--- title: "The Century IPO stands at a crossroads: Is SpaceX's listing a new benchmark or an absurdity?" type: "News" locale: "en" url: "https://longbridge.com/en/news/289667964.md" description: "SpaceX completed the largest IPO in history with a valuation of $1.75 trillion, issuing shares at $135, and closing at $160.95 on the first day. There are differing opinions in the market regarding its valuation: one side believes that its lack of profitability, high price-to-sales ratio, and governance imbalance could lead to a technology bubble 2.0; the other side views it as a milestone backed by patient capital for hardcore innovation. This event is seen as a significant test of the valuation logic for forward-looking hard technology in the global capital market" datetime: "2026-06-13T14:12:46.000Z" locales: - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/289667964.md) - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/news/289667964.md) - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/289667964.md) --- # The Century IPO stands at a crossroads: Is SpaceX's listing a new benchmark or an absurdity? SpaceX set the IPO issue price at $135 per share, closing at $160.95 on its first trading day on June 12. It completed the largest IPO in human history with a valuation of $17.5 trillion. This aerospace giant has pushed itself to the center of the global capital market's public opinion storm. Two narratives of a historical account are already presented: some view it as a symbolic turning point of overdrawn capital for space dreams and a tech bubble 2.0; others define it as a milestone for long-term hardcore innovation gaining the endorsement of patient capital. Objectively speaking, the essence of this IPO is an ultimate test of the global capital market's valuation logic for long-term hardcore technology. The biggest controversy surrounding SpaceX's IPO is naturally its valuation. The arguments supporting the bubble theory are clear and sharp. From an operational fundamentals perspective, SpaceX has not yet achieved overall profitability, with Q1 2026 revenue at $4.7 billion and a net loss of up to $4.2 billion. Only the Starlink business is generating stable cash flow, while rocket development, xAI space computing, and Starship manufacturing continue to consume cash flow. The $17.5 trillion valuation corresponds to a hundred-fold sales multiple, far exceeding the valuation systems of traditional manufacturing and energy companies. Additionally, under the dual-class share structure, Musk holds over 82% of the voting rights, making it difficult for external investors to check the company's strategy, pointing directly to two major flaws: overvaluation and governance imbalance. Looking back since the 2000 internet bubble, countless platforms without revenue or technological barriers have inflated their market value solely based on traffic stories. Now, the market is concerned about a similar script being replicated: SpaceX's valuation is tied to long-term visions like Mars colonization and orbital AI data centers, which cannot yield significant profits in the short term. The capital's pursuit is more rooted in Musk's personal narrative and the liquidity of the space race. If the Starship iteration is delayed, Starlink user growth slows, and space AI investments continue to overspend, the high valuation without performance support could easily trigger a cliff-like stock price correction, leading to a collective valuation downgrade of the entire commercial space and high-growth AI sectors, becoming the fuse for a new round of tech bubble burst. The skepticism in the market about "pricing based on stories" stems from the traditional value metrics being completely unable to measure this enterprise. On the other hand, the perspective denying the bubble theory anchors on the real industrial foundation of commercial space rather than ethereal stories. SpaceX is not just a vision; it has already established a self-circulating business closed loop: the Falcon 9 reusable rocket compresses launch costs to one-third of the industry average; nearly 10,000 Starlink satellites in orbit, with users surpassing 10.3 million by 2026, becoming a stable cash cow; the Starship Block 3 has achieved its first flight with a payload capacity of 100 tons, with industrial factory planning for an annual production capacity of 1,000 units... The path to reducing costs in space transportation is clear and verifiable. This $75 billion fundraising has clear targets: Starship mass production and Mars exploration missions, Starlink V3 satellite network expansion, and xAI space computing infrastructure, each funding corresponding to tangible technological capacity rather than pure conceptual speculation. The capital market's willingness to pay a premium for a planetary blueprint spanning ten to thirty years precisely proves that mature patient capital has already stepped out of the short-sighted thinking of "quarterly profitability." Compared to the companies during the 2000 internet bubble, which were mostly light-asset and low-barrier, SpaceX holds a unique position with its reusable rockets, the world's largest low Earth orbit satellite constellation, and its first-mover advantage in space computing power, creating a highly technical moat. The capital on Wall Street is betting not on fantasies, but on the future blue ocean market of space communication, interstellar transport, and orbital AI computing power, which amounts to hundreds of trillions, similar to early capital investments in electricity, railroads, and internet infrastructure. The massive upfront investments and subsequent monopolistic returns are the norm in heavy asset transformation