SpaceX Drops 14% in One Day, Price Now Below IPO Launch

(finance.yahoo.com)

48 points | by root-parent 4 hours ago ago

48 comments

  • tim333 an hour ago ago

    Still above the actual IPO price of 135.

    It's below where it opened trading on the first day which I guess is what the editorialised headline is supposed to mean. Trading opened at about 160 on the 12th and is about 155 now. Such fluctuations don't really mean much.

  • ralfd an hour ago ago

    SpaceX will swing wildly in future, also exploding/successful Starship flights and enthusiasm for moon landing/Artemis missions.

    • bryanlarsen 28 minutes ago ago

      Which is true, but silly. SpaceX's rocket business is currently a $4B/year business. SpaceX's $2T valuation has nothing to do with launching rockets, a little bit to do with being an ISP and a lot to do with AI hype.

      • bigtex 18 minutes ago ago

        Yes, they claim the TAM for AI is 24 trillion dollars. Do with that what you will.

  • pera 3 hours ago ago

    -16.5% at the moment... Is the market reacting to the $20B bond offering news?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-22/spacex-ki...

  • stackbutterflow 3 hours ago ago

    Not convinced it means anything in one way or another.

    I remember the same headlines right after Facebook's IPO. The discourse was very much that it was obvious that a website to connect with your friends wouldn't make money.

    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2 hours ago ago

      Facebook was profitable

      • ralfd an hour ago ago

        SpaceX is too with the Anthropic/Google deal

        • orwin 24 minutes ago ago

          Not is: might be.

  • cdrnsf 3 hours ago ago

    A rapid unscheduled financial disassembly.

    • drivingmenuts an hour ago ago

      If my schadenfreude grows anymore, I might burst into tears.

  • r721 2 hours ago ago
    • ralfd an hour ago ago

      Context?

      • r721 37 minutes ago ago

        Just a thing I noticed in a sidebar when I opened the link.

  • mrcwinn 3 hours ago ago

    For the sake of clarity, it's well above its historic IPO price, but near or slightly below where it began trading that day once it officially opened.

    • jeremywho 3 hours ago ago

      Historic IPO price? It opened at $160 10 days ago, did it not? Currently it is below that price. What historic price are you referring to?

  • elzbardico 3 hours ago ago

    QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

    • contingencies 3 hours ago ago

      AD TERRAM!

      • drivingmenuts an hour ago ago

        YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS!

        • contingencies an hour ago ago

          It certainly wasn't a StarCraft or gaming reference, though I'm not surprised it was interpreted that way (personally bowed out of RTS ~C&C1). I do think you've got a good millennial-cultural catch-phrase for the zeitgeist AI datacenter funk there, though!

  • josefritzishere 3 hours ago ago

    I think it was completely obvious from the outset that this was a pump and dump scam. I'm waiting for the insider trading charges to hit.

  • lousken 3 hours ago ago

    why would you even invest into this bubble

    • cyberge99 15 minutes ago ago

      Marketing and promotion.

  • empath75 3 hours ago ago

    The IPO price for SpaceX was _delusional_. The price now is delusional. Especially since it's so dependent on the US government for revenue and he's done everything possible to irritate the party that's about to take over the federal budget.

    • tombert 3 hours ago ago

      It was insane to me that a company that had less than thirty-billion in revenue was valued at more than a trillion. I'm not sure how the People in Charge didn't call bullshit.

      • cyberge99 15 minutes ago ago

        There are no people in charge.

      • ifwinterco 3 hours ago ago

        The way exponential maths works, if a company really can grow at (for example) 10% per annum then it can grow into what looks initially like a very high PE multiple on current earnings surprisingly quickly.

        This is why people sometimes use forward P/E but that does have the obvious drawback of the denominator not actually existing yet.

        However with SpaceX the valuation is extreme and also can they grow at that rate for years on end? Potentially not

  • strathmeyer 3 hours ago ago

    [dead]

  • dolmen 3 hours ago ago

    [flagged]

  • OnlyANeurosci 3 hours ago ago

    pump and dump scheme, but your 401k bought some.

    • ttcbj 3 hours ago ago

      One thing I learned recently is that Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTI) is float-weighted. That means that SpaceX's percentage in the index is based on the value of the floating shares, not the total market cap. As a result, a fund like VTI, for now, doesn't have that much SpaceX. It will add more as the lockup periods expire and the float increases, but increasing float might also drive down the price.

    • netsharc 3 hours ago ago

      Do 401k's know about pump-and-dump, but think they can time it to make profit? Or are 401ks "bound" to buy stocks?

      It feels like a lot of retail buyers know the emperor is naked, but are still acting on greed, thinking they can "catch the falling knife" and time the market departure to profit from the hype...

      • tombert 3 hours ago ago

        I think it's much simpler. A lot of funds are tied to things like the NASDAQ-100, which SpaceX figured out how to get fast-tracked for. Once it's officially on the NASDAQ-100, stuff like QQQ has to buy it, whether or not people like the idea of it.

        Of course active investors could do something like short Space X by exactly the amount that their funds have to more or less "cancel out" their investment, but most people aren't active investors.

      • smw 3 hours ago ago

        A lot of them are heavily invested in index funds that added SpaceX at IPO due to market cap.

        • wrs 3 hours ago ago

          The big indexes have a cooldown period before buying, which these scam artists attempted to radically shorten before the IPO, but they failed (at least partially). The S&P500, for example, will delay a year before adding it to the index. Nasdaq 100 was talked into reducing it to 15 days, so you might want to get out of the Nasdaq 100.

          • tombert 3 hours ago ago

            I got rid of all my QQQ, which was substantial, but I didn't convert all my vulnerable portfolio because I wanted to minimize how much I pay in taxes.

            I now use the Interactive Brokers MCP to make a "pseudo QQQ" which has all companies except Tesla and SpaceX in there, and I otherwise use the same weights as the official QQQ. In order to avoid tax overhead, my rebalancing is buy-only, no selling, so it's not a perfect analog to QQQ but it's close enough and I at least got some of my capital out of SpaceX.

          • 0cf8612b2e1e 3 hours ago ago

            S&P still requires one year(?) profitability, which SpaceX has yet to achieve. The recent datacenter rentals might have pushed it into a profitable quarter.

            • cyberge99 13 minutes ago ago

              They can solve that with “creative accounting”.

    • jerjerjer 3 hours ago ago

      They didn't even start on the dump part yet. Only initial 5% of the shares are trading so far.

    • 3 hours ago ago
      [deleted]
    • SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago ago

      Notably, today was the first batch of additions, which really does lend credence to the idea that it's just about people getting out after the forced buying. We'll see what happens in early July when it makes it into the Nasdaq 100.

  • lucamark 3 hours ago ago

    Let's grab some popcorn.

    - Price/Sales about 128x (NVIDIA had a peak of a 40x at its peak)

    - Bought Twitter per 44 billions. Inflated its valuation to $250 billion just by integrating it into X.AI

    - EnterpriseValue/EBITDA about 219x (30x for scaleup business) and negative Price-to-Earnings

    - Low free-float trick (minimal public shares available)

    Even the market efficiency hypothesis struggles to justify it

    • redox99 2 hours ago ago

      If the Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI deals stay afloat, the numbers are much better.

    • tcp_handshaker 3 hours ago ago

      Spare a thought for the investors who bought SPCX at $218 on the 16 June at 10:00AM...They REALLY needed that stock....

      • lucamark 2 hours ago ago

        That's bad for ETF owners too. Funds will be legally forced to buy a tightly restricted supply that will pump the price even more