Invest1 distinct publisher3 min readPublished
The first insider unlock roughly doubled the tradable share count, and the stock still trades near $138. That tells you a clearing price exists at 41 times sales; it tells you far less about whether insiders actually sold.
The Investor · Invest desk
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
Twenty percent of the insider block roughly equalling the entire pre-existing float [4] is the arithmetic worth carrying around, because it implies insiders were sitting on about five times what the public owned, which puts June's offering at something close to a sixth of the company [10]. Four-fifths of that block is still locked, and its calendar runs through the next year [6].
Which leaves the question of what actually got absorbed. A doubled float is permission to sell; whether anyone actually sold is a separate matter, and the Motley Fool's own observation that volume spiked around the expiry and then went back to normal [5] fits two readings that argue for opposite trades: buyers with size quietly took the paper, or insiders looked at a stock that spent the start of August near $106 [6] and decided that unloading a fifth of their position at roughly 21% below the offer price [6] could wait. At about $138 the shares are 2.2% above the $135 IPO and 8% below the $150 first-day open [11], so whoever did sell in that window sold into a market that had only just repaired itself.
On the multiple, the source and I get different numbers, or rather the same numbers pointed at different questions. The three disclosed segments sum to $7.81 billion in the quarter against $4.69 billion a year earlier [1][2], which is 67% growth and not the 92% the piece reports [3]; either there is revenue outside those three lines or one of the two figures is measuring something I cannot see from here. Annualise the $7.81 billion and you get $31.2 billion, and the 41 times sales that fool.com's writer declines to pay [14] puts roughly $1.28 trillion of market value against it [7]. Getting from 41 times sales down to a merely rich 8 times, with the price unchanged, requires revenue to multiply by 5.1 [8].
Space itself is 12.3% of the quarter [4], against 54.9% for connectivity and 32.8% for the AI line [5], which is the Fool's argument that this is not primarily a space stock [15] restated as a fraction. The retail bid for rockets is buying a satellite internet business with a fast-growing compute attachment.
The $541 million quarterly loss [8] set against $100 billion of cash [9] is 185 quarters of cover, call it 46 years [9], and the company still sold $25 billion of bonds within weeks of the listing [10], which says the capital plan is about spending rather than survival. Management can do whatever it wants regardless of the equity price; the price disciplines only the insiders holding the other 80%.
My read, and this is probably wrong: the first unlock passed quietly because supply never arrived, not because institutional demand ran deep, and the real test arrives when the smaller tranche released on 20 August [6] and the ones behind it meet a price that has finally cleared the offer. What would prove me wrong is sustained volume above $135 through the next two releases. What would confirm it is a slide back toward $106 on the third.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
The author argues SpaceX currently is not primarily a space stock and that its business is more AI- and connectivity-focused.
Space Exploration Technologies (ticker SPCX) went public in June with an IPO price of $135 per share.
As of the article, shares traded around $138, up nearly 30% for an investor who bought on 1 August.
Two days after the Q2 report, most insiders who owned shares before the IPO became free to sell up to 20% of their shares, which about doubled SpaceX's float.
A smaller tranche of shares was unlocked on 20 August, and more lockup periods will end over the next year.
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 29, 2026
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
product
Starlink turns on Vietnam with an ownership waiver, a 600,000-subscriber ceiling and a 2027 rideshare1 distinct publisher
build
Starlink retires Global Roam on August 17, and ocean crews get the metered price list1 distinct publisher
invest
X's stablecoin creator payouts would be a plumbing decision, not a crypto bet3 distinct publishers
invest
SpaceX pays twenty times Cursor's revenue to restock the talent xAI lost1 distinct publisher
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
One column, no filings
Every figure that matters here — the $135 issue price, the 92% growth pace, a $100 billion cash pile, a $25 billion bond sale — arrives through a single Motley Fool column that cites no filing, transcript, or offering document. Worse, its numbers argue with each other: the three segments it prints grow 67% year on year, not 92%. Either a segment went unmentioned or the growth figure is wrong, and nothing in this reporting lets a reader decide which.
Dollars, not customers
Demand shows up only as revenue: connectivity up about a third to $4.29 billion, the AI line more than tripling to $2.56 billion, space still the runt at $962 million. That is a real signal about where money is flowing, and it is enough to support the claim that this is no longer a space stock. It is not enough to gauge traction — no subscribers, no capacity, no contract wins, no churn, and no second party who saw the same statements.
Absorption asserted, not shown
"Crushed its Q2 results" and "not a big deal" carry more weight than the reporting can bear. Doubling the float and holding near $138 proves a clearing price exists at 41 times sales; it says nothing about whether insiders sold, and no volume figures or insider disclosures are offered either way. Add a loss called "puny" against an unchecked $100 billion, and a growth rate a third higher than the segments support, and the confident tone runs well ahead of the record. The author's refusal to pay the multiple is the one place the piece pulls against itself.
Retail decision-page economics
The Motley Fool's business is converting readers into subscribers, and the headline asks precisely the question that keeps a retail reader scrolling: is it still a buy? That shapes what gets measured — price levels, a multiple, a verdict — and what gets skipped, like share counts and insider filings. Credit where due: the author states plainly that he will not pay 41 times sales and may miss out, which is not the posture of a promotional piece. No issuer material or sell-side note is visible in the sourcing.
Prices usable, rest provisional
The price scaffolding holds up on its own terms — $135 to $150 to about $138, with the August run implying a start near $106. Everything downstream of the earnings summary is thinner: a growth rate its own segments dispute, a cash balance nobody has verified, and an absorption claim resting on one writer's read of the volume. One publisher, one month, no filings. Enough to frame the question, not to settle it.