What's the optimal timing for a SpaceX IPO?

[simonth]

SpaceX could do an IPO of nonvoting shares which would be dividend paying and Elon wouldn't lose any control in doing so.

Both Microsoft and Amazon have done IPOs without their founders losing control of things.

No small tech company does an initial public offering of "nonvoting shares", that just doesn't make any sense at all. You could just offer bonds instead, a much easier way to get funding without all the requirements of going public.

What SpaceX could do is change the current voting structure and provide supermajority voting rights to the current shares, while issuing just common stock with less voting power per share. But investors don't like that, unless you got a "Google type" stock, that would backfire.

Issuing common stock together with preferred stock is a possibility.

Anyway, you don't have to own a large part of a company to stay in control. A 20% stake of a public company and maybe a strategic partnership with another larger shareholder is enough to stay firmly in control of a company.

Just to be clear of e.g. Microsoft, Bill Gates owns 9.6% of Microsoft's shares and still exercises a great deal of control over the company.

As for timing, I agree that the best time for an IPO would be after congress resolves its issues with Obama's plan, and preferably after a successful Dragon cargo docking with ISS. This would ensure maximum share value given a successful contract acquisition/performance. At that point, Elon could offer 15-20% of the company at IPO to raise maybe 2 billion dollars.

You are implying that the company could be worth in excess of 10 billion dollars. I am afraid your estimate is off a magnitude at least. They got forward looking revenues over 5 years of approximately 2-3 billion at the moment. That's revenues. Their profit margin will be 10-20% at best (if at all that much). That means in the long-term the company can expect to make about 100 million per year in net profits, maybe a bit more (if everything goes to plan). Even at a multiplier of 10 (which is very high), the company would only be worth a billion dollars.

I would expect a mid to late 2011 SpaceX IPO to be in the 200-300 million range, 100 million of which would be a primary offering (capital increase -> money goes to the company) and the rest seconday (shares sold by current shareholders -> cashing in).

[mlorrey]

SpaceX could do an IPO of nonvoting shares which would be dividend paying and Elon wouldn't lose any control in doing so.

Both Microsoft and Amazon have done IPOs without their founders losing control of things.

No small tech company does an initial public offering of "nonvoting shares", that just doesn't make any sense at all. You could just offer bonds instead, a much easier way to get funding without all the requirements of going public.

This isn't true. Tesla, while not publicly traded, has already sold nonvoting shares. This was the source of Elon's problems in keeping control of the company this past year.

What SpaceX could do is change the current voting structure and provide supermajority voting rights to the current shares, while issuing just common stock with less voting power per share. But investors don't like that, unless you got a "Google type" stock, that would backfire.

Issuing common stock together with preferred stock is a possibility.

Anyway, you don't have to own a large part of a company to stay in control. A 20% stake of a public company and maybe a strategic partnership with another larger shareholder is enough to stay firmly in control of a company.

Just to be clear of e.g. Microsoft, Bill Gates owns 9.6% of Microsoft's shares and still exercises a great deal of control over the company.

Until a few years ago, Bill still held somewhere around 40% of the company. Most of this stock he turned over to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation so that its future earnings could be used for charitable purposes.

According to SEC documents, in May alone Bill was selling off between 1 to 3 million shares almost every trading day. He sold off 74 million shares between August of last year and May 15th of this year, plus another 12 million shares he received from exercising stock options.

In October of 2008 he had 791 million shares. He now has, as of May 15th, 540 million shares in Microsoft. In 2003 he had 1.2 billion shares. Meanwhile, half of Bill's personal portfolio is in Berkshire Hathaway.

Current MSFT shares issued: 8.76 billion shares.

Back in 1992, Bill Gates and Paul Allen controlled between them more than 70% of the company. Bill's present diluted state reflects a high degree of diversification in his holdings since he retired as CEO of the company.

As for timing, I agree that the best time for an IPO would be after congress resolves its issues with Obama's plan, and preferably after a successful Dragon cargo docking with ISS. This would ensure maximum share value given a successful contract acquisition/performance. At that point, Elon could offer 15-20% of the company at IPO to raise maybe 2 billion dollars.

You are implying that the company could be worth in excess of 10 billion dollars. I am afraid your estimate is off a magnitude at least. They got forward looking revenues over 5 years of approximately 2-3 billion at the moment. That's revenues. Their profit margin will be 10-20% at best (if at all that much). That means in the long-term the company can expect to make about 100 million per year in net profits, maybe a bit more (if everything goes to plan). Even at a multiplier of 10 (which is very high), the company would only be worth a billion dollars.

