SpaceX’s lead underwriters face $1T valuation gap as quiet period ends

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley released divergent revenue forecasts for SpaceX after its IPO quiet period ended, with a $1 trillion valuation gap driven by differing assumptions about AI monetization. Goldman projects $474 billion in 2030 revenue, attributing $322 billion to AI, while Morgan Stanley forecasts $330 billion with $190 billion from AI. The disagreement underscores investor focus on SpaceX's AI revenue disclosures.

SpaceX’s lead underwriters face $1T valuation gap as quiet period ends Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley released wildly divergent revenue forecasts for the newly public space giant, and the difference comes down to one word: AI When two of Wall Street’s most powerful banks can’t agree on what a company is worth, and the gap between their estimates stretches to roughly $1 trillion, investors should probably pay attention. SpaceX’s post-IPO quiet period ended in early July, unleashing a flood of analyst reports from the underwriters who shepherded the largest public offering in history. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the two lead underwriters, published their inaugural coverage notes within days of each other. The numbers that don’t add up Goldman Sachs projects SpaceX will generate $474 billion in total revenue by 2030. Morgan Stanley pegs that figure at $330 billion. That’s a $144 billion disagreement on a four-year outlook. The core of the disagreement sits squarely on AI. Goldman attributes $322 billion of its 2030 revenue estimate to AI operations, while Morgan Stanley sees that segment contributing $190 billion. A $132 billion gap in a single revenue line item. Zoom out to 2040 and the divergence gets genuinely absurd. Morgan Stanley forecasts $3.4 trillion in revenue and over $2.7 trillion in adjusted EBITDA by that year. If Goldman’s more aggressive growth assumptions hold through the decade, the implied valuation gap between the two banks’ models balloons to around $1 trillion. The IPO that broke records SpaceX priced its IPO at $135 per share on June 11, 2026, raising $75 billion in one of the most anticipated public offerings ever. The greenshoe option pushed the total raise to $85.7 billion. Only about 4% of the company was sold to the public. When trading began on June 12, shares surged enough to push SpaceX’s market capitalization to approximately $2.1 trillion. The implied equity valuation at offering was about $1.77 trillion, meaning the market added roughly $330 billion in perceived value on day one alone. The underwriting fees tell their own story. At under 0.75% of the total raise, SpaceX negotiated a fee structure well below the typical 3-7% charged on large IPOs. Even so, the sheer size of the deal meant the total fee pool landed somewhere between $500 million and $650 million. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley each captured approximately 20% of that pool, meaning each bank walked away with north of $100 million for their efforts. Why the AI bet matters for everyone The two banks are effectively placing opposite-end bets on how quickly AI capabilities can be monetized at scale through satellite infrastructure and space-based computing. Goldman’s model assumes AI operations become the dominant revenue driver within four years, essentially dwarfing the launch and satellite connectivity businesses that made SpaceX famous. Morgan Stanley’s model treats AI as a significant but not overwhelming contributor, keeping more weight on legacy revenue streams. Investors watching SpaceX should focus on the quarterly AI revenue disclosures that will begin arriving later this year. The first few earnings reports will start revealing which bank’s crystal ball is less foggy. If AI revenue tracks closer to Goldman’s projections, the stock likely has room to run. If Morgan Stanley’s estimates prove more accurate, the current $2.1 trillion market cap could face pressure. Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy https://cryptobriefing.com/editorial-policy/ .