SpaceX corporate fundraising rounds

[Hyperborealis]

Linear growth on a logarithmic scale is exponential, no?

[novo2044]

I thought that 600 rumors were pushing it.  But apparently I’m too cautious

 https://www.wsj.com/business/spacex-in-talks-for-share-sale-that-would-boost-valuation-to-800-billion-b2852191

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/SpaceInvestor_/status/1997016140418011528

What valuation will SpaceX see next?

$800 billion it is. +100%

[MechE31]

The other part of the articles is potential late 2026 IPO.

[catdlr]

The other part of the articles is potential late 2026 IPO.

Elon time.

[catdlr]

SpaceX IPO target: 2026.

The Information (@Katie_Roof) reports.

Ken Kirtland IV
@KenKirtland17
I’m not exaggerating. It’s not doom posting to say this is the official end.

They are not serious about any part of Mars if this is done.

There is no world where shareholders let you spend tens of billions with the express intent of no return. Which is what Mars settlement is. In fact it would literally be illegal for them to do so.

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1997056518148313282

[novo2044]

SpaceX IPO target: 2026.

The Information (@Katie_Roof) reports.

Ken Kirtland IV
@KenKirtland17
I’m not exaggerating. It’s not doom posting to say this is the official end.

They are not serious about any part of Mars if this is done.

There is no world where shareholders let you spend tens of billions with the express intent of no return. Which is what Mars settlement is. In fact it would literally be illegal for them to do so.

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1997056518148313282

There’s a lot to unpack here but Musk has estimated that it would “only” take a trillion to kickstart a Mars colony.  If this new valuation holds he will be worth around 660 billion.  If he meets his insane Tesla targets he will be worth probably north of 2 Trillion

He could quite literally fund Mars out of pocket and still be a trillionaire.  Crazy to even think about it but seems possible

As a bonus it would reward employees and early investors with a true windfall, among other benefits.  Not to discount the drawbacks of course

[M.E.T.]

SpaceX IPO target: 2026.

The Information (@Katie_Roof) reports.

Ken Kirtland IV
@KenKirtland17
I’m not exaggerating. It’s not doom posting to say this is the official end.

They are not serious about any part of Mars if this is done.

There is no world where shareholders let you spend tens of billions with the express intent of no return. Which is what Mars settlement is. In fact it would literally be illegal for them to do so.

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1997056518148313282

There’s a lot to unpack here but Musk has estimated that it would “only” take a trillion to kickstart a Mars colony.  If this new valuation holds he will be worth around 660 billion.  If he meets his insane Tesla targets he will be worth probably north of 2 Trillion

He could quite literally fund Mars out of pocket and still be a trillionaire.  Crazy to even think about it but seems possible

As a bonus it would reward employees and early investors with a true windfall, among other benefits.  Not to discount the drawbacks of course

IPO of the holding company not happening. But periodic talk of it “perhaps” happening is a good way to pump the valuation among greedy short term investors.

[MechE31]

The talk a couple years ago was spinning off starlink and having that IPO. That talk has cooled a bit, but I think it's still best case scenario. There's significant value in starlink stand alone.

It would give SpaceX a pile of cash to fund Mars while keeping the areas of the company that would be funding Mars out of public investor interest.

[thespacecow]

Ken Kirtland IV
@KenKirtland17
I’m not exaggerating. It’s not doom posting to say this is the official end.

They are not serious about any part of Mars if this is done.

There is no world where shareholders let you spend tens of billions with the express intent of no return. Which is what Mars settlement is. In fact it would literally be illegal for them to do so.

This is false, the "company must maximize shareholder value no matter what" idea comes from Milton Friedman's NYT op-ed, it's not a legal requirement. Companies are allowed to execute speculative long term strategies that do not bring in short term profit, for example Meta already lost more than $70B in metaverse. One can make a reasonable business case that create a new habitable planet would have return eventually, just not in the near term.

There're also various ways a company can legally encode some sort of public benefit as part of their mission.

[thespacecow]

There're some speculation that this is a response to Sam Altman trying to buy a rocket company to compete with SpaceX, I think this or something along these lines (i.e. as part of Elon's strategy in AI competition) could be true.

