SpaceX hits $100B valuation after secondary share sale

SpaceX and a lot of space industry, kinda like IT, seems to capitalize on the like mindedness/idealization and enthusiasm of many that want to work in aerospace.

And I have heard the churn and burnout is real as a result.

I personally have avoided startups and other types of jobs that would require more....time investment and dedication. I know thats not how everone sees it, but for me, my job is a means to an end and that end is family and fun/recreation, not colonizing mars or being a part of the next great innovation, tech or otherwise. As a result its clear I'm not cut out for a place like Spacex or even Amazon (and thats assuming I am even quick enough to hold such a gig). I like my nights and weekends and work/like separation too much.

The value of the shares is the capitalization of all the future profits. The estimation of all of that goes into the stock price -- if investors think the profit will be higher, the share price is bid up in expectations of those future profits, so that for the next investor, they will not get any more risk adjusted profit than if they bought any other stock. Similarly if the expectation of profits declines, then the shares are repriced lower as well so that the for the next investor they are indifferent between SpaceX and any other stock.

This means there is big money to be had by unlocking value -- e.g. buying up the shares, changing the focus of the company to something even more profitable, and then selling the shares at the higher level. This is essentially the price of going public.

Yes, on the one hand you can convert future profits into present cash and make the investors absorb all the risk. But on the other hand, you just sold your company to the market and so have to cede control. Shareholders can elect a new board, replace you, make changes to the corporate bylaws, etc. Shareholders now own the company.

Musk could have issued just a small number of shares and kept the rest himself, to maintain control, but still you are opening the door to a lot of public scrutiny, the need to have shareholder agreements and to not intentionally take steps that would mislead shareholders or violate the agreement, lest you face shareholder lawsuits. Bottom line, if you want to sell your future profits to the market, you can do that, but then you lose control. If keeping control is more important, then it's better to stay private.

>Elon Musk’s trust holds 54% of the outstanding shares of SpaceX and has 78% voting control of the outstanding stock.

https://www.rankred.com/buy-spacex-stock-worth/

And the reality is: what does he have to gain by going public? He's found no shortage of private investment. I see a ton of negatives to being public and almost no downside.

(I have no vested interest here)

As someone who'd like to buy more munis however, I'm frustrated that I don't get a "piece" of the tax-savings. But you're right, the perspective is about reducing the %rates that cities / states pay, not about increasing the $$$ in my pocket as an investor.

(I only know the basics of investing)

If you're on a canal boat or something along those lines you've got a lot better 4G coverage depending on what country you live in. Having said that, none of the canal boat dwellers I've spoken to have worked in tech and most of them commuted into cities so their need for fast and reliable internet wasn't as strong. I imagine permanently moored houseboats have decent WiFi links as well, though I've never really looked into that kind of thing.

You'll need a fairly large boat to host the satellite dome I believe, and they aren't cheap.

> 100-watt panels vary in size based on their efficiency and design, but typically measure around 47 x 21.3 x 1.4 inches.

Says google. Add four of those and some lead acid batteries and you should be able to get 100 watt 24x7. Or only 200 watts of solar if you are ok with not using 24x7

Plus they can expand the real state in the ISS much cheaper by just docking and leaving it there.

I know that last one is controversial in the US, but I'm a Brit and a conservative voting one at that, and over here and in Europe generally it really isn't at any significant level.

Some enterprises, particularly general social services and infrastructure just work very well as charitable trusts, or non profits. This has been shown to be effective for hundreds of years. Then for-profit enterprises can work alongside them to mutual benefit, such as medical products companies working along with health services. It's just a matter of which model works best in practice in a function, ideology be hanged.

As we're on the subject of SpaceX the NASA model worked very well for a while, but ran into the ground with the Shuttle. Now we seem to be back with a productive synergistic relationship between public and private functions.

There's been plenty of failures of profit seeking as a social good that may have been avoided if companies felt a duty to society beyond profit seeking.