Wall Street is about to do what Wall Street always does when Elon Musk launches a new story:

temporarily forget arithmetic exists.

SpaceX officially filed to go public this week targeting a valuation around $1.75 trillion. If that number holds, it instantly becomes one of the largest companies on Earth despite losing billions annually.

And honestly? Investors may not care.

Because this IPO is being sold on possibility, not profitability.

Starlink.
Mars.
AI.
Defense contracts.
Global internet infrastructure.

It’s the kind of narrative cocktail that makes valuation discipline disappear fast.

Now to be fair, SpaceX is not some meme-stock fantasy. Starlink is a genuinely impressive business. The launch division dominates orbital access. And if Starship works at scale, the economics of space could change permanently.

But buried underneath all the excitement is one number I cannot stop thinking about:

$4.28 billion.

That was the quarterly net loss.

This week’s deep dive is not about whether SpaceX is an incredible company.

It clearly is.

The real question is whether investors are about to massively overpay for the dream.

Eli Lilly is expanding beyond obesity and diabetes drugs by striking vaccine-related deals with biotech firms Curevo and LimmaTech. The move signals Lilly’s intent to diversify revenue streams and build a broader healthcare platform instead of relying too heavily on GLP-1 products. Investors are increasingly watching whether major pharma players can turn today’s blockbuster cash flows into long-term pipeline durability through acquisitions and partnerships.

The bullish case for Dell centers on the idea that enterprise AI adoption is still in its early innings, which could drive another major wave of infrastructure spending. Dell has positioned itself as a critical supplier of AI servers, storage systems, and enterprise computing solutions tied to Nvidia-powered deployments. If corporate AI spending accelerates the way some analysts expect, Dell could become one of the quieter winners of the broader AI infrastructure buildout.

Berkshire Hathaway reduced or exited positions in several recognizable names including Visa, Domino’s Pizza, and Pool Corp, sparking debate about whether investors should interpret the moves as warning signs. The article notes that Buffett and Berkshire often trim positions for portfolio management or valuation reasons rather than because they suddenly dislike a business. Still, the sales reinforce the idea that Berkshire remains cautious about valuations and selective about where future returns may come from.

Most small business owners have financials, but few have financial clarity. There's a real difference between books that are technically up to date and books that actually tell you what's going on in your business right now. When accounting is reactive — updated when there's time, reviewed at tax season — you lose visibility exactly when you need it most. You can't tell which clients are truly profitable. You can't spot a cash flow gap before it becomes a crisis. BELAY's outsourced accounting team changes that.

Download the Free Guide

SpaceX is one of those stories that makes investors feel stupid for even asking about valuation.

That’s usually when valuation matters most.

The company generated roughly $18.7 billion in revenue in 2025 and is reportedly targeting an IPO valuation near $1.75 trillion. That means investors may soon be asked to pay more than 90 times revenue for a business still losing billions annually.

To put that into perspective:

Yet the market conversation increasingly treats them like they belong in the same category.

That disconnect is the real story.

Because the SpaceX IPO is not actually one business. It’s several future narratives compressed into one gigantic valuation.

And for this valuation to ultimately work, multiple things must go right simultaneously.

That’s the part many investors are still not fully appreciating.

If this IPO gets priced aggressively, Starlink is the reason.

The satellite internet business reportedly generated more than $11 billion in revenue last year with roughly 9 million paying subscribers globally. More importantly, it introduced something investors desperately wanted from SpaceX:

predictability.

Recurring subscription revenue changes how institutions view a business.

Rocket launches are exciting. Subscription cash flow is investable.

And unlike many telecom stories, Starlink is solving a real problem where traditional infrastructure simply cannot compete economically. Rural coverage. Maritime connectivity. Military redundancy. Disaster response. Remote industrial operations.

This is not a “nice-to-have” product anymore.

It is becoming infrastructure.

That matters because infrastructure businesses often command premium valuations once investors believe the moat is durable enough.

And right now, Starlink’s moat looks very real.

Most investors still think about launches as the business.

I increasingly think launches are becoming the customer acquisition funnel.

Reusable rockets are not just a technological advantage anymore. They are becoming an economic moat. Every successful launch lowers SpaceX’s effective cost curve while competitors are still trying to survive on older economics.

That matters because once launch costs collapse far enough, the real winner is not the company selling launches.

It is the company positioned to own the infrastructure built on top of them.

That’s the part many investors may still be underestimating.

SpaceX is slowly turning orbital access into a platform business.

And platform businesses historically become extremely difficult to compete against once scale advantages compound.

Amazon did not win because online retail was exciting.

It won because infrastructure scale eventually became suffocating.

There are early signs SpaceX may be moving toward something similar in orbital economics.

This is where the narrative suddenly becomes much harder to price rationally.

The xAI integration dramatically increases the ambition story around SpaceX. Investors are no longer buying rockets and satellite internet. They are now also buying AI compute, AI infrastructure, Grok monetisation, enterprise AI potential, and Musk’s broader “everything ecosystem.”

That sounds exciting.

It also massively increases execution risk.

Because AI infrastructure is brutally expensive.

Training costs are exploding. Compute demand is exploding. Data-center spending is exploding. Even the strongest AI businesses are still struggling to prove durable monetisation at scale outside a handful of winners.

And unlike Nvidia, SpaceX is not printing massive free cash flow while making these bets.

It is already deeply loss-making.

That changes the equation.

Right now the market is acting as if all future narratives attached to Musk eventually become trillion-dollar businesses by default.