I would expect a mid to late 2011 SpaceX IPO to be in the 200-300 million range, 100 million of which would be a primary offering (capital increase -> money goes to the company) and the rest seconday (shares sold by current shareholders -> cashing in).

With the degree of publicity surrounding SpaceX, and its being seen as in the favor of the President and the new NASA plan, I expect it to trade at P/E levels that were typical of Amazon, eBay, and Starbucks back when they went public (with P/E ratios in excess of 250 for years after). $100 million in net profits times a P/E of 100 means a market cap of $10 billion is conservative.

Your P/E of only 10 is excessively pessimistic. Blue Chip average P/E is normally 16, and Blue Chips tend to be very poorly valued in the market compared to startup tech stocks and other IPO's. The S&P 500 average P/E is currently 33.6.

Note that VISA's recent IPO raised $17.9 billion a year ago. Their present net operating revenues are $1.9 billion quarterly, or about 11% of what they raised at IPO. Dec 31 profits were $763 million. Visa's IPO P/E was 30.

Given SpaceX seems to be preparing to announce another 8 manifested launches this coming week, at this rate of growth in their manifest, my $1-2 billion IPO estimate, if it comes in the time frame I predict, should be spot on.

[simonth]

This isn't true. Tesla, while not publicly traded, has already sold nonvoting shares. This was the source of Elon's problems in keeping control of the company this past year.

Tesla did not complete an IPO. An IPO (initial public offering) is the sale of shares to the public. This triggers certain registration requirements and subjects a company to regulation (including continued information and filings). Tesla has not completed its planned initial public offering of voting common stock to the public yet.

I said that an IPO will not be a sale of non-voting stock.

Until a few years ago, Bill still held somewhere around 40% of the company. Most of this stock he turned over to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation so that its future earnings could be used for charitable purposes.

According to SEC documents, in May alone Bill was selling off between 1 to 3 million shares almost every trading day. He sold off 74 million shares between August of last year and May 15th of this year, plus another 12 million shares he received from exercising stock options.

In October of 2008 he had 791 million shares. He now has, as of May 15th, 540 million shares in Microsoft. In 2003 he had 1.2 billion shares. Meanwhile, half of Bill's personal portfolio is in Berkshire Hathaway.

Current MSFT shares issued: 8.76 billion shares.

Back in 1992, Bill Gates and Paul Allen controlled between them more than 70% of the company. Bill's present diluted state reflects a high degree of diversification in his holdings since he retired as CEO of the company.

I am fully aware of the history of Bill Gates' control of Microsoft. My point was that Gates still controls Microsoft to a large extent (not primarily with his foundation). You can exercise quite a large extent of control with a 10% share.

With the degree of publicity surrounding SpaceX, and its being seen as in the favor of the President and the new NASA plan, I expect it to trade at P/E levels that were typical of Amazon, eBay, and Starbucks back when they went public (with P/E ratios in excess of 250 for years after). $100 million in net profits times a P/E of 100 means a market cap of $10 billion is conservative.

What has publicity to do with industry analysis? Nothing. The earnings multiplier is derived from an industry analysis and the potential of further future growth. A forward looking P/E ratio of 10 is very favorable in the space launch industry for a young, non-diversified company without a long track record of success. There is tons of data for analysts to estimate the future size of the space launch industry and the growth of it. It's a tiny industry compared to e.g. the over-the-internet sales industry (Amazon) or the worldwide restaurant/coffee shop industry (Starbucks). And there is no indication at all that the space launch industry will grow by a magical 10-20% annual rate in the next 10 year or more. As a matter of fact, the industry has been stagnating.

Your P/E of only 10 is excessively pessimistic. Blue Chip average P/E is normally 16, and Blue Chips tend to be very poorly valued in the market compared to startup tech stocks and other IPO's. The S&P 500 average P/E is currently 33.6.

As of today the S&P 500 is at a P/E of 19.7 not 33.6. http://www.multpl.com/

P/E ratios based on CURRENT earnings make no sense for non-established companies that do an IPO anyway, a discounted cash flow analysis of potential future earnings needs to be looked at and a risk discount rate applied, current earnings are really not something that's very important for a tech company that sells its stock based on expections of future operations.

Given SpaceX seems to be preparing to announce another 8 manifested launches this coming week, at this rate of growth in their manifest, my $1-2 billion IPO estimate, if it comes in the time frame I predict, should be spot on.

