SpaceX Valuation Pullback Put Option Bet

The OP frames a small bearish options bet around the newly listed SpaceX (SPCX). The core thesis is not that the company will go bankrupt, but that early post-listing supply-demand imbalance, the AI narrative, and the Elon Musk halo have pushed the valuation to extreme levels, after which valuation multiples will compress through earnings reports, lock-up expirations, and expanded liquidity. The image shows a total position of 17 puts with a current value of about $1,715: 3 Sep. 18, 2026 60 Puts, 6 Sep. 18, 2026 70 Puts, 3 Dec. 18, 2026 70 Puts, 3 Dec. 18, 2026 50 Puts, and 2 Dec. 18, 2026 60 Puts, with premium prices ranging from $0.50 to $2.10, broadly matching the limited-loss, lottery-like position of about $1,700 described in the post. The OP's target is to exit if the stock falls to around $40, and claims that even at $40 the company would still be worth about $500 billion; this estimate implies a fully diluted share count of about 12.5 billion shares, so $20 per share would still imply about $250 billion, and $40 about $500 billion. The main evidence chain in the post is relative valuation: the OP says SpaceX has about $20 billion in revenue and is unprofitable, and that its market cap of about $2.86 trillion at the time of posting implies about 145x P/S, far above Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Meta, Tesla, and even meaningfully above NVIDIA, making it look more like a 'cash-burning hardware business wearing a tech monopoly costume.' The OP acknowledges Starlink is very strong, but argues that the rocket business is growing slowly, the AI/compute business is burning cash, and the current valuation requires revenue to grow rapidly in a parabolic fashion to be reasonable. Catalysts include the first earnings call, phased lock-up expirations in September and December, regulatory scrutiny of accounting and valuation disclosures, and possible Anthropic/OpenAI IPOs diverting AI capital or puncturing the AI narrative. The OP also explicitly acknowledges index inclusion as a reverse risk because passive funds would buy, but assumes active funds have already stockpiled low-float shares in advance and are preparing to sell them to index funds, after which demand will collapse. The most important implicit assumptions are threefold: first, that the current price is mainly supported by low float and expectations of passive buying rather than long-term fundamentals; second, that insiders will diversify wealth heavily once they are allowed to sell; and third, that the market will reprice the company from September to December using traditional revenue and loss metrics. The major flaws are also clear: the trade has very low strikes and expirations concentrated in September and December, so if the stock merely pulls back from highs but does not reach $50-70, the options could still expire worthless; early post-listing IV is very high, so time value decay and volatility compression will erode the position; Musk-related stocks can trade detached from fundamentals for a long time; index buying, retail faith, and potential new orders may keep the elevated valuation in place beyond the option expirations. The post's statements about lock-up share counts and specific earnings dates are also more certain than public information supports; the actual release schedule is governed by complex phased provisions, not a simple one-day flood of 1.3 billion or 13 billion shares.

The comment section still broadly agrees that the valuation is elevated, but the main disagreement centers on trade structure rather than direction: highly upvoted/new replies continue to criticize the OP for buying too early, paying too much for IV/vega, and choosing strikes that are too low, noting that when the stock fell from around 200 to 160, some Dec 70P positions rose only modestly, and that a put spread or selling a call spread would be more effective. The OP responded that they had rolled the September position to December 80P and were up about 40%, with the maximum risk still being the premium, and added the index-inclusion timetable; skeptics still argue that index buying, low float, and market-making/options structure could affect the path downward. Most new additions are jokes, with limited substantive new information.