为什么 SpaceX 2040 年 4.3 万亿美元的营收预测极不可能实现
Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

原始链接: https://www.matteast.io/spacex-escape-velocity.html

SpaceX 创纪录的 1.77 万亿美元 IPO 基于一项激进的预测:在 15 年内保持 41.5% 的年增长率,从而在 2040 年实现 3.4 万亿美元的营收。尽管摩根士丹利通过将 SpaceX 与特斯拉等历史上高增长公司进行比较来为其辩护,但这种计算忽略了规模带来的“重力”效应。 金融史表明,随着公司基数的扩大,增长率会自然衰减。SpaceX 试图从一个比特斯拉起飞阶段大 160 倍的基数上进行扩张,这实际上要求其实现比历史上任何异常值高出 44% 的增长表现。再加上 79% 的息税折旧摊销前利润(EBITDA)这一不切实际的利润率——甚至超过了沙特阿美公司——该估值看起来更像是一种人为制造的叙事,而非现实的预测。 归根结底,迫使指数基金购买仅 4% 流通股的 IPO 结构制造了人为需求,使内部人士能够在禁售期结束后抛售股票。作者认为,这并非一种长期的投资逻辑,而是一种获利的市场再平衡机制,押注的是市场愿意将埃隆·马斯克过去的成功,投射到一种史无前例、甚至在物理上可能无法实现的未来规模之上。

Hacker News 上的一场讨论对 SpaceX 到 2040 年实现 4.3 万亿美元营收的预测进行了审视,评论者们大多认为这一数字极不可能实现。 一位用户半开玩笑地表示,如果转向高通胀的专制政体导致极端的长期通货膨胀,那么从理论上讲,这种数字或许是有可能的。然而,其他参与者很快反驳了这一观点,指出这种经济环境属于系统性崩溃,会波及整个市场,而不仅仅是为单一股票的投资提供合理性。对话还简要涉及了一些细微的技术性批评,包括对原文语法的更正,以及对作者网站禁用动画功能的需求。 归根结底,该讨论串反映出对于这一万亿美元量级估值预测的可行性,舆论普遍持怀疑态度。
相关文章

原文
Escape Velocity — The SpaceX Growth Frontier
← All essays

An essay in scrolls

SpaceX's IPO prepares to defy gravity — physical and financial.

Scroll

The Offering

The Largest IPO Ever.

SpaceX priced its debut at a $1.77 trillion valuation, edging Saudi Aramco's $1.7T for the largest in history. Each block is $25 billion. Aramco was the only company that ever came close; the famous tech IPOs barely register.

The Offering

But You Can't Buy Much.

Of that $1.77 trillion, only about 4% (roughly $75 billion) is sold to the public. The other 96% stays locked with insiders. Hold that thought; it matters later.

The Claim

Real, Fast Growth.

SpaceX's revenue is climbing fast: $4.6B in 2022, $8.7B in 2023, $14.0B in 2024, $18.7B in 2025. Roughly quadrupling in three years, even as the growth rate cools.

The Claim

Then This.

To justify the $1.77 trillion price, Morgan Stanley (a co-lead underwriter) points at 2040: $3.4 trillion. Zoom both axes out to fit it, and the last four years collapse to a sliver. It's 182× what SpaceX sold last year.

The Naive Read

41.5% a Year. For Fifteen Years.

Compounded, that's the rate that turns $18.7 billion into $3.4 trillion. Aggressive — but is it actually unprecedented?

The Naive Read

Tesla Climbed Steeper.

Plot the rates as curves and Tesla's is the steeper one: 62% a year versus the 41.5% SpaceX needs. By rate alone, SpaceX is the tamer story. So the rate is not the tell.

The Reframe

A Lower Bar.

Drop each climb to a single point: its fifteen-year growth rate. SpaceX's lands below Tesla's, 41.5% against 62%. On rate, SpaceX is the lower bar, not the higher one. So how does it sit against the field?