Again, a 2 billion IPO estimate for 15-20% of SpaceX common stock would mean we are talking about a company worth 10 billion dollars.

SpaceX has a contracted launch manifest for 5 years of 2 billion (the overall contract value is actually quite uncertain due to certain options and the fact that SpaceX is known for long schedule slips). That's a revenue source of 400 million per year if we are VERY optimistic. And that assumes a pretty high launch rate already. At a very, VERY high profit margin of 25% (no launch company has near that sort of a profit margin and SpaceX's price policy is to undercut competition with very low prices) SpaceX would have 100 million in operating profits per year (and that number will certainly not be reached in 2011 or 2012 but rather later on). I didn't even account for interest payments or exceptional unexpected charges (launch failures). Even at an absolutely non-realistic forward looking P/E ratio for an IPO of 30 we are talking about a SpaceX worth of 2-3 billion. At a share offering of ordinary common stock of 15-20% we are at 300-600 million.

I maintain my evaluation of the company that SpaceX (due to its extremely high risk factor that needs to be applied and its current track record of 8 years of operating losses as well as it being in an industry that isn't growing much) will not be valued much above 1 billion in total if at all if they go for an IPO in 2011. I would actually be hesitant to value SpaceX higher than for instance Orbital, which is a stable company with a diversified structure which is successful in more than just the space launch market, has a higher contract value for CRS than SpaceX (1.6 billion contract value vs. 1.2 billion) for fewer launches and is currently worth 840 million (market cap today - only a small fraction of which is the valuation for their launch business; Orbital has by the way nearly 4000 employees compared to 1000 at SpaceX - just to show relative size).

For SpaceX to be worth 10 billion or in excess of 10 billion at their IPO date, it would have to be many times as profitable (at the same risk level) as Google (P/E ratio of 21 right now) or Lockheed Martin (P/E ratio of 10 right now) or  Orbital (current P/E ratio of 24 right now). This is just not realistic at all.

Profitability in this case means potential growth discounted for a risk factor.

[JohnFornaro]

What about DIRECT doing an IPO?

I gotta go.

[madscientist197]

What's the optimal timing for a SpaceX IPO?

Never, if we want SpaceX to remain a true innovator rather than become a risk averse money-cow.

[simonth]

What's the optimal timing for a SpaceX IPO?

Never, if we want SpaceX to remain a true innovator rather than become a risk averse money-cow.

Who is "we"? And why should a public company be a "risk averse money-cow"?

[mlorrey]

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100616

Largest single contract for commercial satellite launch services, $492 million.

Another one of your "fixing" the figures here is to only value the company on the next five years revenues. Firstly, the current manifest for the next five years doesnt necessarily represent ALL of the launches they will do over the next five years. While there may be fewer launches if there are delays, there also could be more launches.
Secondly, this newly inked deal, while for launches to take place between 2015 and 2018, are outside your self declared 5 year window, still represent value that adds to the company's value to the market.

For instance, Boeing with only a 3 year backlog of orders is worth a lot less on the market than a Boeing with an 8 year backlog of orders, this is historical fact that you can see by looking at the records.

[simonth]

Another one of your "fixing" the figures here is to only value the company on the next five years revenues. Firstly, the current manifest for the next five years doesnt necessarily represent ALL of the launches they will do over the next five years.

I did in now way disregard income from years after 2015, quite on the contrary. I used a forward looking P/E of 10. You do know that analysts estimate the value of non-public company through a future earnings analysis on a discounted cash flow basis as well as by looking at the industry peers and their market value (or business segment value), right?

While there may be fewer launches if there are delays, there also could be more launches.

So? A forward looking P/E of 10 means that SpaceX has to grow, not stagnate. There need to be a LOT more launches after 5 years than in the next 5 years to reach favorable valuations, except if launch prices go up considerably. And estimating average net profits of 100 mill in 2011 to 2015 already means that SpaceX has to have a LOT of launches and a very high profit margin without any major incidents that result in extraordinary losses (the industry reliabilit of 95%+ for F9 needs to be reached).

Secondly, this newly inked deal, while for launches to take place between 2015 and 2018, are outside your self declared 5 year window, still represent value that adds to the company's value to the market.

Again, what are you talking about? Where have I said anything about SpaceX not launching anything after 2015. To be honest, that assumption would probably mean SpaceX isn't worth anything at all and be a failed company. My assumption is that SpaceX is a growth company without any end for growth in sight.

