SpaceX: the Biggest IPO in History. Still Losing Money. So Who Is Left Holding the Bag?

01 SpaceX’s Nasdaq debut

On 12 June 2026, SpaceX pulled off the biggest IPO in history.

The shares were priced at US$135. They opened at US$150, surged as high as US$176 during the session, and closed at US$160.95, up 19.22% on the day. After hours, they kept climbing, reaching US$167.57.

By the close, SpaceX was worth roughly US$2.1 trillion. Overnight, it became the sixth-largest company in America by market value. The only companies ahead of it were Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Alphabet — the absolute giants of global technology. SpaceX walked straight into that club.

The IPO raised US$75 billion, smashing Saudi Aramco’s 2019 record of US$29.4 billion and easily beating Alibaba’s US$25 billion US listing in 2014. More than 500 million shares changed hands on the first day, with trading value of around US$80 billion — more than four times Nvidia’s volume that day.

The deal also minted the world’s first trillionaire.

Elon Musk’s net worth crossed US$1 trillion. His SpaceX stake alone was worth about US$867 billion.

But open SpaceX’s financial statements, and the story looks very different.

Remember: the five companies ahead of SpaceX all make money.

SpaceX does not.

In 2025, SpaceX generated US$18.67 billion in revenue, up 33% year on year. Sounds decent? The problem is that it also recorded a net loss of US$4.94 billion.

The first quarter of 2026 was even more worrying. Revenue was US$4.69 billion, with growth slowing to 15%. Net loss was US$4.28 billion. In one quarter, SpaceX lost almost as much money as it did in the whole of 2025.

Since its founding in 2002, SpaceX has accumulated losses of roughly US$41.3 billion.

Break the business down into three parts and the picture becomes clearer.

The space launch business made US$4.086 billion in revenue in 2025 and lost US$657 million.

Starlink is the only profitable engine: US$11.387 billion in revenue and US$4.423 billion in profit.

The AI business generated US$3.201 billion in revenue, but lost a lot of money.

Even Starlink, the only business currently producing real cash, has a problem: ARPU is falling. Average revenue per user dropped from US$99 in 2023 to US$81 in 2025, and then to US$66 in the first quarter of 2026.

In plain English: Starlink is growing by cutting prices. More users, yes. But each user is paying less.

So here is the picture:

US$18.6 billion in revenue. US$4.9 billion in losses. US$2.1 trillion in market value.

Is US$2.1 trillion too expensive?

02 Who is paying for this US$2.1 trillion valuation?

Let’s compare.

Nvidia’s latest annual revenue was about US$215.9 billion.

Amazon’s was around US$716.9 billion.

Alphabet’s was around US$402.8 billion.

These are the companies SpaceX now sits beside in the market-cap rankings. They make hundreds of billions in revenue a year. More importantly, they make profits.

SpaceX made US$18.67 billion in 2025 and lost US$4.94 billion.

The others are printing money. SpaceX is still burning it. Yet the market is valuing SpaceX as if it belongs on the same shelf.

Now compare it with Broadcom, which is closest in market value.

Broadcom is worth roughly US$1.76 trillion. In 2025, it generated US$63.9 billion in revenue and about US$23.1 billion in net profit.

SpaceX is worth more than Broadcom, but has less than a third of Broadcom’s revenue. Broadcom makes US$23.1 billion. SpaceX loses US$4.9 billion.

One earns US$23 billion. The other loses US$5 billion.

And the lossmaker is valued higher.

So why can a loss-making company stand next to Nvidia and Apple?

Because Wall Street says it can.

Goldman Sachs predicts SpaceX’s AI revenue will grow by 9,900% in four years, reaching US$322 billion by 2030.

Morgan Stanley goes even bigger: it forecasts US$3.4 trillion in revenue by 2040. That would require revenue to expand 210 times in 15 years — a compound annual growth rate of 43.3%.

What does 210 times growth in 15 years mean?

In the history of the US stock market, only three companies have ever done it. But here is the important part: when they started, their revenue bases were all below US$100 million.

