华尔街为何从未见过像SpaceX这样的公司

SpaceX is about to test the limits of Wall Street's imagination. What I love about the S-1 is that it reads like a science fiction novel. I think the valuations is silly. The $28 trillion that you see as a total addressable market for SpaceX is absolute fantasy. We're still putting big numbers into this. We still think the growth rates could be massive, but it's just we can't get anywhere near that number that they're looking for.

They may be right, but they may also be using the wrong playbook because traditional comps, they miss what SpaceX has become. Its launch capacity Starlink, national security, battlefield connectivity and a private infrastructure layer governments are starting to depend on. I'm Deirdre Bosa and this is strategic tech. A whole new category. The bull case for SpaceX is that it doesn't fit into one box. SpaceX is a unicorn.

It's a proxy for the AI trade. It's a proxy for the data center trade. It's a proxy for cloud computing, and it's a proxy for space. Space right now in terms of getting things into orbit, getting to space is a monopoly. When Starship is going, it will control taking things to space in the world. There's no doubt. Hypergrowth national importance and not yet regulated like the industries that's starting to replace — three critical pillars that have almost never shown up in the same business.

Start with growth: SpaceX's Starlink business doubling its subscribers in a year, bankers estimating the AI business growing 100 fold by the end of the decade. In our view, at the foundation model level, $15 to $20 trillion in enterprise value by 2030, the Starlink business alone, I think you'll see massive revenue scaling in that business over the next couple of years. So the instinct is to price it like other growth tech, but that sells it short.

Meta is worth $1.5 trillion. SpaceX could debut around that same level, but if Meta went dark tomorrow, the country would still run. But if SpaceX went dark, the government would have a real problem. If you look at SpaceX's space capabilities, they are nation state level. Without SpaceX, the U.S. Would really have no launch capability for humans to the International Space Station. Nasa and the Pentagon rely on it. Ukraine has relied on Starlink during the war, and SpaceX operates roughly two thirds of all the active satellites in orbit, which brings us to trait two strategic dependency.

Right now, for the United States government, it's one of the most indispensable companies out there. About 20% of SpaceX's business in 2025, it came from government work, so it may actually be closer to strategically important companies in defense giants like Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop, General Dynamics and L3 Harris. Except that doesn't work either, because Lockheed is barely growing revenue up less than 1% last quarter, and it trades at roughly 20 times earnings.

It's also regulated. Lockheed gets most of its revenue from the U.S. Government and on major defense contracts, the Pentagon reviews pricing costs and profits to make sure the government is getting a fair deal. That limits how much upside Lockheed can actually capture. SpaceX doesn't have that same leash, at least not yet. Regulation may come and we'll get to that. But Congress moves slowly and SpaceX is moving very fast.

So for now, it gets the best of both worlds. The indispensability of a defense contractor with the pricing power of a tech platform. That's the premium and one that traditional comps just don't capture. It could become a strategically important company with a geopolitical premium attached to the stock. This isn't just theory. Public markets are already rewarding one company that fits this model, Palantir. Revenue was up 85% in its most recent quarter.

More than half of its business comes from government customers, and its software is now wired into defense, intelligence and federal operations. We work with the most important governments. We are controversial, quite frankly, because we power every single Western power that's at war. That makes Palantir hard to compare, except to the defense tech company Anduril, now valued at more than $60 billion in private markets.

They're not Lockheed, but they're not normal software, either. Part AI company, part defense contractor, part government operating system. And that's why the multiple looks so extreme. The market, it's not just paying for growth, it's paying for strategic importance. And that is the strategic tech premium. Palantir may only be the first test case because the next wave is much bigger SpaceX, yes. But OpenAI and Anthropic, they could be next.

SpaceX IPO this week will definitely be like a leading indicator to how Anthropic or OpenAI will go up. They don't own rockets or satellites, but they are becoming infrastructure in a different way. Physically, they sit at the center of the AI infrastructure build out — data centers, power chips, cloud capacity. Operationally, their models are starting to power the workflows, companies and governments rely on, from cybersecurity to research to defense, education, health care and their growth is already there.

OpenAI is the fastest company in history to hit a billion users and Anthropic, well, it is on one of the most relentless revenue ramps in technology, so they may have the same strategic tech setup, high growth, rising indispensability, and potentially much larger markets. The problem with being nationally important is that eventually the nation notices, and that is already happening across strategic tech. Bernie Sanders is pushing the idea that Americans should own a stake in the biggest AI companies, floating the idea of putting shares of OpenAI, Anthropic XAi into a public AI wealth fund.

And from the other side, the Trump administration, it has shown a new willingness to take direct stakes in companies it considers strategic: Intel, MP Materials, U.S. Steel. It's the same instinct if a company becomes too important. Washington wants a seat at the table, and that can cut both ways. What geopolitics give giveth, geopolitics can taketh away. When Washington considers a company essential, it can make it, like Intel, where a government stake helped turn a struggling chip maker into a strategic market bet.

But it can also limit it. The same government dependency that supports the valuation, it can also invite control like price caps. It can force access rules or in the extreme nationalization. Could a future government nationalize? Of course it could. But the more likely path is regulation. Strategic tech could slowly start to look more like a utility, like your power company. It's essential, but it can't set whatever rates it wants.

Regulators cap the upside because the service is too important, and the first major company ever called too big to fail wasn't actually a bank. It was to describe the Lockheed company in the 70s, which was considered so essential to help the Americans fight the Cold War against the Soviets, that you couldn't allow them to go bankrupt because it would be a strategic vulnerability for the United States. Lockheed is essential, too.

It builds the F-35, but it doesn't get to name its price because the Pentagon has too much leverage. For SpaceX, the government is already one of its most important partners NASA, the Pentagon, Starshield national security launches, satellite connectivity, and it could expand that to the UK as well. So that's the tension. What makes SpaceX so valuable is that governments are becoming dependent on it. But that dependency is also what eventually caps the upside.

Indispensability is just an extreme characterization of strategic importance. So when SpaceX goes public, the question is not just how fast it can grow, it's whether Wall Street should value it like a tech company, a defense contractor, or something entirely new. A private company with nation state style leverage. For now, that may deserve a premium. The risk is what comes after, because once a company

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。