For instance, Boeing with only a 3 year backlog of orders is worth a lot less on the market than a Boeing with an 8 year backlog of orders, this is historical fact that you can see by looking at the records.

Backlog is a factor in valuations of companies' worth, but this very much depends on the industry in question. Boeing has an 8-year+ backlog for aircraft orders NOT just because they are such a successful and competitive company, but because that's how an aircraft manufacturer works. The question to value Boeing's aircraft business segment is how that backlog will translate into future earnings and whether profits will rise. The spacecraft industry works in a similar way. ILS and Arianespace have long backlogs of customers for many years.

Please reread my post on valuations again above. Also, you might want to ask yourself this simple question to understand why a 10 billion valuation doesn't make any sense: "How can it be that Orbital Science Corp. with nearly 4000 employees, a diversified product and services portfolio in which launch services make up only a small part of the total revenues and profits, has a market cap of 840 million, while SpaceX, a non-diversified, high risk company, which is new to the industry with 1000 employees and sales and profits solely from launch services shall be worth 10 billion?"

If SpaceX were worth 10 billion, a 15 million investment in summer of 2009 by Steve Jurvetson and DFJ partners in SpaceX wouldn't be described as a "a major investment", by the way... 15 million would contitue 0.15% of the company, hardly even worth mentioning. If that 1 million however represented 3% or 4% of the company it might just be a "major investment".

[madscientist197]

And why should a public company be a "risk averse money-cow"?

It all depends on how innovative you want SpaceX to be.

In public companies directors and managers have an obligation to protect investor equity and to maximize corporate profits -- this would override any desire Musk has to develop open up outer-space, barring the discovery of unobtainium mines on the moon. I'm not suggesting that Musk wants to run SpaceX for anything other than a profit, but rather than develop new ambitious rockets/capsules/whatever which might risk the company, the more conservative shareholders might be more happy to just... er... 'milk that cow' (i.e. become more like all the other old-space companies, relying on the federal government).

I don't know about you, but I want an aggressive, risk-taking commercial space sector.

[mlorrey]

So? A forward looking P/E of 10 means that SpaceX has to grow, not stagnate. There need to be a LOT more launches after 5 years than in the next 5 years to reach favorable valuations, except if launch prices go up considerably. And estimating average net profits of 100 mill in 2011 to 2015 already means that SpaceX has to have a LOT of launches and a very high profit margin without any major incidents that result in extraordinary losses (the industry reliabilit of 95%+ for F9 needs to be reached).

A P/E of 10 is crap and you know it. Orbital Sciences is currently 25.03. Only a company losing major contracts would have a P/E of 10 or less (ATK's P/E is 7.6, Lockheed's is 10 (which includes other issues like loss of defense contracts etc)). Orbital's had some recent launch failures also.

Besides that, you are completely disregarding the value of the SpaceX mystique. It has possibly the best goodwill value in the industry today. This is what makes for big IPOs and high P/E's

If SpaceX were worth 10 billion, a 15 million investment in summer of 2009 by Steve Jurvetson and DFJ partners in SpaceX wouldn't be described as a "a major investment", by the way... 15 million would contitue 0.15% of the company, hardly even worth mentioning. If that 1 million however represented 3% or 4% of the company it might just be a "major investment".

Jurvetson's investment was made quite a long time ago, and was part of a $60 million round of investment, which given the only other actual investor capital in the company to date was Elon's 100 million, made for making him a significant player. You seem to be disregarding the idea that one makes investments to increase their value...

[simonth]

A P/E of 10 is crap and you know it. Orbital Sciences is currently 25.03. Only a company losing major contracts would have a P/E of 10 or less (ATK's P/E is 7.6, Lockheed's is 10 (which includes other issues like loss of defense contracts etc)). Orbital's had some recent launch failures also.

What are you talking about? I am talking about SpaceX's forward P/E. Orbital's forward P/E is 13, and that's a diversified, established, low-risk company with a lot of lucrative business http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?symbol=ORB

Orbital's launch failures are not that relevant for the company's valuation, as the launch business is only a small part of its total business.

And you keep disregarding that Orbital's market cap is about 850 million, while it is 4 times as large as SpaceX, has for instance a much better CRS deal going (1.6 billion for only 8 launches) and is a diversified company.

Besides that, you are completely disregarding the value of the SpaceX mystique. It has possibly the best goodwill value in the industry today. This is what makes for big IPOs and high P/E's

Prices are set by analysts and institutional investors who couldn't care less about "mystique". They care about actual profits and estimates of future profits.