[Coastal Ron]

Ken Kirtland IV
@KenKirtland17
I’m not exaggerating. It’s not doom posting to say this is the official end.

They are not serious about any part of Mars if this is done.

There is no world where shareholders let you spend tens of billions with the express intent of no return. Which is what Mars settlement is. In fact it would literally be illegal for them to do so.

This is false, the "company must maximize shareholder value no matter what" idea comes from Milton Friedman's NYT op-ed, it's not a legal requirement.

Once you take other peoples money then you have a fiduciary duty to provide them with value. Right now that is the situation with the current investors in SpaceX, who have been waiting patiently for many years to see a return on their investments.

Of course if you go public, then you are just trading investors - from smart investors that are willing to play the long game, to a mishmash of investor types, including some that want short term gain.

Companies are allowed to execute speculative long term strategies that do not bring in short term profit, for example Meta already lost more than $70B in metaverse.

Nobody can do anything about what Mark Zuckerberg does but Mark, since he controls the majority of the voting rights (not the stock, but the voting rights equal to about 60% of voting power). Elon Musk installed his own Board of Directors for Tesla, which is how he can get away with being given obscene amounts of stock options while EV car sales fall.

The issue with SpaceX won't be cash flow, but what to do with that cash flow, because...

One can make a reasonable business case that create a new habitable planet would have return eventually, just not in the near term.

...I don't think anyone can truly make a business case for colonizing Mars. Musk didn't think there was one, and he of all people would have trumpeted as much as possible any hint of potential profit. Just look what he has been doing with FSD with Tesla for so many years. 

There're also various ways a company can legally encode some sort of public benefit as part of their mission.

You mean like being a non-profit or a B-Corp? If so, then we'll hear about it well before they announce going public, because they'll want to test the waters, so to speak.

[M.E.T.]

Ken Kirtland IV
@KenKirtland17
I’m not exaggerating. It’s not doom posting to say this is the official end.

They are not serious about any part of Mars if this is done.

There is no world where shareholders let you spend tens of billions with the express intent of no return. Which is what Mars settlement is. In fact it would literally be illegal for them to do so.

This is false, the "company must maximize shareholder value no matter what" idea comes from Milton Friedman's NYT op-ed, it's not a legal requirement.

Once you take other peoples money then you have a fiduciary duty to provide them with value. Right now that is the situation with the current investors in SpaceX, who have been waiting patiently for many years to see a return on their investments.

Of course if you go public, then you are just trading investors - from smart investors that are willing to play the long game, to a mishmash of investor types, including some that want short term gain.

Companies are allowed to execute speculative long term strategies that do not bring in short term profit, for example Meta already lost more than $70B in metaverse.

Nobody can do anything about what Mark Zuckerberg does but Mark, since he controls the majority of the voting rights (not the stock, but the voting rights equal to about 60% of voting power). Elon Musk installed his own Board of Directors for Tesla, which is how he can get away with being given obscene amounts of stock options while EV car sales fall.

The issue with SpaceX won't be cash flow, but what to do with that cash flow, because...

One can make a reasonable business case that create a new habitable planet would have return eventually, just not in the near term.

...I don't think anyone can truly make a business case for colonizing Mars. Musk didn't think there was one, and he of all people would have trumpeted as much as possible any hint of potential profit. Just look what he has been doing with FSD with Tesla for so many years. 

There're also various ways a company can legally encode some sort of public benefit as part of their mission.

You mean like being a non-profit or a B-Corp? If so, then we'll hear about it well before they announce going public, because they'll want to test the waters, so to speak.

Elon has 78% voting control at SpaceX, which is even higher than Zuck's supposed 60% you mentioned above. Also, the current private investors have long since made vast returns on their investment. SpaceX has increased in valuation about 10 fold in recent years. Any of them can liquidate their holdings at the twice yearly share sale opportunities, and sell to the eager list of private buyers. It does not require an IPO for them to take their profits.

[meekGee]

Where does this "Fiduciary duty" come from?

The company has a purpose defined in its articles of incorporation.  You buy into that when you invest.

If the company says its purpose and plan is to colonize Mars, then that's what you're buying into.

