Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
matwood | on: Google Discloses $94.1B in SpaceX Stock, Marking 6% Stake
Remember this was also when SpaceX was actually about space, instead of mostly AI and Twitter. Long-term shareholders that were sold on the space, have to be thinking about how to get out once their lockups expire.
dgellow | parent | next
Not just that, but private investors were sold shares that all had the same voting rights. Since just before the IPO SpaceX now has dual class shares, Elon and a few insiders have class-B shares with 10x the voting power, while everybody else (including private investors) have class-A shares with 1x the voting power
loading story #49062239
loading story #49058752
trimbo | parent | next
I don't think companies expanding their business should be the only reason to sell. Apple was a desktop and laptop computer company when they released the iPod. Nokia was a company making rubber products when they started making cellular equipment in the 1970s. Amazon was a ecomm company when they released AWS. Etc.

Sure, I'm cherrypicking the success stories but I don't think it's the only signal people should use.

paulryanrogers | root | parent | next
Companies laundering their CEO's other failing companies is certainly a reason to sell.
elif | root | parent | next
$8.7B in losses over the last 5 quarters sounds bad, but that is also with $20.4B capital expenditure in the period and double digit percent increases per quarter in user metrics.

By traditional business metrics it looks toxic but compared to a typical tech unicorn it's not really outstanding.

Considering it's a tech unicorn with strategic and financial leverage like no other (their own global Internet infrastructure, access to arbitrary billions in capital, ability to build the biggest chip fab in the world), it's certainly fair to call it a gamble, but to call it failing is a stretch imo.

cinntaile | root | parent
Did I miss something? When did Spacex get into the fab business?
stevenjgarner | root | parent
The project was first teased by Musk in early 2026 and officially announced on March 21, 2026 during a special event at the defunct Seaholm Power Plant in Austin, Texas [1][2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terafab

[2] https://terafab.ai/

mindslight | root | parent
So part of the extended cinematic universe then.

(man, I wish I could get people to throw money at me for all of my outstanding projects that I buy some parts for and would be nice to do "some time")

loading story #49061455
ballon_monkey | root | parent
What failing companies?
loading story #49061719
wildzzz | root | parent | next
The iPod was a peripheral to use alongside your MacBook, it was meant to drive Apple computer sales initially and it's not like it was Apple's first attempt at a portable device (Newton). Nokia was building telecom equipment (stemming from their telephone cable experience, the insulation being a product of their original rubber business) and military equipment along with a bunch of other consumer electronics before they got into mobile phones. Amazon released AWS because that was their infrastructure they had built for themselves to handle their massive e-commerce business.

Companies generally don't just jump into a totally new market unless they've already got some experience.

The SpaceX acquisitions of xAI and X have absolutely nothing to do with space. While I'm sure SpaceX software engineers benefit greatly from cheap access to Grok, it and X have no relevance to the core business of SpaceX. It's the same level as "huh?" if Boeing decided to buy up an AI company and social media platform. The only reason xAI and X are even part of SpaceX is because Musk fucked himself with being forced to buy Twitter and he decided to bundle them with an actually profitable company.

loading story #49061757
browningstreet | root | parent | next
SpaceX had adult leadership for a long time. I suspect there was a tacit agreement with Musk about a bit of separation.

He broke through that professional firewall when he merged xAI with SpaceX and then pushed it to go public as he did. I also posit that Gwynne Shotwell is weirdly undervalued for what she's accomplished and what she's put up with, and I think that will show up some time in the future.

There was enough technical analysis to show that even Musk's cult feed can't overcome the significant financial hardships he laid on SpaceX. I personally think it was his jump the shark move. He can't really go up again after this. He no longer has any untainted assets for mega-exploits.

loading story #49062536
loading story #49060085
loading story #49059913
loading story #49060308
miohtama | root | parent | next
Nvidia was a company making PC gamer hardware, not high-performance computing.
hn_throwaway_99 | parent | next
It also seems to me to be a very odd conflict of interest given that they must see themselves as primary competitors in the AI space.

Seems similar to me as when Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board many years back because their products started to overlap, especially mobile.

nairboon | parent | next
I think those long-term holders who 10x their investment are quite happy with that investment so far.
onlyrealcuzzo | parent | next
SpaceX is WAY more about space than Twitter.

Twitter by itself is lucky to be worth $15B anymore.

The space portion of SpaceX is easily worth 10x that.

xAI is theoretically the hype machine that makes up the remainder of the value.

loading story #49058940
loading story #49059025
bpodgursky | parent | next
Yes I'm sure they are just desperate to get out of their 100x investment.

A huge mistake, I'm sure the relevant parties have been punished appropriately.

loading story #49061446
miohtama | parent | next
SpaceX, like Tesla, has always been about Elon Musk.

Investors are buying Musk, like they were buying Warren Buffett with Berkshire Hathaway. Long-term shareholders are not buying space; they are buying Musk. This has been clear to everyone since the beginning; it has been well communicated (look at SpaceX governance rules in Texas), and there is nothing mystical about it.

It's very likely Musk will roll everything up into a single Musk conglomerate.

loading story #49058651
| parent | next
{"dead":true,"deleted":true,"id":49059529,"parent":49058498,"time":1785082102,"type":"comment"}
Fire-Dragon-DoL | parent
Well X is at the end of the name, so first is about Space, then about X, right?

/s