SpaceX is not starting from US$100 million. It is starting from around US$15.5 billion, with growth of only 18% that year.

Going from US$100 million to US$20 billion is one thing.

Going from US$15 billion to US$3.4 trillion is something else entirely.

Even Nvidia has not achieved that kind of ultra-long, ultra-high growth path.

So let’s be honest: the US$2.1 trillion valuation is not based on today’s business.

It is based on tomorrow’s story.

And that leads to the next question:

Who is paying for tomorrow’s story?

The answer is: retail investors.

In a normal IPO, retail allocation is usually around 5% to 10%.

SpaceX pushed it to 30%.

Fidelity lowered its normal IPO participation threshold from US$100,000 to US$500,000 all the way down to US$2,000.

Robinhood and other platforms had almost no meaningful threshold at all.

At first glance, this looks like Musk being kind to small investors.

But think about it for one second.

The lower the threshold, the larger the retail base. The larger the retail base, the hotter the subscription. The hotter the subscription, the stronger the IPO hype.

And that is not even the whole story.

US IPOs often come with anti-flipping rules. If retail investors sell too soon after receiving an allocation, it can affect their ability to participate in future IPOs, or reduce their allocation priority. The exact period differs by broker: some are 15 days, some are 30 days.

What does that mean in practice?

If you get allocated shares, you are encouraged not to sell in the short term.

And if you do not sell, you stay in the market and help absorb selling pressure.

Retail investors were not invited to share the cake.

They were invited to carry the plate.

This is the uncomfortable truth: for large IPOs, the initial valuation often already prices in a lot of future growth. Retail investors are far more likely to become exit liquidity than to make easy money.

And in SpaceX’s case, the company is not even profitable yet.

Musk also wants SpaceX included in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100 as soon as possible. If that happens, large amounts of passive money would automatically buy the stock, helping support the market value.

But the S&P 500 rejected the idea outright. It requires at least 12 months of listing history, positive net profit in the latest quarter, and positive combined net profit over the latest four quarters. It made clear that a high market cap alone does not earn an exemption.

SpaceX is still losing money. So it cannot get in quickly.

Nasdaq is more flexible. It introduced a fast-entry mechanism in May this year, so SpaceX may have a chance there. But the likely index weight would be tiny. The passive inflow would be a drop in the ocean compared with a US$2.1 trillion valuation.

In the short term, the index route cannot save the story.

03 A feast where everyone gets what they need

If retail investors are paying, who is collecting?

Start with Wall Street.

SpaceX’s core underwriters include Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley.

These banks are not just underwriters. They are also lenders.

Back in 2022, when Musk acquired Twitter, Morgan Stanley led a group of seven banks that lent about US$12.5 billion. After Twitter’s advertising revenue collapsed, those loans were stuck on the banks’ books. They wanted to offload them, but could not.

Then xAI was founded and borrowed about US$5 billion for AI infrastructure.

In 2025, xAI acquired X. Old debt and new debt together added up to roughly US$17.5 billion, all sitting under xAI.

Then xAI was folded into SpaceX, and the debt came along with it.

So how do you repay it?

You go public.

Before the listing, SpaceX borrowed another US$20 billion in bridge loans from the same group of banks. New money was used to deal with old money. At the same time, the bridge loan became the entry ticket for underwriting the IPO.

Morgan Stanley, in particular, had a very good deal. The Twitter loan that had been trapped for three years could finally be worked out through the IPO — and the bank could earn underwriting fees on top.

Lend money to the company.

Help it sell shares.

Then publish forecasts that support the valuation.

Goldman says four years, 9,900% growth.

Morgan Stanley says 15 years, 210 times growth.

Are these numbers independent research?

Or are they supporting documents for a very important client?

Interesting.

Now look at Musk.

SpaceX had been private for more than two decades. Musk had said many times that he was in no hurry to list it.

So why the sudden change?

Because he can no longer afford not to.

Musk’s Tesla compensation package will not be fully unlocked until 2035.

The debt from the Twitter acquisition has not fully gone away.

AI spending is becoming more aggressive by the year.

In 2023, SpaceX had almost no financing debt. By 2024, that number had risen to US$11.8 billion. By 2025, it had surged to US$26.35 billion.

Musk says he wants to go to Mars by the time he is 80.

He cannot wait.

The more important point is this: the money raised from the IPO is not mainly going into rockets.

In 2024, SpaceX’s equity investment was only US$6.5 billion — less than a single OpenAI funding round.

In the first quarter of 2026, SpaceX spent 76% of its capital expenditure on AI data centres. Rockets got only 10%.

So the company is rushing to list, rushing to raise money, and rushing to burn cash on AI.

Musk has gone from being one of AI’s loudest sceptics to using the AI story to push up valuation.

That is where he is now.

04 Do you believe in Mars?

The person rushing to list the company — how much control does he keep?

SpaceX uses a dual-class share structure.

Class A shares carry one vote each.

Class B shares carry ten votes each.

Before the IPO, Musk controlled 85.1% of the voting power. After the IPO, that only fell to 84.4%.

Class B shareholders have the right to elect more than half of the board. No matter how many future funding rounds happen, Musk can still control the board.

Even America’s three largest public pension funds issued a joint warning, calling the structure “novel and extreme”.

There is another detail in the incentive plan.

No matter whether the performance targets are eventually achieved, the voting rights attached to the awarded shares take effect immediately from the grant date.

In plain English: the voting power is handed over first.

Then there is the issue price.

US$135. Fixed pricing. Take it or leave it.

Normally, IPO pricing is the result of a negotiation with institutional investors. Musk effectively took that pricing power back.

Why could he do that?

Because demand was more than US$300 billion. The deal was nearly four times oversubscribed. If you do not buy, someone else will.

SpaceX raised US$75 billion while diluting only 4.2% of its shares.

When Alibaba raised US$25 billion, it diluted about 15%.

Open SpaceX’s prospectus and you will find things that would be unimaginable in the prospectus of a normal company.

The mission statement says SpaceX aims to “build the systems and technologies necessary to make life multiplanetary, understand the true nature of the universe, and extend the light of consciousness to the stars.”

This is not a prospectus.

This is science fiction.

Musk’s equity incentive package includes one billion restricted shares.

There are two unlocking conditions.

First, SpaceX’s market value must rise from US$500 billion step by step to US$7.5 trillion.

Second, SpaceX must establish a permanent human settlement on Mars with at least one million residents.

Both conditions must be met.

One million people living on Mars has been written into a CEO compensation agreement.

I have seen companies sell dreams before.

I have not often seen dreams sold like this.

And the Mars story keeps going.

Tesla’s Optimus robots as the advance team.

Glass-domed cities.

Terraforming so that humans no longer need spacesuits.

Every two-year launch window sending 1,000 to 2,000 spacecraft back and forth.

The Moon as a transfer station.

The AI story is also full of ambition.

SpaceX wants to deploy an orbital AI compute satellite constellation as early as 2028.

Its AI1 satellite would have a deployed wingspan of about 70 metres, larger than a Boeing 747-8.

It has applied to regulators to launch up to one million space-based data-centre satellites.

SpaceX describes itself as the only company with a commercially viable path to building orbital AI compute systems at scale.

Can Musk eventually deliver on these promises?

SpaceX has existed for more than twenty years and is still loss-making. Its accumulated losses are already above US$40 billion.

Mars colonisation?

Humanity has not yet sent a single person to Mars.

One million people living on Mars?

There is not even a shadow of that yet.

Orbital AI satellite constellations?

Still at the PowerPoint stage.

The US$2.1 trillion valuation is all being placed on tomorrow.

They believe tomorrow will arrive.

Do you?

Why You Should Never Give Anyone Specific Investment Advice

Over the past couple of days, a few friends have asked me for investment “recommendations”. It is a familiar situation: someone is curious, anxious, hopeful, or simply looking for reassurance. And each time it happens, I remind myself of one principle that I treat as non-negotiable:

Never give anyone specific investment advice.

Not because investing is unimportant. Not because I do not care. But because giving concrete buy-or-sell instructions to another person almost always creates more harm than good.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Outcomes

Here is the reality that many people do not want to admit:

  • If they make money, they will not share the profit with you.
  • If they lose money, they may blame you for a very long time.

That imbalance alone should make anyone cautious. Even if your intentions are good, the emotional consequences are not shared fairly. Your “advice” becomes their excuse, their regret, or their resentment.

Good Companies Are Not Automatically Good Buys

People often think investment success is about finding “good companies”. Company quality matters, of course. But it is only one part of the equation.

In fact, the most important pillars of successful investing are usually:

  1. A good asset (what you buy)
  2. A good price (what you pay)
  3. Good timing (when you buy and when you sell)

Many well-known companies are excellent businesses. But even a great business can be a terrible investment if you buy at the wrong price.

For example, Microsoft, Google, NVIDIA, and Meta are all outstanding companies, but if you buy at the top of a bubble, you can still lose badly.

If someone buys at the peak of a bubble, they can still suffer painful losses. And when that happens, it will not matter how strong the company is “in the long run”. What they will remember is that you were the person who nudged them into it.

Timing and Price Are Personal, Not Universal

Even if you recommend a company that you genuinely believe is worth holding for years, the person following your suggestion may not share your time horizon, risk tolerance, or emotional discipline.

They might buy at a higher price than you ever would.

They might invest money they cannot afford to tie up.

They might panic when the price drops 10% or 20% in a week.

And this is crucial: even assets that are worth owning long-term can swing wildly in the short-term. Most people cannot hold through that kind of volatility. They sell at the worst moment, then feel cheated, angry, or humiliated.

If your suggestion contributed to that decision, it is very easy for the blame to land on you.

A Better Way to Help

Refusing to give specific advice does not mean refusing to help. It simply means shifting the conversation to things that are actually useful and less damaging, such as:

  • discussing investment principles rather than tickers
  • encouraging them to understand risk and position sizing
  • reminding them to think in probabilities, not certainties
  • helping them avoid emotional decisions
  • urging them to do their own research and take responsibility

Because in investing, responsibility cannot be outsourced. If someone cannot own their decisions, they are not ready to act on someone else’s “recommendation” either.

Final Thought

So yes, I will say it again, as clearly as possible:

Do not give anyone specific investment advice.

You may be right about the company. You may even be right about the long-term direction. But if they enter at the wrong time, at the wrong price, and with the wrong mindset, the outcome can still be ugly—and the relationship might pay the price.

In the end, protecting friendships is often more valuable than being “right” about a stock.

Why Entrepreneurship Is the Only Real Path to Financial Freedom?

Many people get used to the comfort of a stable yet modest income. While this may seem safe, it can be quite dangerous in the long run. Remaining in the comfort zone for too long often leads to a loss of ambition and a reluctance to take risks. If you are always hesitant to try new things or take calculated risks, you may find yourself trapped in mediocrity, unable to achieve genuine freedom.

Image generated by AI.

Is Entrepreneurship the Only Way?

It is not necessary for everyone to start a business right away. However, if financial freedom is your goal, entrepreneurship is arguably the most effective route. The first step is to plant the seed of entrepreneurship in your mind and start accumulating the skills and resources you will need in the future.

The True Nature of Entrepreneurship

Starting a business is often misunderstood as something lofty or out of reach. In reality, it comes down to two fundamental questions:

  1. What can you sell? In other words, what is your unique product or service?
  2. Who will you sell it to? Who are your target customers, and how will you reach them?

If you focus on developing a good product and finding a reliable way to attract customers, your entrepreneurial journey becomes much clearer and more practical.

The Case for Low-Cost Start-Ups

For most people, especially those just starting out, investing a large amount of money into a business is unwise. Low-cost or “light asset” entrepreneurship, such as online businesses or knowledge-based services, comes with lower risks and allows for faster learning and adaptation. In my own experience, providing knowledge-based services has allowed me to help others while generating income, all with minimal upfront investment.

Where Are the Opportunities for Young People?

Young entrepreneurs should consider the following approach:

  • Utilise internet platforms
  • Focus on low-cost business models
  • Target specific and high-demand markets
  • Offer essential, in-demand products or services

Avoid heavy investments in traditional businesses. Otherwise, you may end up following the same path as previous generations: years of schooling, decades of paying off a mortgage, and ultimately, a life of missed opportunities.

The Three Core Questions of Entrepreneurship

Whether you are starting alone or building a team, these are the three critical questions you must answer:

  1. What is unique about your product or service?
  2. How many customers are willing to pay for it?
  3. Can you set a price that allows your business to be sustainable in the long term?

Most new entrepreneurs struggle with at least one of these questions, particularly when it comes to attracting clients and setting the right price.

Entrepreneurship Is Not an Escape

It is important to remember that entrepreneurship is not an easy way out of workplace stress or dissatisfaction. Starting a business comes with its own set of challenges. Rather than using entrepreneurship as a form of escapism, adopt a mindset of facing problems head-on and being prepared to learn continuously.

How Should You Begin?

The best strategy for most people is to start with a side venture. By experimenting with a small-scale, low-risk project, you can test your ideas and build confidence. If your side project starts to generate meaningful income and shows signs of growth, then you can consider transitioning into full-time entrepreneurship. This approach helps you gain valuable experience while minimising the risks associated with failure.

In summary

Financial freedom cannot be achieved by settling for a stable but low income. Entrepreneurship remains the most practical path to upward mobility. The key is to be willing to try, to keep learning, and to start small. With persistence and the right strategy, true freedom is within reach.

Medium vs Substack: Which Platform Is Right for You?

If you’re a writer looking to share your ideas online, you’ve probably come across Medium and Substack. Both platforms are popular choices for creators, but they serve different needs and audiences. So how do you decide which one is best for you?

In this article, I’ll break down the key differences between Medium and Substack, including their global popularity, how they help you build an audience, their monetization models, and what each means for your growth as a writer.

What Are Medium and Substack?

Medium is an online publishing platform where anyone can write articles and share stories with a built-in audience of millions of readers. Topics range from technology and culture to personal development and beyond. Think of Medium as a giant online magazine fuelled by both independent voices and established publications.

Substack is designed for newsletters. It lets you send your writing directly to your subscribers’ inboxes, and it’s become a go-to for writers who want to build a direct relationship with their readers. You can decide whether each post is free or paid, making it a great option for those interested in developing a dedicated community around their work.

Popularity: App Store Rankings

Substack’s influence is clearly growing worldwide. Just look at the latest App Store rankings in the News category:

  • In the UK App Store, Substack is ranked #3, while Medium sits at #16.
  • In the Hong Kong App Store, Substack is #10 and Medium is #33.

These numbers show that Substack is quickly gaining traction, especially among readers who value independent content and direct communication.

Audience Building, Discovery, and Interaction

Substack uses a subscriber model: people sign up to receive your content directly in their inboxes. This setup is perfect for writers who want to cultivate a direct relationship with their audience or foster a sense of community. If you already have readers who appreciate your work, Substack makes it easy to keep them engaged and updated.

Medium, by contrast, is all about algorithmic discovery. Readers pay $5 per month to access all content on the platform, but what they actually see is driven by Medium’s recommendation algorithms. As a writer, this means you can focus on producing great articles—if the quality is high, your work may be pushed to more readers, even if you’re new and don’t have a large following. However, your follower count on Medium doesn’t guarantee more views for your future posts. Each article is judged on its own merit, much like how TikTok’s content system works.

Monetization

Both platforms offer ways to earn money, but the approaches are different:

  • Medium: Once you join the Partner Program, you get paid based on the amount of time paying members spend reading your stories. The platform manages all payments, and your earnings depend on your reach and engagement.
  • Substack: You control your own pricing and decide which content is free or paid. Subscribers can pay monthly or annually, and most of the revenue goes directly to you, minus a small platform and processing fee.

