SpaceX has filed crazy addressable market sizes Elon Musk has kind of rewritten the IPO playbook.

If you participate in this IPO, of course, you get economic exposure to SpaceX, but you have literally no say.

There's going to be no proxy mailed to you once a year or whatever it is, because you just don't have a vote.

Elon's got all of it.

You're basically investing in the dream, and the numbers that we have today are pretty much a different business entirely.

What do you think is going to happen in the days post-trading? The kind of worrying thing is that that is pivotal to the whole valuation of SpaceX.

It feels like we're kind of headed for a dip just post-close and then maybe- Welcome to this week's episode of "What's the Big Deal?" My name is Debs Taylor, and I'm going to use my career in investment banking to bring an equity market perspective to our discussions today.

And I'm Graham Smith, and I'll use my career in investment banking and private credit to bring the private market perspective here.

What is our big deal for this week? Well, big deal is no surprise. Again, we've had this recurring theme of the few mega IPOs that are coming down the pipe this year, and now we're close on one. So we've talked SpaceX a few times already, but SpaceX has filed. They're out building the book right now.

We've got all of the really glossy, shiny investor materials that show nothing short of a rocket launch in terms of graphs being up and to the right, some crazy addressable market sizes.

So we're going to talk a little bit about the IPO that's literally, it's going to start trading on Friday, Debs, right, I believe, and really start talking about the actual timetable here of what happens post-IPO.

And it's interesting now we've got the first one that's actually coming, kind of see how things go.

I know we've got real stuff to talk about here this week, haven't we, Graham? Yeah. Exactly.

We'll talk a little bit about the IPO process ahead, but I think also it's worth highlighting that Elon Musk has kind of rewritten the IPO playbook, I think.

So we'll talk about that.

Shocker.

Yeah. We'll also talk a bit about the capitalists and what to look out for in the markets as the shares start trading, and I think we should grab our popcorn for that one. It's going to be a bit of a wild ride, I suspect.

And then finally, we'll talk a bit about the valuation debate.

I know it's been rolling on for some time.

We've already covered it a little bit on a previous episode, but we've got some really interesting numbers that we can look to from the S1.

So let's dive into that and talk about what we think about their valuation.

So shall we kick off and talk about the IPO process that SpaceX have followed, because there's some really unusual features, aren't there, Graham, in how they are conducting their IPO.

Yeah. Well, why don't we talk kind of...

I guess I'm really interested to get your perspective here, having looked at a bunch of public companies before.

I'm sure having done a bunch of primary research on companies that are coming to market. I mean, in my time at Lehman, I think I worked on one S1. S1, for anyone who doesn't know, is the prospectus, the initial prospectus that goes out to new investors as part of an initial offering.

I worked on one, the IPO got pulled, so that was really the extent of my firsthand, on the other side of the table experience with an IPO. Since then, it's just been all what's happening generally in the market. And of course, in my investing career, there wasn't anything IPO related whatsoever except for if, say, a portfolio company of ours had exited through an IPO.

But I was the debt investor, so I wasn't really in that process anyway.

So I'm really keen to get your take on what does a typical process look like, and how has Elon rewritten the rules here for the benefit of, who knows, but most likely himself.

Yeah. Well, I think there's a few things that he's done differently compared to the IPOs that I looked at when I was working in investment banking.

The first thing is the pricing mechanism.

Usually, the way that we build the book for an IPO is you identify a pricing range. You sound out the investors to see what they think.

They can place orders based on that range, what we refer to as a scaled order. So you basically reduce the number of shares you request as the price goes up within the range, and that's a really useful way of helping the banks to assess and advise on the final pricing.

But they're throwing that out the window.

They're going with a fixed price mechanism.

They've already announced that the price will likely be $135 per share. I mean, they can, in theory, change their minds, but that's what they've committed to in their latest S1. And- And Debs, when do we find out... You say they can change.

When do we find out for certain what the listing price... Is that literally Friday morning? No. So after close of business on Thursday, and then Friday morning- Okay ... is when it starts trading.

Okay.

But what's unusual is basically you're putting all of the price risk onto the buyers because if you're bidding within a range, then if there's low demand, you end up with a lower IPO price.

Whereas here we have absolute commitment to this $135 per share price.

So it does signal confidence from SpaceX's side that that's the price that they think they can IPO at. And we do hear that it's oversubscribed, so it seems like it's been a successful process so far.

