alt Hacker NewsLike every other group, there is some amount of groupthink happening with Wall Street analysts. They all came to similar incorrect conclusions because they are working with similar information using similar techniques towards similar goals. This creates a level of bias, even if banks didn't have incentives to write bullish projections.
Getting a diversity of opinions doesn't mean talking to 10 experts in the same field, but talking to experts in 10 related fields.
Replies
It's not Group Think I would say, more capitalism. SpaceX has all the big name banks and VCs and investors involved.
So the banks know that if they don't fall in line, the VC's may not select them for future IPOs/make them lead bank and also not use them for other work. And the banks know that the big name investors who invested in the VCs are also their high net worth day to day clients buying their services.
The banks loyalties and financial interests are not in protecting normal everyday people, it's protecting their business and individual bonuses. (SpaceX paid around $600 Million in fees for the IPO! And that's after negotiating a low percentage).
The news sites know that if they speak out of line too boldly, they won't be 1st in line to get exclusive stories and invites to events. Or Advertising Spend.
It's for governments and regulators to put rules in, otherwise capitalists will carry on in their own interests.
SpaceX is literally the only company that has a reliable partially re-usable launch vehicle, and they're probably going to be the only company with a fully re-usable launch vehicle. Nobody else except maybe for some chinese companies and kind of RocketLab is even close. They basically have a monopoly...
They're launching like 150 rockets a year or something like that? It's bananas. They have star link too.
Honestly, I think people are asleep at the wheel with the valuation and shorting it seems stupid. They have the star shield thing, and hypothetically point-to-point QRF systems for governments with star ship. Then there's space data centers.
I know people gnash their teeth at that, but I'm pretty convinced the ass-pain associated with getting a data center constructed on the planet with all the NIMBY stuff will be will incentivize space data centers too.
> This creates a level of bias, even if banks didn't have incentives to write bullish projections.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think this is misleading. The bad estimate of fair price is _overwhelmingly_ due to incentives for bullish projections. I have no source to back this up, aside from common sense. SPCX is supposedly an AI-company now, even though we all know this is a lie. It's AI-only revenue within 5 years[1] is projected to be larger than most SP500 companies' full revenue today[2]. On the face of it, this is silly, and I don't accept that all the analysts group-thought their way to believing it.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/goldma...
[2] https://stockanalysis.com/list/sp-500-stocks/