Jurvetson's investment was made quite a long time ago, and was part of a $60 million round of investment, which given the only other actual investor capital in the company to date was Elon's 100 million, made for making him a significant player. You seem to be disregarding the idea that one makes investments to increase their value...

Only 15 million of the 60 million funding round was an equity investment. That investment was 11 months ago and Jurvetson's investment of 15 million was by itself called a "major investment".

I ask again, show me your valuations of SpaceX that make them be valued so much more than Orbital or worth more several times than the whole industry is worth in total.

[mlorrey]

A P/E of 10 is crap and you know it. Orbital Sciences is currently 25.03. Only a company losing major contracts would have a P/E of 10 or less (ATK's P/E is 7.6, Lockheed's is 10 (which includes other issues like loss of defense contracts etc)). Orbital's had some recent launch failures also.

What are you talking about? I am talking about SpaceX's forward P/E. Orbital's forward P/E is 13, and that's a diversified, established, low-risk company with a lot of lucrative business http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/stock_quote?symbol=ORB

Orbital's launch failures are not that relevant for the company's valuation, as the launch business is only a small part of its total business.

And you keep disregarding that Orbital's market cap is about 850 million, while it is 4 times as large as SpaceX, has for instance a much better CRS deal going (1.6 billion for only 8 launches) and is a diversified company.

Orbital has very little vertical integration, little manufacturing capability, they generally subcontract many parts/pieces/subsystems so their asset value is significantly less. Their current LV program is basically putting together parts of surplus ICBMs.

Orbital's CRS deal is more valuable because they are 100% pressurized cargo, but that also puts significantly greater development burdens on them, and their cargo vehicle has zero crossover into the passenger market, so its value is significantly less.

BTW Orbitals Mkt Cap is 922 million: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:ORB  < is also where I got the P/E.

Now, I find your low forward looking  P/E for Orbital to be rather baseless, given the current upside potential forecasts for Orbital is around +51%: http://www.nasd100.com/2010/06/top-us-industrial-stocks-with-highest-upside-potential-updated-june-16-2010.html

Now, if we look at the total revenues of SpaceX in the past five years at around a half billion, and the next five years revenues at 2.3 billion, the upside potential for SpaceX should be at around 460%, more than five times greater than that predicted for Orbital. I don't have more detailed numbers for SpaceX since they aren't public, but I think your excessive pessimism about SpaceX's future stock potential is unwarranted.

Orbital's annual revenue is at 1.2 billion with 3100 employees comes to 387k revenues per employee. SpaceX at 2.3 billion over 5 years and 900 employees, generates $511k per employee per year. This says SpaceX employees are 32% more productive than Orbital employees. I can't say what the relative cost per employee each company has.

Orbitals profits first quarter were 9.3 million on revenues of 293 million, which is about a 3.5% margin. Pretty thin.

Ah, here we go, Orbital's debt to assets is .46 and debt to equity is .85. It's carrying a rather significant debt load, while SpaceX is debt free.

[simonth]

mlorrey, you don't make much sense. Revenues aren't used for valuation estimates. Profits are. 460% upside potential? What?

I won't go into the detailed valuation estimates above again. I just ask you again to consider that Orbital has 4000 employees, is an established company, diversified, doesn't need to be discounted with a high risk factor and is valued at about 900 million at market right now. Spacex is not an established company, not diversified, has 1000 employees and requires a high risk factor applied this year, next year and probably thereafter because no data on long-term reliability of their launch vehicles is available.

How in the world do you think SpaceX can be worth more than 10 times as Orbital next year at the time of a potential IPO? You quoted current P/E ratios all the time above, at 10 billion market valuation their P/E ratio would probably be beyond 1000 at the moment...

SpaceX might be profitable and if they are doing very well with a 10-20% profit margin they are going to make 100 million max in net profits in a given year in the next few years. You can turn it like you want, unless this estimate changes to 1 billion in net profits (5-10 billion in sales per year), SpaceX won't be worth what you state.

[neilh]

Btw, Elon Musk's other company Tesla Motors has scheduled its IPO for June 29 (filing was in January), hoping to raise up to $178M:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575309142582894892.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/tesla-ipo-june-29/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

[simonth]

Btw, Elon Musk's other company Tesla Motors has scheduled its IPO for June 29 (filing was in January), hoping to raise up to $178M:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575309142582894892.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/tesla-ipo-june-29/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

I hope for them they can actually get their order book full. It's only a small size of shares offered, but at quite a high valuation. All the best to Tesla, if Model S works out as planned, they might make it big in one of the largest future industries out there.

