Just because a stock has lost 70% of its value doesn't mean it can't lose 70% more.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
114 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
86354 readers
3208 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Jokes on you because it never had any real value to begin with
While I detest Elon, the company definitely has some value. They’re still the global launch leader at this time. That said, their valuation based on promises of AI and asteroid mining is complete nonsense.
It had value, before it bought xAI.
Now there's an infinite money pit attached to it
Sure, but you are talking about being the leader in an industry that has historically been the profitless province of state sponsored exploration, scientific discovery, with supplementing industrial functions as a value-add. It is not a given what value there actually is in being the leader in this field.
It's almost like things are fundamentally different now from "historically." Historically, we (I'm in the launch vehicle industry) didn't have reusable launch vehicles. Even 10 years ago the launch community was hugely skeptical of being able to successfully refurbish a rocket and maintain mission assurance.
My point is that most of the launches being performed now are not state sponsored or for scientific discovery. You are looking at it from the lens of a period when there were only two providers and only a few customers. With tons of commercial companies interested in proliferated LEO programs, there is a lot of profit in launch.
However, that STILL only gives the stock a value of around $8/share.
If you took the state funding out of Space X how much money do they make?
That was because it was so costly to get even a single kg into orbit. The commercial satellite industry is a quarter of a trillion dollars and growing in part because the cost to get stuff in orbit is going down.
Displaying tit can lose 70% again.
Let's strive for 100%. Normally I find 70% a totally acceptable percentage, but when it comes to loss of value of anything fElon owns I think 100% loss would be the more favorable outcome. Or even better, let it be 120%, I'd love to see that loser to be in debt the rest of his miserable life.
Fingers crossed!
It's pretty common for stock to drop after IPO. This is just a bigger drop than usual.
I'm glad S&P didn't give in to SpaceX's demand to add them to the S&P 500.
True, though they did get into the NASDAQ-100 early and the Russell indices early.
Pump, then dump
Pump, then dump
Pump, then dump
Pump, then dump
Pump, then dump
Pump, then dump
The floor for this stock is under $30.
The standard window is 180 days (about six months). What makes SpaceX unusual is that its lockup, as described in the company's S-1 filing, releases shares in stages rather than all at once, so portions of employee stock are expected to become sellable at several points during that six-month period rather than only at the very end.
...
- After the first quarterly earnings release as a public company (the quarter ending June 30, with the report expected sometime between mid-July and September), up to 20% of eligible locked-up shares become sellable.
- A performance-based early release of up to an additional 10% can unlock if the Class A shares trade at least 30% above the IPO price on at least five of ten consecutive trading days before that first earnings release.
- Five time-based tranches of up to 7% each release at 70, 90, 105, 120, and 135 days after the IPO (about 35% in total across those dates).
- After the second quarterly earnings release (the quarter ending September 30, expected between mid-October and December), up to an additional 28% becomes eligible.
- At the 180-day mark (around mid-December for a mid-June IPO), any remaining restrictions lift. https://www.axonwm.com/post/when-can-spacex-employees-sell-shares-after-ipo
Musk has been compensating his employees with stocks instead of salaries for 20 years. Some of those older employees were "paid in" at $3-4 after splits while employee's as recent as 2024 would be holding shares @ ~ $30.
I'm going to assume the current downward pressure is people anticipating this late-july deadline allowing SPCX employees to sell off the first 20% of their stocks.
This was me in my twenties.
So you're claiming not to be full of shit anymore...?
🤔
Keep going; there’s a lot to lose before it’s a realistic value.
Hmmm, sounds like it's almost time to go on Amazon and sell some "I bought SPCX before I knew Elon was crazy" bumper stickers.
From good ol’ Liberal Fig Leaves, LLC
Now add Tesla to spaceX so they all can go down.
I think that's low enough to demote Musk from trillionaire back down to just obscenely wealthy.
That's actually old news, of which I was surprised. I went looking yesterday :)
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/elon-musk-loses-trillionaire-status-233940906.html
Thus proving again that these numbers have little meaning.
Yeah. I'm a millionnaire everytime I play the slot machine, at least while it runs.
Yes and no. Lets not forget that 800B came from working class retail investors. Which while they maybe be insufferable idiots they still have more in common with us than the billionaire fucks using retail investors as exit liquidity.
Now that both China and Japan have recently demonstrated having reusable rockets, SpaceX's cash cow has lost its luster.