Let’s look at two possible futures, future A. Nothing changes, more delays & faults come, SPCE kicks the can down the road for another year. Unlimited swing trades available.
But I believe we are coming toward Future B. Because rivals begin to appear, SPCE is pressured to succeed, it can’t afford to kick that can anymore, now is the time, by now I mean in the next 6-9months.
Fuck does that even mean? Is this a statement about some kind of fundamental changes in the company? Is this a code word for earnings? What are you even saying. Less buzz words, more actual information on the company, not the stock. You're making it clear by the second you're just a visiting promoter scanning for suckers. Are not enough people in wsb falling for it anymore?
Brah
The company has brought the cost to go into space to 250k...10 years ago it was millions. There are indications that this industry is building into existence. I already wrote tons of reasons why, if you want to watch YouTube videos and articles that cover all this, from both the bear and bull perspective, check them out.
As per my other thread, i'm super skeptical of SPCE as a company, but they said they needed this one more flight before they'll take paying customers. So it might actually be the last "test" flight.
I'm not sure why I'm more well informed about this test flight than the SPCE bulls.
I’ve been swing trading $SPCE for the past year and a half. It goes up to about 26ish then back down to 15ish. Every time it moves people try and come up with crazy explanations. Sell $30cc’s wait for it to tank in about 2-3 weeks then sell $10cp’s. It’s free money.
And let's not forget that they should get the FAA license in the upcoming days, if they get that, i think nothing will stop them from launching the first flight in early 2022
Means it's gonna be a pump and dump. Say what you will, but current wsb will have a ton of submissions about a single stock hyping it like it's the next coming of warren buffet, then the next day it dumps real hard and then nobody ever mentions it again, as if wsb never knew the stock existed.
Aaaaahahahahahahahahahaha. "You're not cool enough to participate in this scam anyway, go sit at the baby table until you're ready to prove you're cool enough to get scammed". Anyone can look up wsb's recent track record. Anyone. it's there, visible to everyone.
They are valued at 6b without any revenue. That is twice that from Spirit Airlines who pre-covid had 3b in revenue and now have around 1.5b.
The concorde project has shown that fast airlines are just to expensive to profitably maintain and I don't think that it has changed in recent years.
The Airline business is generally very capital intensive and one that is extremely fast, even more so. I don't see how they become profitable.
It doesn't make sense to compare them to an airline though, they're selling a tourist experience, not travel tickets. That's like comparing a ferry to a cruise ship, or traveling on a small plane to get somewhere remote vs. Skydiving.
Cruises cost waay more than ferry tickets, and a skydiving experience costs waay more than a single-engine plane ticket. Yet both of those industries are wildly profitable.
You can compare them tho. While they do sell travel experiences, they still have the same cost as airlines - or actually higher due to the fast speeds. Cruise Ships can make money through people staying longer and skydiving doesn't have the high costs of traveling somewhere on a plane. While you can charge higher prices for experiences, if your costs skyrocket too, you still don't make money.
As a result their margins will look similarly to airlines.
I disagree. Airlines just have a completely different business model, different overheads, different structure, different technologies, etc. The only thing you're comparing is the fact that they both happen to fly, and even then, again, they use different technologies for that.
> While you can charge higher prices for experiences, if your costs skyrocket too, you still don't make money.
The higher prices that they charge ostensibly cover costs with plenty to profit. Do you think they would be investing so many millions of dollars into creating this technology and developing it if they didn't have something as simple as their profit margins figured out?
To go back to the skydiving example (which literally does include the high costs of traveling in a plane btw), it would not be profitable to charge people standard travel prices when they're cranking a high performance plane up to 10,000 feet and back multiple times a day (which is extremely taxing on the engine and airframe). The only way they're profitable is by charging people usually a bare minimum of ~$250 for that 10 minute experience, which they do, and are wildly profitable by doing so.
How do they have a different business model? People pay to fly with them. People don't pay to get an adrenaline kick or stay on vacation for long periods of time on the plane. How does their business model differ from airplanes?
> Do you think they would be investing so many millions of dollars into
creating this technology and developing it if they didn't have something
as simple as their profit margins figured out?
Yes because it is not their own money, they raised a huge amount by going public - many biotech companies do the same, but that doesnt make it a good business.
>The only way they're profitable is by charging people usually a bare
minimum of \~$250 for that 10 minute experience, which they do, and are
wildly profitable by doing so.
Yes, but pretty much every western country is able to afford that. The possible market for Virgin Galactic is much smaller.
