Opinion: SpaceX increases pre-IPO valuation through non-GAAP metrics, making true value difficult to accurately estimate

robot
Abstract generation in progress
ME News message, May 23 (UTC+8). SpaceX recently filed for an IPO. Its mission statement reads: “To build the systems and technologies necessary for making life a multiplanetary species, understand the true nature of the universe, and extend the light of consciousness to the stars.” Behind this grand narrative, business ultimately still needs to return to the idea of measuring a company’s value by money, and retail investors are often the target of the first batch of share sales after an IPO launch. Insiders who obtain shares at fixed prices hope to drive up the stock price through market hype, so they can sell some shares for profit. According to Nasdaq’s disclosed data, since the 1980s, the proportion of IPOs by loss-making companies has risen from 20% to 80% of the annual total. Three years after an IPO, nearly two-thirds of companies underperform the broader market, and most of them (64%) lag by more than 10%. While some companies perform well over the long term and some loss-making companies eventually become profitable, it is very difficult to accurately determine the price for new IPOs and judge their investment value. Many companies are increasingly using non-GAAP terms that do not meet U.S. GAAP accounting standards. While non-GAAP metrics can sometimes be useful, they are often used to make companies look more valuable, and SpaceX also uses “Adjusted EBITDA” (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization). That is, in financial disclosures, only net income or loss is considered, while depreciation and amortization, share-based compensation, impairments, restructuring costs, interest expense, and income are excluded. The end result is a figure far higher than actual GAAP net profit. This allows companies to present investors with the image that “if you ignore these interferences, our operations are actually very healthy and strong,” which is especially suitable for growth companies like SpaceX—asset-heavy, requiring large early investments, and not yet having achieved high profits—thereby making it easier to gain market recognition and receive higher valuations at the time of the IPO. (Source: BlockBeats)
SPCX6.48%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 9
  • 1
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
Stop-LossForBluePeony
· 9h ago
Has no one mentioned that since the 1980s, the proportion of IPOs losing money has increased?
View OriginalReply0
GotLiquidatedAgainLastNight.
· 11h ago
Are retail investors once again the bagholders? Historical data shows they underperform the market over three years; those in the know understand.
View OriginalReply0
DaoBackbencher
· 13h ago
In the valuation game, who will take the final baton?
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-ecded933
· 13h ago
Adjusted EBITDA excluding depreciation? Even my cat could turn a profit.
View OriginalReply0
OrderflowOtter
· 13h ago
SpaceX technology is indeed impressive, but investing is a different matter.
View OriginalReply0
SweepTheFloor
· 13h ago
From Tesla to SpaceX, the financial reports of Musk's companies must be examined with a magnifying glass.
View OriginalReply0
WatercolorInAGlassBottle
· 13h ago
The four characters describing retail first-time buyers made my heart tighten.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-14cb5f72
· 13h ago
Financial magic under the grand narrative packaging, a close examination
View OriginalReply0
OneUnfilledOrder
· 13h ago
Elon Musk's storytelling ability is indeed top-tier, but the adjusted EBITDA approach is an old routine.
View OriginalReply0
View More
  • Pinned