But yeah, it is unusual. It's completely unprecedented to do this in the US markets. It does happen in other markets occasionally, but for a deal this size, it's completely unprecedented to pursue this route Now, and we still do have some of the typical provisions you'd see in any listing. I think we talked about this a couple of months ago.

There's a green shoe here, so if the stock tanks post-listing, the banks can buy up more shares in the open market to try to support the price. I guess, what we're saying, is there a much bigger risk of that delta from initial listing price to first day close, a few days post-close, just being so much bigger than we would typically expect to see it, even in an IPO that might flop post-listing? Well, in theory, there is an increased risk of that.

There's actually another risk, which we'll probably come back to, which is a risk of volatility because the free float on this IPO is tiny, and it's less- Yeah ... than 5% of the share count. So that always increases volatility risk, and I would question whether the stabilization mechanisms that usually get applied if there's a big shift in the share price, whether they are actually going to be that meaningful with such a small free float and risk of high volatility. So I think that's a really interesting point, that one.

Interesting. And do we think, by the way, just because the free float here is so low, that explains some of the oversubscription and the demand? Because I don't know, it's a weird one.

On the one hand, you say, okay, it's a small percentage of the market cap, so not that much available. It's still a big number. It's what? 75 billion that they're floating? It's not nothing, but ultimately you've got none of the existing shareholders exiting at this point.

They have an opportunity to exit later on.

There's a lockup for 180 days for them.

So at this point in time, the number of shares being issued is actually quite small, and it does- Yeah ... open them up to quite large volatility in how the shares trade.

Yeah, we'll have to see how it plays out.

And there's lots of other things happening over the next six months which I think could affect the share price, but we can come onto that.

But yeah, there's lots of exciting things to see how it plays out. But I think the other thing that's quite unique about this IPO is the fees that the banks are charging for this IPO. There's, what, 23 banks involved in the underwriting process. I saw the number, and I just said like, "Oh my God, that's crazy." Everyone wants to be part of it.

Yeah.

Yeah, part of the party.

But the fees themselves, they're the lowest on record, so less than 0.75%.

On a percentage basis, we're talking.

Yeah.

Yeah.

On a percentage basis.

Yeah.

Now, typically with an IPO, we expect the fees to be around 4% to 7% of the proceeds, at the higher end of that range, usually for US IPOs because of concerns over litigation risk. It's slightly at the lower end in Europe.

The mega deals, generally, the fees are low, so usually around, they have been around 1% for Facebook many years ago.

I think for Saudi Aramco as well, the fees were around 1%.

So it's not unusual to have lower fees for mega deals, and that's because the banks do want to be part of the party.

They want to be part of the headlines of this transaction.

But this is the lowest fee ever on a percentage basis.

Is there an element of... Well, two things, I guess, at the same time.

One is I think you can credibly say the same amount of work is involved for a mega deal versus a small deal in terms of a lot of the just moving pieces that have to come together, the drafting of the prospectus, the road shows, all this kind of stuff.

That's one. On the other, it's like is this deal almost too easy for the investment banks because you just put Elon out there, and he's like, "All right, we're building spaceships that go to the Moon and Mars and everything, and our total addressable market is like 100 billion trillion dollars." And everyone just gets excited, and they're like, "Yeah, we'll participate." Is this IPO oddly easy? I'm not sure you should classify it as easy, but certainly there are elements of it which make it easier to sell as an investment opportunity. Elon Musk is so well known, has such a following. I'm sure that does help.

Even the pricing mechanism probably reduces the workload for the banks because they're usually thinking about the range, building a book around that range at the different prices. Well, you've got rid of all of that, and even their advisory role around the pricing, because it's already effectively priced. As long as it's oversubscribed, we know the price.

Right.

So I think to a certain extent, the fee negotiation reflects the fact that, as you say, it's slightly easier to sell as an investment opportunity, and there is this slightly simplified pricing mechanism.

But I'm sure there was a lot of work behind the scenes in the whole load of due diligence that has to take place.

The banks have to satisfy themselves that it is a robust business that's worthy of public investment.

Yeah, and I do actually, on the diligence requirement, I want to come back to that in a moment when we talk about- Mm-hmm ... some of what has been put forth in the prospectus because I think the thing that is just the hardest to believe is the TAM. Maybe not the hardest to believe, but the biggest jump. We'll put the graphic on screen in a little bit and kind of talk through the various steps.

Mm-hmm.