[mlorrey]

mlorrey, you don't make much sense. Revenues aren't used for valuation estimates. Profits are. 460% upside potential? What?

I won't go into the detailed valuation estimates above again. I just ask you again to consider that Orbital has 4000 employees,

3100 employees, but number of employees doesn't mean anything, they are liabilities unless they are producing profits. My argument is that it is far easier for SpaceX to make more profits per employee on $511k revenues per employee, than Orbital on $387k revenues per employee. Since Orbital is an older company, that means that more of their staff are older, more senior, more highly paid, and also closer to retirement. So their forward looking employee liabilities are higher.

 is an established company, diversified, doesn't need to be discounted with a high risk factor and is valued at about 900 million at market right now. Spacex is not an established company, not diversified, has 1000 employees and requires a high risk factor applied this year, next year and probably thereafter because no data on long-term reliability of their launch vehicles is available.

How in the world do you think SpaceX can be worth more than 10 times as Orbital next year at the time of a potential IPO? You quoted current P/E ratios all the time above, at 10 billion market valuation their P/E ratio would probably be beyond 1000 at the moment...

SpaceX might be profitable and if they are doing very well with a 10-20% profit margin they are going to make 100 million max in net profits in a given year in the next few years. You can turn it like you want, unless this estimate changes to 1 billion in net profits (5-10 billion in sales per year), SpaceX won't be worth what you state.

Again, you are ignoring Orbital is heavily debt laden, which seriously erodes its market cap...SpaceX is debt free. Even if both companies had the same number of employees and same amount of revenues, this point alone would make SpaceX worth more than twice what Orbital is worth.

It looks like SpaceX is on track to make three times more profits per year than Orbital, with less than 1/3 of the employees...

Orbital is diversified by buying up poorly performing satellite building units from the likes of General Dynamics, etc. i.e. they are taking on more and more of the OldSpace boat anchor.

SpaceX, at a minimum, is worth at least six times more than Orbital.

[simonth]

Re debt, it is not a factor for a profit-based valuation, it has an impact on the discount rate due to higher risk. SpaceX isn't debt free at all and it's total risk factor (for being non-diversified, a newcomer and with a much more uncertain future than Orbital) is a lot higher than Orbital's.

Debt is an issue, but not in the way you think. Also SpaceX is not on track to make more profits than Orbital any time soon, which is one parameter that look at for valuations. Potential profits far out in the future have a high risk factor attached to them + they need to be discounted to get to their present value equivalent.

SpaceX, at a minimum, is worth at least six times more than Orbital.

You have absolutely no basis at all for that assertion.

By the way, Oribal had 3675 employees as of May 2010 (http://www.orbital.com/About/). They have contract backlog of 5 billion or double that of SpaceX.

Anyway, time will tell what SpaceX is worth. I have yet to see a single datapoint that suggests it is valued more than Orbital, as a matter of fact every single datapoint suggests a lower net worth.

[neilh]

Btw, Elon Musk's other company Tesla Motors has scheduled its IPO for June 29 (filing was in January), hoping to raise up to $178M:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575309142582894892.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/tesla-ipo-june-29/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

Tesla's IPO is set for tomorrow (Tuesday, June 29):

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/28/technology/tesla_ipo/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R2B620100629

Apparently pricing is $17 a share, up from the previously planned $14-$16.

[neilh]

Btw, Elon Musk's other company Tesla Motors has scheduled its IPO for June 29 (filing was in January), hoping to raise up to $178M:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575309142582894892.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/tesla-ipo-june-29/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

Tesla's IPO is set for tomorrow (Tuesday, June 29):

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/28/technology/tesla_ipo/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R2B620100629

Apparently pricing is $17 a share, up from the previously planned $14-$16.

Does anybody recall how many shares of Tesla Elon Musk has? I think I remember seeing a figure someplace.

[neilh]

Btw, Elon Musk's other company Tesla Motors has scheduled its IPO for June 29 (filing was in January), hoping to raise up to $178M:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575309142582894892.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/tesla-ipo-june-29/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))

Tesla's IPO is set for tomorrow (Tuesday, June 29):

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/28/technology/tesla_ipo/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R2B620100629

Apparently pricing is $17 a share, up from the previously planned $14-$16.

Does anybody recall how many shares of Tesla Elon Musk has? I think I remember seeing a figure someplace.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:TSLA
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-motors-ipo-opens-12-above-offer-price-2010-06-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Opened at $19/share, now at a little over $18.