Author Topic: SpaceX fundraising again (Read 29857 times)

docmordrid · « **on:** 08/19/2014 04:07 pm »

Quote

Elon Musk's SpaceX Is Raising Money At ~$10 Billion Valuation

Elon Musk's private space transportation company SpaceX is raising new funding, and TechCrunch reports that its valuation is approaching $10 billion.

The new investment is rumored to include a $200 million secondary investment, as well as further funding from California-based VC fund Draper Fisher Jurvetson. TechCrunch also claims that Blumberg Capital has been connected with the latest fundraising round.
>

Elmar Moelzer · « **Reply #1 on:** 08/19/2014 04:11 pm »

No, they are not raising 10 billion. They are raising between 50 and 200 million. Their evaluation (value of the company) was at 10 billion.

docmordrid · « **Reply #2 on:** 08/19/2014 04:17 pm »

Yeah, retitled.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #3 on:** 08/19/2014 04:35 pm »

Raising funds to build 39A and Brownsville?

Considering how much Facebook paid for Whatsapp it's maybe the bargain of the century. But seems like a high valuation to me.

I think for it's long term vision to be realized and not corrupted by the nature of being a publicly traded company they need to find a way to make it an employee company with a strong culture.

Need lots more revenue for that and to pay back investors first.

It's encouraging to see that SpaceX has enough credibility to raise money to build on their foothold in the industry.

russianhalo117 · « **Reply #4 on:** 08/19/2014 04:44 pm »

Quote from: wannamoonbase on 08/19/2014 04:35 pm

Raising funds to build 39A and Brownsville?

Considering how much Facebook paid for Whatsapp it's maybe the bargain of the century. But seems like a high valuation to me.

I think for it's long term vision to be realized and not corrupted by the nature of being a publicly traded company they need to find a way to make it an employee company with a strong culture.

Need lots more revenue for that and to pay back investors first.

It's encouraging to see that SpaceX has enough credibility to raise money to build on their foothold in the industry.

well for starters, they have already started on SLC-39A; they have done nothing in Texas other than conduct surveying and begin the cleanup of the site ahead of clearing and leveling.
Now continue discussion.

JasonAW3 · « **Reply #5 on:** 08/19/2014 04:51 pm »

$200 Million to build both a Spaceport and rebuild pad 39A?

Assuming that they're going to add to the Infrastructure of the area, probably rent out launch and landing facilities to a number of other companies, and prep 39A to be used, not just by themselves but other companies too?

I think it's a bargin! After the first few rocket launches by other companies, the Brownsville investment will have paid for itself. The 39A modifications and letting other companies use it as well, that equates to corporate good will that could help all sides. Can you imagine a new rocket based on teh Delta or Atlas using Merlin or Raptor engines? (Yeah, different fuels but it IS possible and shouldn't take too much modification of the stages themselves, although the plumbing is gonna need some work).

QuantumG · « **Reply #6 on:** 08/19/2014 04:56 pm »

Must be nice to have a $10B valuation on ~$50M/year in sales (most of which is bookings - which in any other industry would count for $0.) I suppose it's closer to $300M/year if you include NASA, but that's not scalable business.

Joey S-IVB · « **Reply #7 on:** 08/19/2014 05:04 pm »

Quote from: QuantumG on 08/19/2014 04:56 pm

Must be nice to have a $10B valuation on ~$50M/year in sales (most of which is bookings - which in any other industry would count for $0.) I suppose it's closer to $300M/year if you include NASA, but that's not scalable business.

They make $57 million in sales for each flight. If you mean profit, we don't know how much SpaceX is making per flight. From what I can tell, we also don't know how much they make from their CRS contract with NASA. So their revenues are well over $400 million a year, but the profit numbers, as far as I know, have not been released.

QuantumG · « **Reply #8 on:** 08/19/2014 05:07 pm »

Quote from: Joey S-IVB on 08/19/2014 05:04 pm

They make $57 million in sales for each flight.

They haven't sold a single launch for that price, yet.

As I said, CRS doesn't count for an evaluation - it doesn't scale.

Lar · « **Reply #9 on:** 08/19/2014 05:18 pm »

Here's another take on the base story from TechCrunch.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/19/spacex/

Me, I am surprised they are raising money at all. Had thought they were past that. Maybe this round is another "establish value" round? 200M can do a lot if it is spent prudently.