But there's one bar in there really where you really have to be a believer in the dream of AI for everyone, and all the stuff we've been talking about, and I'm actually interested who has to sign off on that. How do the banks get satisfied that actually, yeah, we believe this number, just because it outshines everything else by just multiples.

Mm-hmm.

We'll come back to that one, I think, in a sec.

Okay.

The one other question I have for you just on the actual IPO and not listing mechanics, but one of the features of this deal that seems different compared to most others is this dual share class structure. So as I understand it If you participate in this IPO, of course, you get economic exposure to SpaceX, but you have literally no say.

There's going to be no proxy mailed to you once a year or whatever it is because you just don't have a vote.

Elon's got all of it.

Yeah. Not quite all of it. I think he's got about 80-something percent of the voting rights.

I said, like all of it, Debs.

But okay.

That's- But seriously, I mean, he- Oh, he only has 85%? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, but he does have effective control completely.

Yeah.

I'm not questioning that. I would completely agree with that.

But yeah, so he owns about 45% of the business, but completely controls it. So yeah.

And I think given that there is such a large retail allocation, 30% of the shares have been allocated to retail investors.

I think it's important that they are aware, and it is flagged in the prospectus, but that they are aware that, as you say, they effectively get no say.

Yeah.

It is Elon Musk's business, what he says goes, and that you're putting all of your money and your trust in Elon Musk. That is effectively the case if you're participating in the IPO.

That's a big ask, isn't it? Yes.

All my trust in Elon? Oof.

Yes.

I don't know.

Yeah.

Now, by the way, how does that 30% compare to the average listing in terms of the institutional retail allocation? Yeah, so it's usually less than 10%, so it's easily three times the usual allocation. And to be fair, there's a lot of appetite in the retail market for this, so it's great that there is that allocation.

You have to question whether the retail investors are being used for exit liquidity by Elon Musk and eventually the other early-stage investors. But yeah.

Is this being done for democratization and access to investment in this company, or is it just a crutch in terms of providing liquidity? Yeah. Look, I guess whatever your view on that outcome, you can see a reason why this IPO, compared to most others, would have such exceptional retail demand. It's just a highly- Yeah ... visible company. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows Elon.

Whether you love the guy or hate the guy, you kind of know what he's all about.

So I do see why the retail buy-in here might be higher than your normal share in any old IPO. I can- Yeah ... kind of buy that.

Yeah. Absolutely. But the reality is, if you're buying shares in a company, then you need to understand what you're buying, what you're investing in, understand the governance risks, the pricing. So I guess that's kind of, hopefully, what this episode will help enlighten people on.

100%. So I guess that's a good segue into talking about what are you being asked to buy into here? And having had the benefit of seeing some of the listing documentation now, there are a couple of things that I think are worth just having a quick discussion about- Mm ... and highlighting because I think we've already talked about some of the valuation here, and it's, from my perspective, nothing short of crazy. What did we talk about? We talked about the other week, like a couple of hundred times EBITDA, like 100 times revenue.

Mm.

And we already know the valuation here is just insanely punchy. Now we've actually had a bit of the background, a bit of the detail that the banks are providing to investors to try to substantiate that. So let's pull up the prospectus, and there are a couple of pages, one graph in particular I was talking about a second ago, that I think is worth having just a quick discussion about. One, we're looking at a company called SpaceX. SpaceX has been in the business of launching rockets, of launching communication satellites.

So you think, "I'm going to invest in this space company for exposure to that kind of activity." Then you look at the prospectus here, and ultimately, what we're trying to do...

Sorry, when I say we, what the banks are trying to do is convince the retail investor that actually, we do think there's just this insane amount of growth potential here.

But the thing that's kind of shocking to me is if you look at this stacked, this kind of broken apart stacked bar chart that breaks out the TAM into individual segments, just the lion's share of this is all in, one, in AI, but two, in enterprise applications.

So going across these categories, we have the traditional space segment is actually the smallest TAM- Mm ... on this page at $370 billion. Then you have connectivity, which is Starlink broadband and Starlink mobile.

That's just over a trillion dollars.

And then you've got this AI segment, and the AI TAM the banks are putting in this prospectus is $23 trillion. And interestingly, most of this is enterprise applications, and the breakdown they have in this chart is 2.4 trillion AI infrastructure, 760 billion consumer subscriptions, 600 billion digital advertising, and then 23 trillion in enterprise applications.