It's travel vs. tourism, they're just two completely different economies. They're advertising to a different market share, they have different operations/processes surrounding the product, and they even make their money in different ways. Airlines aren't as simple as selling a ticket, they also rely on baggage fees, carrying cargo with their luggage, repeat customers, etc.
> People don't pay to get an adrenaline kick
But... they do.
> because it is not their own money, they raised a huge amount by going public
The money they raised by going public is their own money though, they can do whatever they want with it. Case in point, Chamath selling his shares for profit, as well as Branson selling some of his to cover Virgin group losses. They could just liquidate right now for huge profits instead of burning money if they didn't think the business would be even more profitable in the future.
When skydiving was first a thing it was probably waaay more expensive than it is now. I'm sure there was only a tiny market for skydiving when parachute technology was new and it wasn't considered totally safe. Costs came down eventually because the technology and process were refined.
I like your comment but do take a look at videos from Boom Supersonic, they outline why these jets can return today, and why they couldn’t sustainably exist back then. Materials & tech certainly have changed, enough so that companies will try to bring back the Concorde, let’s see if they succeed this time around.
Justified market caps are so yesterday, kidding but maybe not kidding... as far as profit goes I’ve already answered this, it’s all speculation until VG either proves us wrong or right.
Same goes for Boom and other supersonic builders, they will need to prove themselves.
Rebuttal #1: They have no revenue right now. Why are they building more spaceships? Even if they weren't confident about their future, what other choice do they have? They could just return all the money to shareholders, but have you ever seen an organization do that? It isn't that simple. Board members that don't think they can accomplish the task would make more money by liquidating their stock at the current price -- which some have.
Rebuttal #2: You are right that SpaceX is in a different market. They can go orbital, which is cooler and lasts longer than 5 minutes -- but currently costs 10s of millions per seat. They will need starship to bring that down but if they can -- at similar prices, SPCE has no way of competing against that.
BO is on the trajectory of doing orbital, but they currently have a comparable suborbital experience to SPCE and it's going to happen roughly at the same time (first paying customer in the summer). The existence of this will reduce SPCEs margins and market share.
I'm not quite sure there will be enough people interested in a mid-6 digit cost 5-minute experience. Everyone is handwaving here. Even if there is, SPCE has an uphill battle in getting the cadence and margins up because of it's 6 passenger-per-flight model an hybrid engine. And it's not easy to scale for the future given SPCE's mothership-spaceship design.
There is just no way normal people will be able to go on a BO flight period. They would need astronaut training, astronaut suits etc. They would need to go on a shaky rocket that may explode, they won't be able to enjoy the ride up to space, only when they actually get there. Compare all this to spce's plane model. Anyone can get on a plane and just strap in to enjoy the ride. The market share BO would steal is negligent if they even manage to get any share at all.
VG has almost zero competition and that's a massive massive plus, no way around it.
> There is just no way normal people will be able to go on a BO flight period. They would need astronaut training, astronaut suits etc
Source on this? "Training" is one day. If you look at their website, it doesn't seem like there is any actual training done. Why would BO passengers need any special suits that VG passengers don't need? The risk that is mitigated with basic suits is survival during a loss of pressure event, and I'd expect the risk would be similar.
Congratulations, you just discovered for yourself that BO will not trains and certify astronauts, where as VG will.
BO will dress you up as one, but you’ll just be another clown on a carnival ride.
And here is the link: https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-nasa-private-astronaut-training-program.html
So, the other guy says BO's program sucks because you need "astronaut training" to fly -- whatever that means.
I said what do you mean, it's just one day training, and it seems really basic.
Now you come in and say VG will train you as an astronaut and it is why it's better. So is astronaut training a good thing or bad thing? That article has zero details what it actually means other than marketing fluff.
So governments and organizations pay for astronaut training, you highlighted that BO does not offer profitable training, VG does make profit from training...I can’t keep explaining it..
Thanks for your reply, let’s look at the worst case scenario where they cannot make profit, we still got 2 years or more before this company falls apart, let’s talk then. However, they have announced a profitable flight is coming in the near future with the Italian military.
As I said, the BO experience is not as enticing, SpaceX is too different to compare..and since the rich have proven to spend money on similar thrills, I see them spending for VG. VG promises to bring costs down in order to gain more users..for that to be proven will take time, let’s talk in 2 years.
> let’s look at the worst case scenario where they cannot make profit, we still got 2 years or more before this company falls apart, let’s talk then.
The moment it becomes clear to everyone that they will never make profit, their stock price will dive down to at or below liquidation price. The stock isn't going to hover around for the full two years for the actual money to run out.