You could spin a long tale about how there's eventual profit in that, but you don't have to.

People can invest in nVidia if they want to, or Exxon Mobile.  But if they buy SpaceX stock after SpaceX says they plan to colonize Mars, then that's that.

[novo2044]

Where does this "Fiduciary duty" come from?

The company has a purpose defined in its articles of incorporation.  You buy into that when you invest.

If the company says its purpose and plan is to colonize Mars, then that's what you're buying into.

Well, the law, including state law and case law, which in general assumes the public is sort of stupid and needs to be protected from itself when it comes to publically traded securities.  This is why you need to be a qualified investor to participate in many private investment opportunities, and why companies can't just have people sign waivers saying they understand the risks.  Most of the time, they don't.  You also can't say the mission of the company is to make the CEO and board rich, support charity, or just dig a pointless hole to China without expectation of profit.  Well, you can, but not as a publically listed company.  There are other corporate structures suited to that.  Even if Elon retains voting control, minority shareholder lawsuits exist for a reason.

That doesn't mean the company can't invest long term, or that it has to meet quarterly goals.  Most fiduciary duty cases involve fraud or deception, M&A, self-dealing, or weak oversight.  This is the angle a shareholder with nine shares used to sue Tesla in a lawsuit that has been ongoing for 7 years, cost millions and potentially billions, distracted the leadership, and caused a complete upheaval nationwide in corporate law and governance.

There are no bright lines, but spending over a trillion dollars to colonize Mars without any plausible profits would generate a swarm of lawsuits.  It would be framed as leadership (Musk) pursuing a personal goal to the detriment of the company and shareholders.  I'm not even saying they would deserve to win, legally, but they would definitely be sued. 

[envy887]

spending over a trillion dollars to colonize Mars without any plausible profits would generate a swarm of lawsuits.  It would be framed as leadership (Musk) pursuing a personal goal to the detriment of the company and shareholders.

The company mission, as stated by the headline on the home page of their website, is:

MAKING LIFE MULTIPLANETARY
SpaceX was founded under the belief that a future where humanity is out exploring the stars is fundamentally more exciting than one where we are not.

Minority shareholders will basically get laughed out of court if they sue to stop company spending that legitimately advances that primary company goal.

Musk's personal compensation package could be something they could legitimately sue over, as at Tesla, but as far as I know he takes only a nominal $1 salary from SpaceX.

[envy887]

I don't see an IPO happening unless they think they can raise enormous amounts of cash. If they can raise several hundred billion dollars, it might be worth the headaches from going public.

[DanClemmensen]

Where does this "Fiduciary duty" come from?

The company has a purpose defined in its articles of incorporation.  You buy into that when you invest.

If the company says its purpose and plan is to colonize Mars, then that's what you're buying into.

You could spin a long tale about how there's eventual profit in that, but you don't have to.

People can invest in nVidia if they want to, or Exxon Mobile.  But if they buy SpaceX stock after SpaceX says they plan to colonize Mars, then that's that.

SpaceX is not publicly traded, so "Fiduciary duty" is even narrower for SpaceX than for nVidia or Exxon Mobile. The investors in a privately-held company are assumed to be sufficiently knowledgeable and to have made the appropriate arrangements with the company's board of directors so they have appropriate access to non-public corporate information.

[thespacecow]

Ken Kirtland IV
@KenKirtland17
I’m not exaggerating. It’s not doom posting to say this is the official end.

They are not serious about any part of Mars if this is done.

There is no world where shareholders let you spend tens of billions with the express intent of no return. Which is what Mars settlement is. In fact it would literally be illegal for them to do so.

This is false, the "company must maximize shareholder value no matter what" idea comes from Milton Friedman's NYT op-ed, it's not a legal requirement.

Once you take other peoples money then you have a fiduciary duty to provide them with value. Right now that is the situation with the current investors in SpaceX, who have been waiting patiently for many years to see a return on their investments.

Of course if you go public, then you are just trading investors - from smart investors that are willing to play the long game, to a mishmash of investor types, including some that want short term gain.

Mishmash of SpaceX investor types already exist even today. For example the spectrum buy from EchoStar would make them owning ~3% of SpaceX, you think EchoStar is 100% aligned with SpaceX's goals?

