Why is RKLB falling? An analysis of the dual effects of the Nasdaq 100 inclusion and SpaceX IPO

As of June 15, 2026, according to Gate stock market data, Rocket Lab (RKLB) is temporarily reported at $102.4, down 10.7% on the previous trading day. This decline occurred against the backdrop of continuous fundamental improvement for the company—just prior to this trading day, the company announced its official inclusion in the Nasdaq 100 index, which will take effect on June 22. Meanwhile, SpaceX went public on Nasdaq on June 12, with the stock ticker “SPCX,” an IPO valuation of approximately $1.75 trillion, and a fundraising scale of about $75 billion.

The market simply attributes RKLB’s decline to SpaceX’s IPO, but this narrative overlooks the complex structural relationship between the two events. RKLB’s drop was not driven by a single factor; rather, it was the result of a confluence of three forces: short-term capital shifts triggered by index inclusion, market expectations of reshaping industry competitive landscape, and technical retracement from prior stock price gains.

Why is there a divergence between fundamentals and stock price movement?

Rocket Lab’s fundamentals showed strong improvement in the first quarter of 2026. The company’s quarterly revenue first surpassed $200 million, reaching $200.3 million, a 63.5% year-over-year increase. Backlog hit a new record of approximately $2.2 billion, up 20.2% quarter-over-quarter and 108% year-over-year, indicating sustained strong downstream demand. The second quarter revenue guidance ranges from $225 million to $240 million, about 12% higher than previous analyst consensus expectations.

On the business structure level, the company has evolved from a single small satellite launch provider into an end-to-end space systems enterprise covering satellite design and manufacturing, spacecraft component supply, and launch services. In Q1 2026, Space Systems revenue reached $136.7 million, more than double the launch service revenue, with a substantial vertical integration strategy reshaping the revenue structure. Additionally, the company secured a $90 million contract with the U.S. Space Force for geostationary satellites and completed the acquisition of Motiv Space Systems, a Mars verification space robot company.

From the fundamental data, the 10.7% single-day decline is significantly at odds with the company’s operational improvement trend—indicating that the main driver of price movement is not internal operational deterioration but rather external market and competitive structural changes.

Why did index inclusion trigger a contrarian market reaction?

RKLB’s inclusion in the Nasdaq 100 index is generally interpreted as a positive event. The index comprises the top 100 non-financial companies by market capitalization listed on Nasdaq, meaning that passive index funds will buy RKLB shares after the effective date of June 22. Based on typical capital flow logic, this should support the stock price.

However, the actual market reaction was a sharp decline in the stock price. Understanding this counterintuitive phenomenon requires analyzing two levels:

First, part of the prior gains had already priced in this event. Before the announcement of index inclusion, RKLB’s stock had already surged significantly, with the closing price on May 27 reaching a record high of $150.23, and a 52-week high of $151.00. As a known catalyst, the positive expectation of index inclusion was partially digested into the stock price, and when it materialized, it instead triggered technical selling—“exhaustion of positive news.”

Second, the timing window of inclusion coincided heavily with SpaceX’s IPO, creating a competition effect for capital. SpaceX went public on June 12, with a valuation of about $1.75 trillion, and market funds faced a short-term choice between two targets—one being the industry leader with the largest IPO and valuation, and the other being the second industry player to be passively included in index funds. This reallocation of capital flows caused RKLB to face selling pressure from active funds ahead of the inclusion.

What kind of pressure does SpaceX’s IPO exert on RKLB?

SpaceX’s IPO on June 12, with a stock ticker “SPCX,” priced at $135 per share and raising about $75 billion, became the largest IPO financing event in global history. Its valuation jumped in three steps within half a year—from about $800 billion at the end of 2025 based on internal equity transactions, to $1.25 trillion after the xAI merger in February 2026, and further up to $1.75 trillion.

SpaceX’s IPO exerts a structural valuation reference pressure on RKLB, rather than simple capital outflow effects.

In launch services, SpaceX’s market dominance is vastly larger than RKLB’s. In 2025, SpaceX completed over 160 launches, while Rocket Lab’s launch count was less than one-tenth of that. They serve different market segments: SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Starship focus on medium to heavy payloads, while Electron targets small satellites. The two are not fully overlapping competitors. However, after SpaceX’s IPO, the market tends to compare RKLB’s valuation multiples directly with SpaceX’s. According to SpaceX’s IPO prospectus, its Q1 2026 consolidated revenue was $17.5k, with an adjusted EBITDA of $17.5k, but its space business segment had a quarterly operating loss of $662 million. When the market compares RKLB’s approximately $69 billion market cap with SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion valuation, RKLB’s valuation pressure becomes evident.

Additionally, the IPO of SpaceX has a short-term market effect: some investors holding RKLB may choose to reduce their holdings and reallocate funds into SPCX IPO shares. This “selling old to buy new” asset rebalancing further amplifies RKLB’s price volatility during this critical window.

How does the technical route competition between Neutron and Starship influence market expectations?

RKLB’s future growth prospects heavily depend on the development and commercial deployment of the medium reusable rocket Neutron. The first launch of Neutron is targeted for Q4 2026, with five launch contracts secured covering 2026–2029. Meanwhile, the company aims to complete its 100th launch within 2026, becoming the fastest company in commercial space history to reach this milestone. These developments constitute solid positive signals at the operational level.