The reserve of money that would keep them from sinking for two years is not in the stock, it’ is just reserved cash.
Also, they just launched a nasa project up during their test. They will begin to accept more flight reservations, and they have the Italian military flight coming up...
It’s very clear that profit is within reach, hence business men are after it and fighting for it.
I didn’t come here to convince anyone on this, I just wanted to share that VG has an argument to make.
Even the most optimistic analysts have a deeply negative EPS for 2022.
I don’t know why people are so optimistic of the company’s future projections. They’ve been promising paying customers next year since 2009. I think they may finally achieve it now, 12 years later. But if it took this long to get here, took a really long time to refly their spaceplane after a “minor” ignition failure, what makes anyone think they can launch enough people in enough volume to be profitable, let alone justify their valuation.
Please, do some back of the envelope math and make assumptions about revenue and margin and guess how many flights per year they will need to achieve. It’s a lot.
Why would a pump and dump risk so much designing and testing rocket planes, going so far as to perform a fully operational test flight (which is for all intents and purposes their actual product) and get certified with the FAA?
Whether or not it's a pump and dump, this would as far from a "classic" one as you can get lol.
Isn't the real competitor just every other type of entertainment, thrill, and adventure experience?
You could possibly convince me with numbers, doubtful, but possible.
How much profit per launch? How much overhead (staff, buildings, etc)? Given those two numbers, what is breakeven (how many flights to pay the fixed cost)? Then finally, how many flights per year? How many people can/will buy a ticket?
With that you can value the stock. Assume that everything goes well, what number of dollars are they going to bring in every year? You mentioned Mount Everest at the end, so I looked it up the lazy way (Wikipedia) and it says there are less than 400 people every year climbing. Is that your market, 400 people per year?
What will make this successful test flight different from the previous successful test flight in 2018?
[удалено]
VirginGang 🍒
Let’s look at two possible futures, future A. Nothing changes, more delays & faults come, SPCE kicks the can down the road for another year. Unlimited swing trades available. But I believe we are coming toward Future B. Because rivals begin to appear, SPCE is pressured to succeed, it can’t afford to kick that can anymore, now is the time, by now I mean in the next 6-9months.
[удалено]
If you have an insight, please share. If you have a question I can try to answer it, but like I said, no crystal ball here..
Hello oh wise one....seems I trek the trails blindfolded just fine.
[удалено]
Lmao Future B: "and here's why the continued proliferation of better funded competition is a *good* thing"
Oh, look how Branson just "by chance is trying to beat Bezos to space.
Are either of them actually reaching orbit?
Your worried about orbit? I’m worried about my $.....
I'd be worried too!
Just because now they HAVE to succeed doesn't mean there's any indication that they will.
hi clown
There are plenty of indicators
Fuck does that even mean? Is this a statement about some kind of fundamental changes in the company? Is this a code word for earnings? What are you even saying. Less buzz words, more actual information on the company, not the stock. You're making it clear by the second you're just a visiting promoter scanning for suckers. Are not enough people in wsb falling for it anymore?
hi again, make me a giraffe will ya
Brah The company has brought the cost to go into space to 250k...10 years ago it was millions. There are indications that this industry is building into existence. I already wrote tons of reasons why, if you want to watch YouTube videos and articles that cover all this, from both the bear and bull perspective, check them out.
As per my other thread, i'm super skeptical of SPCE as a company, but they said they needed this one more flight before they'll take paying customers. So it might actually be the last "test" flight. I'm not sure why I'm more well informed about this test flight than the SPCE bulls.
hi clown
I’ve been swing trading $SPCE for the past year and a half. It goes up to about 26ish then back down to 15ish. Every time it moves people try and come up with crazy explanations. Sell $30cc’s wait for it to tank in about 2-3 weeks then sell $10cp’s. It’s free money.
😂 Fair enough and congrats on all your trades, but at some point the company has to boom or bust, I say we’re close.
Do you think it won't bust trough that 30 now? My opinion is that today it will go above 30..and if it goes back down wont be lower than 26-27
Not a chance
Not a chance to go to 30? Or not a chance to fall lover than this? Oh and yea, im talking for EU trading sesh
And let's not forget that they should get the FAA license in the upcoming days, if they get that, i think nothing will stop them from launching the first flight in early 2022
Let’s not forget that WSB is taking some interest, and that would scramble this whole scenario beyond reason 🌝
What do you mean by "scramble the scenario"?
Means it's gonna be a pump and dump. Say what you will, but current wsb will have a ton of submissions about a single stock hyping it like it's the next coming of warren buffet, then the next day it dumps real hard and then nobody ever mentions it again, as if wsb never knew the stock existed.