The Reframe

Against the Field.

Stack the other great compounders by the same measure: fifteen-year growth, every point still at the same starting line. A handful cleared SpaceX's rate: early Tesla, Amazon, Cisco. Most never did. By rate alone, 41.5% is high, but not impossible.

The Reframe

From 160× the Base.

But not every rate is earned from the same place. Give the points a second axis (starting size) and they fan out. The ones that out-grew SpaceX were all small; Tesla ran 62% from $117 million. SpaceX needs 41.5% from 160 times that base.

The Frontier

Growth Has a Speed Limit.

Plotted against size, a shape appears, and it bends down. The bigger you start, the slower you're allowed to grow. The curve holds whether you measure the 1980s or the 2020s.

The Shape

The Growth Frontier.

Fit a curve and it's blunt: starting size explains about half of who grows fast (R² ≈ 0.53). Not a hard law, a stubborn trend. Growing fast from a giant base is like climbing out of a deeper gravity well — the heavier the body, the more velocity it takes just to break orbit. Size becomes a rate-limiting factor to sustained velocity.

The Outlier

Measure the Gaps.

Measure how far each company sits from the frontier: its actual growth ÷ what the trend predicts. That gap is the residual, how much it beat the speed limit or fell short.

The Outlier

Rank Them.

Lift the gaps off the cloud and set them aside, then line every company up, largest overshoot to smallest.

The Outlier

Most Sit Near 1.0×.

Ranked, almost every company lands close to 1.0×, having grown about as fast as its size predicted. A handful clear the bar; one sits in a class of its own.

The Outlier

Off the Manifold.

Collapse those scores into a distribution. Tesla's 1.49× is the record — just inside the outlier fence. SpaceX's required 2.15× falls beyond it: a statistical outlier, ~44% past the best the data has ever produced.

The Tell

79% Margins. At $3.4 Trillion.

The forecast also assumes a 79% EBITDA margin. Aramco, pumping the cheapest oil on Earth, manages 55%. Software tops out near 45%. And $3.4 trillion would be five times Walmart, the most revenue any company has ever booked. One firm. Building rockets.

The Scale

Six Percent of Everything.

Run the headline forward: SpaceX at 41.5% while the U.S. economy grows at its consensus ~3.7% nominal. By 2040 a single company's revenue would equal ~6% of U.S. GDP, beyond the share Walmart commands today. A hundredfold rise in fifteen years.

The Machine

Forced to Buy.

Nasdaq deleted its float minimum and built a 15-day fast track for the 40 largest firms. SpaceX floats under 5%. Funds tracking QQQ, IWM and FTSE are forced to buy it, roughly $60 billion by Goldman's estimate, squeezed through a tiny float, setting a price before the market finds one.

The Machine

Someone Sells Into It.

That forced bid needs a seller. When the lock-ups expire 90–180 days later, insiders sell into the demand the index created. The cash flows out to them. The public is left holding the position, bought at a price set for it.

The Thesis

Coherence Isn't Truth.

Coherence is cheap — a roadshow is built to manufacture it. Real businesses, a vast market, a growth rate with precedent, arranged until the story stops feeling like a forecast and starts feeling like a fact. But a coherent story isn't a true one, and this one doesn't have to be. It only has to hold long enough for the index to buy and the lock-ups to lift. The value was never in 2040. It was always in the rebalance.

The Twist

The Elon Frontier.

Two companies sit far above everyone else's frontier, both Musk's. Tesla earned its place with revenue it delivered; SpaceX has only been priced to match. Connect them and a line of their own appears. Two points don't make a law, but it's the line the market has drawn. So the question stands: is Elon Musk on a frontier of his own — or is the market extrapolating one proven outlier onto an unproven one?

A line is not a law.

← All essays

Every figure is sourced and computed in the companion sources & data. Forecasts are Morgan Stanley's (a co-lead underwriter); historical CAGRs and residuals are computed from public filings.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com