If SpaceX makes further acquisitions they'll have to give more stocks to outsiders who may not be well aligned with company's goals, so staying private is not a panacea here.

Companies are allowed to execute speculative long term strategies that do not bring in short term profit, for example Meta already lost more than $70B in metaverse.

Nobody can do anything about what Mark Zuckerberg does but Mark, since he controls the majority of the voting rights (not the stock, but the voting rights equal to about 60% of voting power). Elon Musk installed his own Board of Directors for Tesla, which is how he can get away with being given obscene amounts of stock options while EV car sales fall.

This is already answered, SpaceX stocks is already arranged similar to Meta where Elon holds vast majority of the voting shares.

As for Tesla, first of all Elon didn't get "obscene amounts of stock options", he'll only get the stock options if he manages to lead Tesla to reach very ambitious goals. But more importantly to our discussion, it's not just the BoD who approved the award plan, the investors especially retail investors voted overwhelmingly to approve the plan, so Elon has a history of being able to get strong support from public investors.

There're also various ways a company can legally encode some sort of public benefit as part of their mission.

You mean like being a non-profit or a B-Corp? If so, then we'll hear about it well before they announce going public, because they'll want to test the waters, so to speak.

I was thinking of OpenAI's setup where a non-profit is created to own part of the for profit company, but I'm not an expert here, Grok thinks there're various ways to do this. If the IPO plan is real, I'm sure we'll hear about it in the next few months.

[M.E.T.]

Ken Kirtland IV
@KenKirtland17
I’m not exaggerating. It’s not doom posting to say this is the official end.

They are not serious about any part of Mars if this is done.

There is no world where shareholders let you spend tens of billions with the express intent of no return. Which is what Mars settlement is. In fact it would literally be illegal for them to do so.

This is false, the "company must maximize shareholder value no matter what" idea comes from Milton Friedman's NYT op-ed, it's not a legal requirement.

Once you take other peoples money then you have a fiduciary duty to provide them with value. Right now that is the situation with the current investors in SpaceX, who have been waiting patiently for many years to see a return on their investments.

Of course if you go public, then you are just trading investors - from smart investors that are willing to play the long game, to a mishmash of investor types, including some that want short term gain.

Mishmash of SpaceX investor types already exist even today. For example the spectrum buy from EchoStar would make them owning ~3% of SpaceX, you think EchoStar is 100% aligned with SpaceX's goals?

If SpaceX makes further acquisitions they'll have to give more stocks to outsiders who may not be well aligned with company's goals, so staying private is not a panacea here.

Companies are allowed to execute speculative long term strategies that do not bring in short term profit, for example Meta already lost more than $70B in metaverse.

Nobody can do anything about what Mark Zuckerberg does but Mark, since he controls the majority of the voting rights (not the stock, but the voting rights equal to about 60% of voting power). Elon Musk installed his own Board of Directors for Tesla, which is how he can get away with being given obscene amounts of stock options while EV car sales fall.

This is already answered, SpaceX stocks is already arranged similar to Meta where Elon holds vast majority of the voting shares.

As for Tesla, first of all Elon didn't get "obscene amounts of stock options", he'll only get the stock options if he manages to lead Tesla to reach very ambitious goals. But more importantly to our discussion, it's not just the BoD who approved the award plan, the investors especially retail investors voted overwhelmingly to approve the plan, so Elon has a history of being able to get strong support from public investors.

There're also various ways a company can legally encode some sort of public benefit as part of their mission.

You mean like being a non-profit or a B-Corp? If so, then we'll hear about it well before they announce going public, because they'll want to test the waters, so to speak.

I was thinking of OpenAI's setup where a non-profit is setup to own part of the for profit company, but I'm not an expert here, Grok thinks there're various ways to do this. If the IPO plan is real, I'm sure we'll hear about it in the next few months.

First prize is no IPO of any sort, and SpaceX self funds from massive Starlink profits. But I suspect Elon might be thinking of ramping up the speed of progress massively and thinks an infusion of a few hundred billion dollars would do the trick. I hope not, but he might be getting impatient as the years tick by and he approaches his 60th birthday.