And I guess from a fundamental perspective, well, a couple of things. One, does that necessarily make sense in the context of what SpaceX was originally kind of launched to do? And two, you really have to believe in the fully formed, fully realized version of AI in order to believe anything close to this TAM, I feel like. And look, there are plenty of early indicators that a lot of this technology is amazing.

The adoption curve is so steep. People are really using it.

Can you in your own minds kind of Come to a worldview where you've got AI integrated into almost every aspect of everyday life.

Yep.

Possibly. Question around how long it'll take to get there.

But then just looking at the market size for SpaceX and how literally all of it is just in enterprise applications is...

I don't know. Is it crazy? Also, the other question I have, I don't know. In terms of SpaceX's AI revenue, obviously they've got Grok, which I assume has done some of this. It almost feels to me like more of SpaceX's AI revenue these days is coming from their infrastructure rather than their own AI solutions. So are they even going to be the ones to really deliver on this TAM in this particular segment? Mm.

Or is their real AI exposure going to be in the infrastructure, whether it's in the Colossus data center they have here or some future vision of a space AI data center? And could that be interesting over time? Yeah, 100%.

But today, as I see this chart, you just look at it and you're like, "What?" I don't know. What do you think? Do you know what, Graham, though? As you're saying this, I'm thinking, I'm hearing déjà vu because I remember when Tesla was IPO-ing, there was this pivot towards, this isn't an autos company, this is a tech business.

Yeah.

Because they knew that was how you achieved a high valuation, because everyone was pricing tech companies at a premium, and it feels a little bit the same.

It's like, this isn't about the rocket business, this is not about the communications business. Obviously, that augments the AI business because, as you say, there's kind of ambitions for space-based data centers.

But ultimately, it feels very much like they're doing what they need to do to be able to sell the narrative, which is that we're tapping into the AI market.

The AI market is bigger than anyone previously anticipated, and that's how you reverse engineer a valuation of $1.75 trillion. If I was being skeptical, that is what I would take from it.

Yep.

But I think there are some interesting data points because I know that some of the advisor banks have kind of published their numbers around their expectations for particularly the X AI business revenue growth, and they're quite punchy, aren't they, Graham? We're talking, I think, over the next five years, roughly 100% annualized revenue growth to support some of these valuations.

What have you seen, Graham, that maybe even supports some of this revenue growth? Are there any recent data points or developments? I feel like the most recent data points we have are all the run rate revenue discussions we've been having around- Mm ... OpenAI and Anthropic. And if you believe what they're saying, where I want to suppose it, was it Anthropic said they had doubled their run rate revenue in a period of months, figures like this.

Can you see a combination of the recent trajectory plus at least a near-term real huge uptake in enterprise AI applications that delivers a five-year 100% revenue CAGR? Actually, on that one, maybe. That's the one- Mm ... where just fundamentally, I kind of think, actually, I can form a view which suggests that's not impossible. It's more on the SpaceX side, I think if you believe this full kind of vision in the prospectus, it requires you to buy into, I want to say, like a 40 to 50% revenue CAGR over 15 years.

Yeah.

I think that's the one that's a little bit harder for me to wrap my head around.

But then on the AI side, can you question whether X AI is the one that's really going to benefit at that 100% revenue CAGR level, or is it going to be OpenAI, Anthropic? Is it going to be all these guys? I don't know. I don't know.

In some ways- Yeah ... it does feel like X AI has some interesting exposure through their infrastructure. We've talked about in respect of OpenAI, how that's a differentiator for them as well. That could be a really interesting aspect to their AI business. Because I don't know about you, everyone I know and talk to who's using AI solutions is using some kind of combination of OpenAI and Anthropic. I don't really know anyone who's using Grok, at least on a personal level. I know what-- I remember from a few months ago, Musk was saying, "Okay, if you want to participate in the AI investment banks, you have to buy Grok from me as well." Which you kind of park that for a second.

Mm.

Beyond that, I don't know of many people or anyone who's using the actual X AI proper enterprise solution in their day-to-day life.

But again, this is just a sample size of one.

I use it in my car, but that's about it.

Yeah. Although I think...

So I did read that SpaceX has just signed contracts with Google and Anthropic, for some of the compute capacity or something. Is that right? Yeah, but that's for compute capacity, right? Mm.

As I understand, I believe that's, in essence, renting out the data center capacity- Yeah ... not selling Grok.

No, absolutely. But that does enhance their X AI revenues, does it not? It does 100%, but I guess the thing that I kind of come back to on this TAM chart is I assume that is in this 2.4 trillion AI infrastructure bucket they've got on their TAM, not the 23 trillion- Okay. Yeah ... enterprise AI applications.