History says that assumption eventually becomes dangerous.

Here’s the part I keep coming back to.

The valuation reportedly doubled in roughly six months.

Not because profitability exploded.
Not because margins suddenly inflected.
Not because the balance sheet dramatically improved.

The narrative simply got bigger.

That should matter more than it currently does.

Because when investors start pricing “future dominance” aggressively enough, expectations become almost impossible to satisfy.

For this valuation to truly work long term, investors likely need all of the following to happen:

That is not one bet.

That is several venture-scale bets stacked together inside one valuation.

And markets historically become fragile when investors stop distinguishing between “possible” and “probable.”

The market is already beginning to treat Tesla like an unofficial SpaceX tracking stock.

That should probably make investors uncomfortable.

Analysts and commentators are openly discussing the possibility of some form of future Tesla-SpaceX combination. Speculation intensified after corporate merger entities surfaced in Nevada filings tied to SpaceX leadership.

Now to be clear:

Could some kind of deeper integration eventually happen?

Sure.

But investors appear to be pricing the possibility emotionally long before anything concrete exists financially.

And this matters because Tesla already has enough unresolved questions on its own:

Adding “maybe SpaceX merges with it someday” on top of all that is where narratives start stacking dangerously on top of narratives.

At some point, markets lose track of what they are actually pricing anymore.

That’s usually when volatility gets violent.

Tesla remains the closest publicly tradeable proxy for this entire story.

And technically, the stock still looks conflicted.

In plain English?

The market is interested.
But not fully convinced.

And honestly, that feels appropriate right now.

Because underneath the SpaceX excitement, Tesla’s own fundamentals have not dramatically improved. EV pricing pressure still exists. Margins remain weaker than previous cycle highs. The company is still relying heavily on future narratives to justify present valuation.

That does not automatically mean the stock collapses.

But it does mean investors should be careful about confusing momentum with confirmation.

Those are very different things.

📅 The IPO Pricing Range

This is the first real test of institutional conviction.

If SpaceX prices aggressively and demand remains overwhelming, the narrative likely strengthens short term. If pricing comes in softer than expected or the deal gets resized, watch sentiment shift very quickly.

Narratives can reverse surprisingly fast once pricing reality enters the room.

💸 Whether Management Directly Addresses Profitability

This matters enormously.

A company asking investors to accept a near-$2 trillion valuation while burning billions quarterly needs to articulate a believable path toward operating leverage eventually.

If management avoids the topic repeatedly during the roadshow, I would treat that as meaningful information.

Silence is often guidance.

🤖 xAI Transparency

I want to know how much of the excitement is currently substance versus bundled optimism.

If SpaceX provides clearer visibility into xAI’s economics, monetisation path, or infrastructure costs, investors can begin valuing that segment more rationally.

If everything stays blended together under one giant “AI future” narrative, uncertainty remains high.

🏛️ Regulatory And Government Exposure

This company is deeply connected to government infrastructure, contracts, and approvals.

NASA.
Defense.
FCC approvals.
Satellite spectrum.
Military connectivity.

That creates enormous opportunity.

It also creates concentrated political and regulatory dependency that investors should not ignore.

Especially at this valuation.

🔀 Whether Tesla Starts Trading Entirely On SpaceX Excitement

This may become one of the more important sentiment signals over the next few months.

If Tesla begins rallying primarily on SpaceX speculation rather than Tesla fundamentals, investors should probably pay attention.

Because historically, when multiple narratives start feeding each other simultaneously, volatility eventually becomes reflexive.

I think SpaceX is probably one of the most important companies built in the last two decades.

I also think investors are at real risk of confusing “important” with “investable at any price.”

Those are not the same thing.

The company has real strengths.

Starlink looks legitimately powerful.
The launch business has structural advantages.
The infrastructure positioning may ultimately become enormous.

This is not some meme-stock fantasy disconnected from reality.

But valuation still matters.

And when I see a company potentially being priced near $2 trillion while losing billions quarterly, I stop focusing primarily on upside.

I start focusing on expectations risk.

Because great companies destroy investor returns all the time when expectations outrun reality.

Cisco was a great company.
Intel was a great company.
Tesla itself taught this lesson multiple times.

The business can succeed while the stock still disappoints badly.

That distinction is where many investors get emotionally trapped.

Right now, the market seems increasingly willing to price SpaceX as if every future narrative attached to Musk automatically resolves successfully.

Maybe it does.

But history says paying extreme prices for certainty before certainty exists usually ends painfully at some point.

That does not mean SpaceX fails.

It means discipline matters most precisely when excitement becomes overwhelming.

Kingscrowd Capital's senior analyst reviewed RISE Robotics and projected potential growth to a $500 million valuation. The community round is open now on Wefunder. You don't have to be an institutional investor to get in at today's price.

See the Opportunity

Every cycle eventually produces a story so emotionally powerful that investors stop questioning assumptions and start defending narratives instead.

The SpaceX IPO feels dangerously close to becoming that story.

And to be clear, this is what makes investing psychologically difficult.

The strongest narratives are usually attached to genuinely impressive companies.

That’s what creates the trap.

Nobody gets emotionally reckless buying boring businesses with flat growth.

They get reckless buying companies that genuinely look like the future.

SpaceX absolutely looks like the future.

But the future can still become a terrible investment if you pay too much for it upfront.

That’s the part worth remembering over the next few weeks as this IPO machine gets louder.

Excitement is not a strategy.
Narrative is not cash flow.
And possibility is not the same thing as probability.