Want to Follow SpaceX? Data Shows 30 Star U.S. IPO Stocks Mostly Halve in First Year

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

Abstract

"SpaceX is set for a historic IPO on June 12 under ticker SPCX, pricing at $135 per share to raise $75 billion at a valuation of about $1.75 trillion. However, data from Motley Fool on 30 high-profile tech IPOs since 2012 reveals a challenging pattern for new investors. Median returns were -9% after six and twelve months, with a median maximum drawdown of 54% in the first year. No company avoided a significant decline, including later successes like Meta and Palantir. Morningstar estimates SpaceX's fair value at only around $780 billion, less than half its IPO valuation. Despite SpaceX's dominant market share in U.S. rocket launches and a profitable Starlink subscriber base, its financials show a $4.9 billion net loss in 2025 and a trailing twelve-month revenue of $18.7 billion, resulting in a price-to-sales ratio exceeding 90. Analysts caution that while the IPO may see initial gains, historical trends suggest a high probability of substantial price declines and volatility in the following year."

Author: Curry, Chaoxiang Research

Synopsis: SpaceX is set to price after market close on June 11 and list on Nasdaq on the 12th under ticker SPCX, with an offering price of $135 per share, a valuation of approximately $1.75 trillion, raising $75 billion, making it the largest IPO in history.

However, historical data from 30 star tech IPOs compiled by Motley Fool shows: the median returns 6 months and 12 months post-listing were both -9%, with a median maximum drawdown of 54% in the first year, and none escaped unscathed. Morningstar's fair value estimate is only about $780 billion, less than half the offering valuation.

This Friday (June 12), SpaceX will list on Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX. According to a Reuters report on June 3, the offering price was set at $135 per share, issuing about 5.56 billion shares to raise $75 billion, corresponding to a valuation of about $1.75 trillion (some sources calculate it as $1.77 trillion based on post-offering shares). By either measure, this is the largest IPO in stock market history, with Goldman Sachs leading a syndicate of 21 underwriters. The final pricing will be determined after the U.S. market close on June 11.

The hype is undeniable. SpaceX stated in its S-1 filing that the company has "identified the largest executable total addressable market in human history," quantified at $28.5 trillion. The retail allocation was set at about 30% of the float, roughly three times the usual level for large IPOs.

The problem is, for ordinary investors rushing in on the first day, the answer provided by historical data is quite grim.

The Median Ledger: Small Gains in the First Three Months, Collective Losses After Six

In an article published on June 9, Motley Fool analyst Ryan Vanzo analyzed the post-listing performance of 30 star technology companies since 2012, with a sample ranging from Facebook and Twitter to Coinbase, Robinhood, Rivian, Arm, and CoreWeave.

The shape of the median curve is telling: median returns were +3% after 1 week, +1% after 1 month, and +4% after 3 months—all passable up to this point. But extending to 6 months, the median becomes -9%; at 12 months, it remains -9%. The proportion of companies with positive returns also collapses in sync, dropping from 57% maintained in the first three months to 43% at both the 6-month and 12-month marks. In other words, holding for a full year results in losses for most momentum buyers.

Individual stock divergence is extreme. CoreWeave soared 300% three months after listing, Palantir gained 164% in three months, and Zoom rose 142% in twelve months. But negative cases are equally dense: Lyft fell 65% in twelve months, Robinhood dropped 74%, Rivian fell 67%, and Coupang declined 65%. There is no stable relationship between star power and post-IPO returns.

Median Maximum First-Year Drawdown 54%, Robinhood and Coinbase Both Halved

More striking than returns are the drawdown figures. The median maximum drawdown within the first year of listing for the 30 companies was 54%, with an average of 55%. Okta had the smallest drawdown at 20%, and none avoided it.

Two platforms familiar to crypto users are in the hardest-hit areas. Robinhood's maximum drawdown in its first year was 90%, the highest among the 30; Coinbase saw a 57% drawdown. Even companies later proven to be big winners were not exempt: CoreWeave had a 65% first-year drawdown, Palantir 53%, and Meta (then Facebook) 54%. This data points to a simple conclusion: even if you pick the right company, buying at the opening price will likely subject you to floating losses at the halving level first.

Academic research paints a similar picture. Jay Ritter, Director of the IPO Research Program at the University of Florida, tracked 1,479 IPOs from 2012 to 2021, finding an average first-day return as high as 23.6%, but the average total return over the subsequent three years was only 10.6%. The Wall Street Journal cited Ritter's data stating that investors who bought on the first day and held for three years underperformed a market-cap-weighted index by about 21%. The excitement of the first day largely borrowed future gains.

SpaceX's Ledger: $18.7 Billion in Revenue Supporting a $1.75 Trillion Valuation

Returning to SpaceX itself, the valuation debate is more concrete than historical patterns.

According to financial data cited by The Motley Fool, SpaceX's 2025 revenue was $18.7 billion, a 33% year-over-year increase, but it reported a net loss of $4.9 billion, reversing a profit of about $790 million in 2024. S-1 data compiled by BitMEX shows a single-quarter net loss of $4.28 billion in Q1 2026, with cumulative losses reaching $41.3 billion, of which the AI business (post-merger with xAI) burns about $2.5 billion per quarter. Calculated at a $1.75 trillion valuation, the price-to-sales ratio exceeds 90 times.

Morningstar's stance is the most direct. Analysts at the firm called SpaceX "severely overvalued," suggesting long-term investors will have opportunities to buy at better margins of safety after the IPO, and set the fair value estimate at approximately $780 billion, less than half the offering valuation. A reference point: SpaceX's over-the-counter tender offer in December 2025 corresponded to a valuation of about $800 billion. In just over half a year, the pricing more than doubled.

Bullish logic also exists. The rocket launch business holds over 80% of the U.S. market share, and Starlink has over 12 million paying subscribers and is profitable, forming the foundation of this valuation. Vanzo's own judgment is that SpaceX's stock will likely perform well on its first trading day, but given the valuation level and historical data, it wouldn't be surprising to see the stock struggle over the next 12 months.

For those preparing to place orders on Friday, this data from 30 companies is at least worth a glance: history doesn't guarantee repetition, but halving in the first year has been the norm for this game over the past fourteen years.

Related Questions

QAccording to the article, what is the historical median performance of 30 high-profile tech IPOs after 12 months, based on Motley Fool's data?

AAccording to Motley Fool's data on 30 high-profile tech IPOs since 2012, the median return after 12 months is -9%.

QWhat is the median maximum drawdown in the first year for the 30 IPO companies studied, and which company had the worst drawdown?

AThe median maximum drawdown in the first year for the 30 companies is 54%. The company with the worst drawdown was Robinhood, with a 90% drawdown.

QWhat does the article state as Morningstar's fair value estimate for SpaceX, and how does it compare to the reported IPO valuation?

AMorningstar's fair value estimate for SpaceX is approximately $780 billion. This is less than half of the reported IPO valuation of about $1.75 trillion.

QBased on financial data cited in the article, what was SpaceX's revenue and net profit/loss for 2025?

AIn 2025, SpaceX's revenue was $18.7 billion, but it reported a net loss of $4.9 billion.

QWhat key reasons does the article mention for investors being bullish on SpaceX's valuation?

AThe article mentions that the bullish case for SpaceX's valuation is based on its rocket launch business holding over 80% of the U.S. market and its Starlink service having over 12 million profitable subscribers.

Related Reads

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.

marsbit14m ago

After Tokenization of Assets, How to Exit?

marsbit14m 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27m ago

After Tokenizing Assets, How to Exit?

链捕手27m 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.

marsbit37m ago

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

marsbit37m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片