MP99 · « **Reply #10 on:** 08/19/2014 05:20 pm »

Quote from: QuantumG on 08/19/2014 05:07 pm

Quote from: Joey S-IVB on 08/19/2014 05:04 pm
They make $57 million in sales for each flight.

They haven't sold a single launch for that price, yet.

As I said, CRS doesn't count for an evaluation - it doesn't scale.

I'd understand that none of the launches to date were negotiated at this price.

How sure can you be that none of the recent signings were at/near list price?

Cheers, Martin

dcporter · « **Reply #11 on:** 08/19/2014 05:21 pm »

@Lar I'm surprised too. 200M at a 10B valuation means they're selling off 2% of the company, right? You can only do that so many times.

cro-magnon gramps · « **Reply #12 on:** 08/19/2014 05:27 pm »

Quote from: dcporter on 08/19/2014 05:21 pm

@Lar I'm surprised too. 200M at a 10B valuation means they're selling off 2% of the company, right? You can only do that so many times.

depends on the contractual details... it could be just a straight forward loan investment, with capital + interest over time returned... or it could as you say, be a stake in the business at 2%, with no controlling vote... we won't probably ever know...

btw I am not even an amateur in this, so will leave it up to the beancounters to figure it out...

QuantumG · « **Reply #13 on:** 08/19/2014 05:29 pm »

Quote from: MP99 on 08/19/2014 05:20 pm

I'd understand that none of the launches to date were negotiated at this price.

How sure can you be that none of the recent signings were at/near list price?

Bookings don't count for valuations either. Didn't I say that? Yup, I did.

meekGee · « **Reply #14 on:** 08/19/2014 05:32 pm »

Quote from: QuantumG on 08/19/2014 05:07 pm

Quote from: Joey S-IVB on 08/19/2014 05:04 pm
They make $57 million in sales for each flight.

They haven't sold a single launch for that price, yet.

As I said, CRS doesn't count for an evaluation - it doesn't scale.

Hey, you can't have both sides of the argument....

If you're arguing that NASA doesn't count since it is not scalable (and I agree) then you have to valuate them based on their projected steady state revenue (or profit) - and so any one-time discounts they gave for the first flights of F9 1.1 do not count either.

They have flight-rate projections based on talks with customers that we're not privy to. They have their costs estimates which we don't know. Some of this information is available to investors under NDA, I suppose.

Plus, they have far-reaching plans for an incredibly large pay-off. In and of itself, that's not enough to support a general valuation, but when you have a near-term business like they do, it definitely adds.

QuantumG · « **Reply #15 on:** 08/19/2014 05:36 pm »

Yeah, if you're trying to value a company you look at actual revenue, not promises of customers (bookings) or one-off deals that they have no hope of repeating. So far, SpaceX hasn't had any reliable revenue, and that's probably why they're off raising money again.

wolfpack · « **Reply #16 on:** 08/19/2014 05:44 pm »

Company valuations are price-to-sales ratio (PS) or price-to-earnings ratio (PE). PS ~ 5, PE ~ 15 are healthy numbers. It's easy with public companies, less so with private ones. I don't understand a $10B valuation.

meekGee · « **Reply #17 on:** 08/19/2014 05:48 pm »

Quote from: QuantumG on 08/19/2014 05:36 pm

Yeah, if you're trying to value a company you look at actual revenue, not promises of customers (bookings) or one-off deals that they have no hope of repeating. So far, SpaceX hasn't had any reliable revenue, and that's probably why they're off raising money again.

That's not true. You always look to the future, unless you're trying to valuate a steady-state company like Coca-Cola.

Opinions about the future vary. And so do valuations. But you have to be consistent in your methodology.

SpaceX's brief history makes future projections less certain, but that's why not everyone invests. This is where judgement comes in.

A simple multiplier on annual revenue or profit only makes sense for steady-state companies.

If you think they'll be worth significantly more than $10B within a few years, you should jump in if you can.

Edit/Lar: I'm a stickler for brand names

Besides it bugs meekGee when I edit him

QuantumG · « **Reply #18 on:** 08/19/2014 05:50 pm »

Quote from: meekGee on 08/19/2014 05:48 pm

A simple multiplier on annual revenue or profit only makes sense for steady-state companies.

If you think they'll be worth significantly more than $10B within a few years, you should jump in if you can.

This is once again people insisting that a 10 year old company should be treated as a startup. That's a fool's game.

JBF · « **Reply #19 on:** 08/19/2014 05:57 pm »

Are we sure this isn't just another employee stock sale?