supported asset. This decentralizes capital sources but isolates liquidity and capital, which becomes inefficient as the number of tokenized assets grows. 3. **Shared Liquidity Layer Model (Symbiotic Liquid Lane):** Independent capital providers fund shared vaults that can support multiple tokenized assets simultaneously. Capital remains productive between redemptions (e.g., earning yield in DeFi markets). Exits are settled via a competitive RFQ market where market makers bid. The article argues that the shared layer model offers superior capital efficiency and scalability. It transforms exit liquidity from an asset-specific patch into shared market infrastructure, allowing liquidity capacity to grow with overall market participation rather than being fragmented per asset. This is particularly valuable for longer-duration assets like private credit, where reliable T+0 exits can significantly enhance their utility in DeFi.

链捕手26m ago

After Tokenizing Assets, How to Exit?

链捕手26m ago

Anthropic's Triple Moment: Code Leak, Government Confrontation, and Weaponization

This article analyzes Anthropic's recent conflicts and strategic moves following the U.S. government's emergency halt of its new Fable model, citing national security concerns over potential "jailbreaks." The author argues this incident reveals deeper tensions between AI labs, governments, and the software industry. While critics view Anthropic's safety-focused rhetoric as marketing fear, the author suggests it serves as a commercial moat masking the company's core economic imperative: moving closer to end-users and their valuable data to avoid being commoditized. The piece outlines a coming clash between frontier AI labs like Anthropic and established software companies. Labs need real-world usage data for model improvement via reinforcement learning, creating a cycle where better products attract more users and more data. This threatens software firms who, as Microsoft's Satya Nadella warns, risk having their value captured by a few dominant models. Anthropic's controversial policy changes—initially secretly degrading Fable's performance for LLM development and expanding data retention—are framed as assertions of control, justified by its safety narrative. The company's foundational belief that it alone is sufficiently concerned about superintelligent AI dangers legitimizes its actions, from resisting government demands to shaping usage policies. The author concludes that this alignment of mission, talent, and business strategy is powerful but concerning, as it concentrates immense potential power in the hands of those convinced of their own righteous understanding.

marsbit36m ago

Anthropic's Triple Moment: Code Leak, Government Confrontation, and Weaponization

marsbit36m ago

SPCX to Surge to $400? Can Options Propel SpaceX to Become the World's Most Valuable Company?

Summary: ZeroHedge posits that SPCX (SpaceX) options trading could trigger a gamma squeeze, potentially driving the share price to an extreme $400. This scenario is based on SPCX's unique post-IPO market structure: a low float, concentrated retail buying, and the imminent introduction of options. While the $400 price is speculative, the analysis highlights the potential for outsized volatility. The core mechanism involves heavy retail buying of out-of-the-money call options, forcing market makers to hedge by purchasing the stock, creating a potential feedback loop that accelerates price gains. Vanda data shows intense retail focus on SPCX specifically, not a broad market risk-on shift. Crucially, this potential volatility stems from short-term trading dynamics and structural factors, distinct from fundamental valuation drivers like those seen in NVDA. Whether the extreme $400 scenario materializes depends on actual options market data post-launch, including open interest in call options, implied volatility, and continued buying support in the underlying stock. The article cautions that while the conditions for heightened volatility are present, the predicted gamma squeeze is not guaranteed.

marsbit48m ago

SPCX to Surge to $400? Can Options Propel SpaceX to Become the World's Most Valuable Company?

marsbit48m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow