The US requirement is that passengers on flights to the USA have been processed in conformance with US regulations _and_ since that processing have not had any contact with passengers processed otherwise. It's not in itself a stupid rule but does make the US rules contagious, since either other airports re-build to keep the US-bound and other passengers segregated or they have to apply US rules to all.
This hit Auckland International badly: it had a lovely open atrium with a garden but the rules forced a forest of partitioning walls since passengers were transferring from smaller airports that couldn't quickly adopt the US rules.
I often fly from Milan Malpensa airport, and I’ve noticed there are two separate security areas: one for people flying to the US or Israel, and one for everyone else. I’d always wondered why this was the case, and now I get it.
"What should a company that launches 98% of the world's non government tonnage to space (80% if you include the Chinese government) be valued at ?"
The TAM of that is under $10 billion. So even owning that entire market shouldn't get you anywhere near a trillion. Then factor in the development cost of starship which has been going on forever and still hasn't even made it to orbit.
Even the IPO filing isn't claiming the value comes from the rockets but from data centers in space which seems questionable. The real cash cow right now is Starlink but they aren't leaning into that heavily because those numbers also indicate that revenue growth might be stalling out.
If you just look at the pure numbers the case is very weak. No reason to change the inclusion rules. In fact I'd argue they never should change the inclusion rules. Let the market find a price first. Index funds are supposed to be boring and track the market. Including any recent IPO just adds chaos beyond simply tracking the overall market. It's trivial to buy some SpaceX if one wants and unlike selling your entire fund holding either doesn't trigger a taxable event at all or it's a much smaller one if you cannot avoid it.
I am not looking at the "pure" numbers, and many investors do not, they look at potential. They look at what the possibilities are. If you believe that space will be a significant part of the economy in 20 years, and that SpaceX will be a large participant, the current numbers do not mean a lot, this is not a large established company in a static industry. In 20 years the market cap of just the US could very well be $200T, if space is only 10% of that, there is $20T of valuation for space, and that is just US.
Google when it ipo'd about 20 years ago had a market cap of $23B. It is now close to $5T. Even if it went over 10x overvalued at $230B when it ipo'd, it would still have been a good investment. That is because the internet became a large part of our economy, and Google is a major player.
If you really want to compare the two, Google had a market cap/revenue of $2B/$2.7B, SpaceX is currently $1.8T/$20B, or about 10x the ratio of Google back then.
Yeah, very pricey. Crazy ? Not sure. Do I like the valuation ? No. Would I buy more SpaceX than what will be in my equity ETF ? No. But I am not unhappy that I will own a piece when it comes out. Do I like the change in rules ? Absolutely not, but that is just the way it is. The market, over time, is, and always be a lot smarter than I am.
Your TAM for "space" growing in 20 years from $3 billion to 20T honestly seems like quite the stretch. Starship has been in development for about 10 years and it's still not even been to orbit. I have a hard time seeing that sector grow by a factor of 6,666X in 20 years. It's not been growing anywhere near that despite SpaceX's incredible innovations and price reductions.
One of my pet peeves is that in the US vehicle safety regulation is all about the passengers of the vehicle and ignores safety of people around the vehicle. The passengers are in control of what vehicle they use and already have incentive to pick a safe vehicle. So passenger safety is less critical to regulate. The same incentive structure does not exist for pedestrian safety. They have no control over what cars are on the road and carry the negative externality. Vehicle safety regulation should focus on pedestrian safety and safety of other cars impacted by the vehicle. It's bizarre the US has this so backwards.
The thought experiment of what would have happened if manufacturing had required much less labor to begin with night be an interesting one. We would have had fewer jobs but the equilibrium price of the products would also have been much lower. The money spent on labor didn't come from Ford alone it ultimately came from the costumers. Ford wouldn't have lowered prices out of the goodness of their hearts but because competition is real.
I expect prices of goods would have been much lower and the labor would have been used elsewhere and the comp would still have gone a comparable if not longer way because goods would have been so much cheaper.
I guess it would be something like an “ad inhominem,” but that something was AI generated is a legitimate gripe so I hope we don’t start using that phrase.
The reason why ad hominems are a fallacy is because it fails to engage with the actual argument being made. The same seems likely to happen when arguments are dismissed because of their AI origin. While that dismissal is somewhat reasonable now, at least as a heuristic, I expect it to become increasingly less valid.
I wonder to what degree it's about what you are used to. I grew up in Germany and never had allergies. However, after a few years in the Pacific Northwest I developed seasonal allergies that get worse every year.
reply