The really big number.

Yeah.

Okay. Got it. Correct.

Got it. No, that's a really good point.

Yeah. I'm actually genuinely curious how much bonafide revenue do they have in that really big number bucket today? So I feel like that, as you say, today, very little.

This is all ambition. You're basically investing in the dream, and the numbers that we have today are pretty much a different business entirely.

Yeah.

So you've really got to shoot for the stars, literally, if you are thinking they're going to achieve these quite ambitious revenue growth figures.

So the revenue figures that we've seen are, as we said, are very ambitious. We know it's a business which is burning through cash, particularly on the AI side. Anything else that's jumped out at you in terms of the numbers, Graham? The only thing that was kind of funny is in the back, they had a run-through of their EBITDA to adjusted EBITDA.

So I've got three segment-adjusted EBITDA numbers.

They do space, connectivity, and AI.

And it's kind of funny because we, I'm sure Debs, we run through similar discussions around adjusted EBITDA in the classroom- Mm-hmm ... and what's adjusted, what's not.

Here, it's kind of funny that it's just a simple bridge from income to adjusted EBITDA, so it's income add back DNA, add back share compensation. That's the one way you can say, hey, should this really be an adjusted- Mm-hmm ... EBITDA number or not? It's not cash, but it is a real expense.

They've got some impairment charges, which is basically nothing.

The whole point is the bridge here just doesn't matter.

So space, bridge from net loss from operations of 700 million in 2025 to 700 million of adjusted EBITDA, 4.4 billion in connectivity to 7.2, and then in AI, ooh, a big change from -6.4 to -1.2. That's their adjusted EBITDA in the AI division.

So you're going through all this effort of presenting an adjusted EBITDA number, and it's kind of like, for what? Absolutely. But then- If you believe any of that, then you shouldn't be investing.

Yeah. But it's interesting, though. So there's no funky adjustments in there, then? There's no kind of add back of Elon Musk's salary or anything like that? Not that I've seen. No, fair.

Okay.

Fair, because his share-based comp, I assume is more than...

I don't know. I actually don't know what his share-based comp- Yeah ... is the last few years, but it's insanity. So it's probably more...

Okay, oh, I've got a consolidated adjusted EBITDA bridge, so 1.9 billion of share-based comp in 2025. I don't know how much of that went to Elon, to be fair.

The one kind of question I do have is, say that TAM chart in the prospectus. Obviously, if you're one of the book runners here, you had to at least sign off on that/have some faith in it. What's the process for figuring out, is there any liability there if that TAM...

How do you prove a TAM doesn't materialize, takes a long time to grow into? That number just seems like it's almost so invented. Where's the burden of proof? To be honest, it's a really great question, and I don't have a really robust answer. The banks have to basically demonstrate that they're comfortable that it's not been fabricated. There has to be some underlying analysis.

But who actually knows what the TAM for AI is? And in fact, I was looking at some analysis by a very well-regarded valuation expert, Damodaran.

He's an academic. He's viewed as the dean of valuation.

Okay.

And he argues that the AI TAM is much lower than that. We're talking mid-single digits, maybe $5 trillion.

So significantly less than what we're seeing in a SpaceX prospectus, but ultimately, we're just all arguing over something that we don't really know.

And the fact- Yeah ... the kind of worrying thing is that that is pivotal to the whole valuation of SpaceX.

Yeah.

And I think what Damodaran does highlight, and I think is really important, is where you have this uncertainty, fundamentally, the valuation should reflect that uncertainty.

You would usually go down the route of saying, okay, there are a number of possible scenarios, a TAM of 5 trillion, a TAM of 26.5 trillion. And then you say to yourself, okay, well, what are the probability of all of these scenarios? And then you weight- Yeah ... come up with a weighted average, and that's what should be reflecting the valuation. And what it feels to me is that this valuation prices to the highest possible valuation and ignores- Yeah ... all of the other downside scenarios to that.

So as I've kind of said before, you kind of have to buy into the dream that it will absolutely achieve that, no risk of error or disappointment on those numbers.

So I think the phrase that Damodaran uses, it's a loaded bet.

Ultimately- Yeah ... it is just pricing for the optimal scenario. And it's not only Damodaran that says this.

I think Morningstar as well have come out and said that their estimated valuation is roughly half of the IPO valuation. So I think it's no surprise to anyone.