Which Platform Should You Choose?

So, which platform is best for you?

  • If you’re just starting out and don’t have an established audience, Medium is a strong choice. Thanks to its algorithm, even new writers can gain exposure if their content stands out.
  • If you already have a group of readers, or you want to build a more direct relationship and community, Substack is ideal. It’s especially powerful for writers who want to control their own mailing list and nurture a loyal readership.

Many creators actually use both: Medium for wider reach, and Substack for deeper engagement with their most dedicated subscribers.

Final Thoughts

Choosing between Medium and Substack depends on your goals as a writer. If you want to tap into a massive built-in audience and let the platform’s algorithm do some of the work, Medium is a great place to start. If your focus is on building a personal newsletter, fostering deeper connections, and owning your audience, Substack is hard to beat.

Why University Won’t Teach You How to Make Money?

University doesn’t teach you how to make money. It teaches you how to become a useful tool for others to make money.

You are trained to be useful labor, ready to fit into someone else’s system.

But how to actually make money? That is never taught.

Some people say, “If I study hard and get a good job after graduation, I can make money.” But that’s just earning money, not making money.

What’s the difference?

Earning money means trading your time and labor for money. Once you stop working, the money stops too.

Making money means using leverage—such as labor, capital, media, or code (as Naval Ravikant talks about). None of this is taught in university.

Most graduates only pick up some skills for earning money, not for making money. In the era of artificial intelligence, even the skills for earning money can be easily replaced by AI.

So how do you actually make money?

It is about mastering assets. For example, owning shares of great technology companies means your money works for you, not the other way around. It is about building things that generate income on their own, without you having to constantly trade your time and labor.

This could be creating a product—something digital, like an app or an online course, or content like a YouTube channel. Once you have built these, you can sell them again and again. Even while you are sleeping, they can still bring in money.

When you start using these kinds of leverage, you can reach more people and create more value, far beyond what you could do with your own labor alone.

Making money means letting assets and leverage work for you, instead of always working for money. This is the real path to financial freedom, but none of this is taught in university.

If you want to break free from the cycle of earning money with your labor, start learning how to build assets and use leverage. That is how you make money work for you—and that is where real financial independence begins.

How Entrepreneurs Can Master Knowledge Management

As an entrepreneur, you probably have a habit of taking notes. But have you ever experienced this: you write something down, only to forget about it later? Or perhaps you record your thoughts, but when you need them, you can’t figure out how to use them effectively.

Regularly organising your notes seems like a good idea, but often it doesn’t help much. The process itself is time-consuming and mentally draining. Even after you’ve sorted through everything, it’s easy to forget what you’ve organised.

So, is there a better way? Here’s a method I’d like to share: Start by recording questions instead of just notes. Then, look for which of your notes can help answer those questions.

What Kind of Questions Should You Record?

Here are three types of questions that work especially well:

  1. Decision-making
    For example: Should I pursue this project? What are the criteria for making this decision?
  2. Confusion or Uncertainty
    For example: Why are the costs for this project so high? What are the underlying reasons? (Think of Elon Musk’s “first principles” approach.)
  3. Curiosity
    For example: How did someone achieve this? What can I learn from their process?

You can even go back and transform your previous notes into a series of questions and answers.

Why This Works

A good question is the key to capturing and focusing your attention—whether it’s your own attention, or someone else’s. Real thinking doesn’t come from endlessly organising notes, but from exploring with questions in mind. Often, it’s not that we don’t have enough notes, but rather that we don’t have enough good questions.

The value of note-taking isn’t in the act of recording, but in whether your brain can recall the right information at the right time to help solve a problem.

Remember: Your brain is a CPU, not a hard drive. Stop trying to store everything. Instead, learn how to call up knowledge intelligently, just when you need it.

Final Thoughts

Turn your notes into a toolkit of questions and answers. Let questions guide your exploration and learning. With this approach, you’ll find that knowledge management becomes less about storage and more about smart, active retrieval—and that’s what truly empowers entrepreneurs to solve problems and grow.