industries. From an industry perspective, SpaceX's IPO directly raises the global commercial space valuation ceiling, forcing capital to tilt towards long-cycle hardcore technology, breaking the old pattern where only short-term fast-moving consumer goods and light-asset internet companies could secure financing. Originally, the two opposing evaluations were not black and white. SpaceX's century IPO exposes the deep contradictions in the current capital market: the traditional PE and PB valuation systems are ineffective, and for industries like aerospace, deep space exploration, and general AI, which require ultra-long-term, heavy investment, a unified and mature valuation metric has yet to be established globally. Moderately high premiums are themselves a catalyst for innovation: high valuations bring substantial low-cost financing, allowing the Starship and Mars projects to avoid being constrained by short-term profit pressures, enabling them to tackle disruptive technologies; capital is willing to bear the risks of long-term uncertainty, which allows for investments in frontier explorations with return cycles far exceeding ordinary companies. However, unrestrained narrative hype and liquidity flooding lead to valuations detached from fundamentals, inevitably accumulating bubble risks. This SpaceX IPO presents two major balancing risks: first, the retail allocation ratio is as high as 20%, far exceeding the usual 5%-7%, and ordinary investors have weak risk tolerance, making them susceptible to losses amid stock price fluctuations; second, Musk's absolute control model amplifies the strategic trial-and-error costs, and if management makes aggressive missteps, external shareholders lack means of constraint. However, the core metrics that truly distinguish "innovation premium" from "malicious bubble" are threefold: first, whether the company possesses verifiable, continuously iterating hardcore technology and a cash flow base (Starlink is indeed SpaceX's ballast); second, whether the raised funds are entirely directed towards tangible technology R&D and capacity expansion, rather than equity cash-outs or financial extravagance; third, whether there exists rational tiered capital in the market, with stable long-term institutions leading pricing, rather than short-term speculative funds and retail investors dominating the market. SpaceX's landing on NASDAQ will inevitably leave profound insights for the global capital market, the sci-tech industry, and regulatory bodies. For investors, capital must undergo tiered differentiation: conservative capital seeking stable dividends should stay away from ultra-high valuation long-cycle aerospace targets. Only patient capital with a holding period of over ten years, capable of enduring significant floating losses, should participate in the space, deep space, and frontier AI competition, abandoning the speculative mindset of "short-term trading for quick profits." For sci-tech companies, grand narratives always need solid fundamentals to support them; visions cannot replace revenue, technology iteration, and cost control. Continuous profitability of Starlink and steady test flights of Starship are the confidence for SpaceX to withstand valuation controversies. For regulators and market institutions, there is a need to improve listing rules that adapt to long-cycle hardcore technology: differentiated information disclosure standards, dual-class share constraints, long-term shareholder incentive policies, and appropriate investor protection classifications, which provide innovative companies with ample growth space while building a robust firewall against the disorderly expansion of bubbles The listing of SpaceX on June 12 will not immediately write down a final historical conclusion. Looking back in ten or twenty years, whether SpaceX is a warning case that punctured the bubble or the capital starting point for humanity's journey towards planetary civilization entirely depends on whether the Starship can be scaled and landed, whether the Mars plan can be steadily advanced, and whether the space industry can realize a trillion-dollar market value. The capital market has never been the enemy of dreams; it is the greed of blind speculation and the short-sighted pursuit of profit that are the biggest obstacles to technological innovation. The true value of this century's IPO lies not in the figure of 17.5 trillion itself, but in its forcing the entire financial system to rethink: how should we reasonably price for humanity's long-term future in reaching the stars and the sea ### Related Stocks - [SPCX.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/SPCX.US.md) - [SPCH.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/SPCH.US.md) - [SPCF.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/SPCF.US.md) - [SPAL.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/SPAL.US.md) - [SNK.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/SNK.US.md) - [SSPC.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/SSPC.US.md) - [SPCU.US](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/SPCU.US.md) ## Related News & Research - [Elizabeth Warren asks the SEC delay the SpaceX IPO](https://longbridge.com/en/news/289343335.md) - [SpaceX's $1.75 trillion IPO hits your 401(k) — but its index weight is only 0.11%](https://longbridge.com/en/news/289578476.md) - [SpaceX broke the record for the largest IPO ever. Here are 10 public offerings it dwarfed.](https://longbridge.com/en/news/289654436.md) - [SpaceX opens at $150 per share.](https://longbridge.com/en/news/289619238.md) - [What did SpaceX stock close at after its first day of trading?](https://longbridge.com/en/news/289643703.md)