It's no surprise to us that this is quite an aggressive valuation.

It's not that it's not achievable.

It's just whether that's a fair valuation for this company.

So just to wrap up here, what do you think is going to happen in the days post-trading? Yeah, it's really interesting, actually.

I think I highlighted earlier that kind of my biggest concern about the IPO is that it will be very volatile in terms of the trading because it is such a low free float. As we said earlier, the usual price stabilization mechanisms like the greenshoe option, will they actually have an effect when you've got potentially quite volatile trading? Yeah That stabilization lasts for 30 days.

After that, if there's continued volatility, in extreme situations, you do get trading limits, which are circuit breakers, I should say, for the exchanges that would suspend trading if there's a lot of volatility.

But that, for me, is the big risk, is the low free float.

You've then, of course, got the Nasdaq inclusion, the Nasdaq 100 inclusion. So SpaceX will be admitted to Nasdaq 100 within 15 trading days.

And as we've mentioned previously, this is fast entry, completely changed the rules for SpaceX. I think what's actually interesting is although the pool of money that's for index funds for the Nasdaq 100 isn't as big as, for example, the S&P 500, for which they won't get fast entry, the amount of forced buying is quite high because SpaceX will be a huge part of that index.

So we're talking about $30 to $50 billion of forced buying as soon as they enter the Nasdaq 100. So that, for me, is a huge catalyst. It will force additional buying, and in a market where there is thin trading, then the effects will be magnified.

So I think it could be a very rough ride.

Possibly will be very positive at that point in time, but it will increase the volatility.

Interesting. So do you think realistically...

Because I'm finding it difficult, at least in my own mind, to form a view where there's going to be an immediate spike in valuation post-trading, just given how toppy everything is.

So do we think realistically what's going to happen post-trading price dips to who knows what? It's an interesting question because do a lot of retail investors, acknowledging the retail community here is a higher percentage than normal, you say, okay, probably much less sophisticated than institutional investor.

Do you have a lot of people buying it just because it's SpaceX and it's Elon without even really understanding any of the stuff that even we've been talking about? Mm.

I could see that being a thing. So I don't know.

Maybe I'll eat my words, but as I say, it feels like we're headed for a dip just post-close, and then maybe it bounces back on the index inclusion point that you were just talking about.

Yeah, I think the only pushback on that, Graham, would be that behind the scenes, we're hearing massive oversubscription, which means there are people who haven't been able to participate in the IPO.

If there's excess demand, that would suggest there will be an IPO pop.

Great. That's day one. How long will that demand persist if the price continues to rise? And then you've got people- Yeah ... then saying, "Well, hang on. I'm now ready to sell." And if we're in a thin market, you've got the share price moving up and down, and that starts to unnerve investors. They start to lose confidence.

So it is, I think, very uncertain waters in the early days, and as we said, that kind of is exacerbated slightly by the pricing mechanism.

So I think the other thing that we should watch for is the fact that there is a lockup for existing shareholders.

There's a staggered lockup, so different dates at which existing shareholders can sell, and that ends after 180 days. So there'll be gradually this release of additional shares into the market, and that will create an overhang. It will put downwards pressure on the share price. So we've got all of these little catalysts happening in the market that will affect how the shares trade.

So it does make it very difficult to know when the shares have reached their true level.

So clearly, this is definitely an event where grab your popcorn.

There's going to be lots to watch for.

Well, and interestingly, I was just thinking, one thing we were talking about on an earlier episode was just how private companies are staying private longer before they list. So in theory, you would think a lot of these companies that are coming to market this year have an even bigger backlog of employees, really shareholders, who are kind of desperate to monetize, whether they get out completely or at least try to sell something.

So is that impact on some of these stocks going to be bigger than perhaps we've seen it before? I don't know.

Yeah.

Just food for thought.

And then obviously the follow on is then we've got OpenAI and Anthropic likely to IPO later in the year. So- Exactly ... there is so much to watch, so much to see how it evolves. But I think that covers all that we had for SpaceX. We look forward to Friday's start of trading. I hope to all of our listeners that you've enjoyed our deep dive into the SpaceX IPO. And it'd be great if you can leave us your comments, what you think about SpaceX's IPO.

Do you think it's the deal of the decade or the steal of the decade? Yeah. Let us know whether you participated or not as well.

Yes, absolutely. Great. Thanks ever so much from me.

Thanks, Debs, and we'll see everyone next week