However, SpaceX’s Starship V3 successfully completed its first flight test on May 23. The rocket is about 124 meters tall, with a payload capacity exceeding 100 tons to low Earth orbit, an order of magnitude above Neutron’s approximately 13,000 kg capacity. SpaceX also announced that its Starship production line is operating at full capacity, planning to produce about 10 Starships in 2026. The technical trajectories of the two companies are diverging: SpaceX pursues maximum payload capacity and cost reduction with Starship, while Rocket Lab aims to build differentiated launch capabilities for small to medium payloads with Electron and Neutron.

Market concerns revolve around whether this “differentiation” can translate into sufficient bargaining power and profitability. SpaceX’s cost per kilogram to low Earth orbit has fallen below $1,000, while Neutron has yet to perform any flight missions, and its unit cost competitiveness and reliability remain unverified. When industry leaders’ technical routes have entered mass production, challengers face not only technical validation challenges but also patience from the market regarding timing. The success or failure of Neutron’s first flight in Q4 2026 will be a critical watershed in RKLB’s valuation logic.

Is the competitive landscape in the space sector undergoing a fundamental change?

A broader macro change in the competitive landscape is that, after SpaceX’s IPO and xAI merger, its business scope spans space launch, satellite internet, and artificial intelligence, forming a complete closed loop from infrastructure to application services. This structure grants it resource advantages in securing government contracts, commercial orders, and capital market financing.

In military space, SpaceX has already secured a $2.3 billion “space data network backbone” contract, directly replacing satellite constellation plans involving Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Rocket Lab, and York Space Systems. This indicates SpaceX’s competitive reach extends beyond launch services into satellite systems and defense communication infrastructure—areas that RKLB’s Space Systems business is actively expanding into.

Nevertheless, RKLB still retains structural competitive advantages in specific niche fields. Electron rockets have become the dominant small satellite launch provider in the West, with high-frequency, high-reliability small dedicated launch markets, creating high entry barriers. The company’s HASTE project has entered the U.S. Department of Defense’s hypersonic testing supply chain, and in Q1 2026, it was selected alongside Raytheon by the U.S. Space Force to participate in the “Space-Based Interceptor” program. These national security contracts are long-term and exclusive, forming a competitive moat that SpaceX will find difficult to replace in the short term.

Is market expectation ahead of fundamentals?

RKLB’s rally in 2026 has been substantial, with a year-to-date increase of over 60%. Even after the 10.7% decline and a previous retracement of about 24% from the 52-week high of $151, the stock price remains about 79.7% above the 200-day moving average. This technical pattern indicates that the prior gains already embedded high market expectations for future Neutron success, ongoing Space Systems expansion, and industry position enhancement.

Analyst target price distributions also reflect a disconnect between market pricing and consensus expectations. The consensus target price from 20 analysts is about $97.19, yet the stock has been trading above this level. Some institutions’ target prices range from $88.88 to $132, showing significant divergence. The median 2026 EPS estimate is -$0.2, and the company is still unprofitable, making profitability a key variable to watch.

The SpaceX IPO event objectively provides a “reset reference point.” Once the market has a comparable industry benchmark, RKLB’s valuation logic needs to shift from “expected growth story” to “verifiable execution results.” The stock’s retracement can be partly understood as the market’s recalibration of prior gains against this new benchmark.

Summary

RKLB’s 10.7% decline on the previous trading day cannot be simply attributed to SpaceX’s IPO alone. A more comprehensive explanation involves three overlapping factors: the “exhaustion of positive news” technical sell-off triggered by Nasdaq 100 inclusion, the short-term capital shift and valuation reset caused by SpaceX IPO, and the technical retracement after prior sharp gains.

Fundamentally, the company shows no signs of deterioration—quarterly revenue hit a record high, backlog continues to grow, vertical integration strategies are progressing steadily, and Neutron development is on schedule. RKLB remains an important player in commercial space, second only to SpaceX. However, SpaceX’s listing has fundamentally changed the industry’s valuation environment and competitive reference framework. Under the new pattern of Starship mass production and IPO capital infusion, RKLB’s valuation needs to shift from “comparing with its own history” to “benchmarking against industry leaders.” The success or failure of Neutron’s first launch in Q4 2026 will be a crucial validation point for RKLB’s narrative.

FAQ

Q1: What is the main reason for RKLB’s 10.7% decline on the previous trading day?

Based on Gate stock market data, as of June 15, 2026, RKLB is temporarily reported at $102.4, down 10.7%. The decline results from multiple factors: short-term “exhaustion of positive news” technical sell-off after inclusion in Nasdaq 100; the capital transfer effect from SpaceX’s IPO on the same day; and valuation adjustments after prior large gains.

Q2: What specific impacts did SpaceX’s IPO have on RKLB?

SpaceX went public on June 12, with an IPO valuation of about $1.75 trillion. Its listing changed the industry valuation reference—when RKLB’s approximately $69 billion market cap is compared under the same standard, valuation pressure on RKLB becomes apparent. Additionally, some investors shifted funds from RKLB to SPCX IPO shares, intensifying short-term price fluctuations.

Q3: Has RKLB’s fundamental situation changed?

Fundamentally, no. In Q1 2026, revenue exceeded $200 million, up 63.5% YoY, with backlog reaching a record $2.2 billion. The company has evolved from a launch service provider to an end-to-end space systems enterprise covering satellite manufacturing, component supply, and launch services.

Q4: What is the significance of Neutron for RKLB?

Neutron is RKLB’s medium reusable rocket, with its first launch targeted for Q4 2026. It is a key growth catalyst; its success or failure will directly influence RKLB’s ability to achieve differentiated positioning and profitability in the competitive landscape.