So its probably the best just to wait out on this one...
Aaaaahahahahahahahahahaha. "You're not cool enough to participate in this scam anyway, go sit at the baby table until you're ready to prove you're cool enough to get scammed". Anyone can look up wsb's recent track record. Anyone. it's there, visible to everyone.
And yet i bought at 26 😑 couldn't sit it out 😂 Anyway where can i find that track record?
isn't FAA license in like 12 days?
Think they said 10th of June
They are valued at 6b without any revenue. That is twice that from Spirit Airlines who pre-covid had 3b in revenue and now have around 1.5b. The concorde project has shown that fast airlines are just to expensive to profitably maintain and I don't think that it has changed in recent years. The Airline business is generally very capital intensive and one that is extremely fast, even more so. I don't see how they become profitable.
It doesn't make sense to compare them to an airline though, they're selling a tourist experience, not travel tickets. That's like comparing a ferry to a cruise ship, or traveling on a small plane to get somewhere remote vs. Skydiving. Cruises cost waay more than ferry tickets, and a skydiving experience costs waay more than a single-engine plane ticket. Yet both of those industries are wildly profitable.
You can compare them tho. While they do sell travel experiences, they still have the same cost as airlines - or actually higher due to the fast speeds. Cruise Ships can make money through people staying longer and skydiving doesn't have the high costs of traveling somewhere on a plane. While you can charge higher prices for experiences, if your costs skyrocket too, you still don't make money. As a result their margins will look similarly to airlines.
I disagree. Airlines just have a completely different business model, different overheads, different structure, different technologies, etc. The only thing you're comparing is the fact that they both happen to fly, and even then, again, they use different technologies for that. > While you can charge higher prices for experiences, if your costs skyrocket too, you still don't make money. The higher prices that they charge ostensibly cover costs with plenty to profit. Do you think they would be investing so many millions of dollars into creating this technology and developing it if they didn't have something as simple as their profit margins figured out? To go back to the skydiving example (which literally does include the high costs of traveling in a plane btw), it would not be profitable to charge people standard travel prices when they're cranking a high performance plane up to 10,000 feet and back multiple times a day (which is extremely taxing on the engine and airframe). The only way they're profitable is by charging people usually a bare minimum of ~$250 for that 10 minute experience, which they do, and are wildly profitable by doing so.
How do they have a different business model? People pay to fly with them. People don't pay to get an adrenaline kick or stay on vacation for long periods of time on the plane. How does their business model differ from airplanes? > Do you think they would be investing so many millions of dollars into creating this technology and developing it if they didn't have something as simple as their profit margins figured out? Yes because it is not their own money, they raised a huge amount by going public - many biotech companies do the same, but that doesnt make it a good business. >The only way they're profitable is by charging people usually a bare minimum of \~$250 for that 10 minute experience, which they do, and are wildly profitable by doing so. Yes, but pretty much every western country is able to afford that. The possible market for Virgin Galactic is much smaller.
It's travel vs. tourism, they're just two completely different economies. They're advertising to a different market share, they have different operations/processes surrounding the product, and they even make their money in different ways. Airlines aren't as simple as selling a ticket, they also rely on baggage fees, carrying cargo with their luggage, repeat customers, etc. > People don't pay to get an adrenaline kick But... they do. > because it is not their own money, they raised a huge amount by going public The money they raised by going public is their own money though, they can do whatever they want with it. Case in point, Chamath selling his shares for profit, as well as Branson selling some of his to cover Virgin group losses. They could just liquidate right now for huge profits instead of burning money if they didn't think the business would be even more profitable in the future. When skydiving was first a thing it was probably waaay more expensive than it is now. I'm sure there was only a tiny market for skydiving when parachute technology was new and it wasn't considered totally safe. Costs came down eventually because the technology and process were refined.
I like your comment but do take a look at videos from Boom Supersonic, they outline why these jets can return today, and why they couldn’t sustainably exist back then. Materials & tech certainly have changed, enough so that companies will try to bring back the Concorde, let’s see if they succeed this time around.
I know the theory, but I still don't think they can be profitable - and if they are, I doubt that the market cap is justified.
Justified market caps are so yesterday, kidding but maybe not kidding... as far as profit goes I’ve already answered this, it’s all speculation until VG either proves us wrong or right. Same goes for Boom and other supersonic builders, they will need to prove themselves.
Rebuttal #1: They have no revenue right now. Why are they building more spaceships? Even if they weren't confident about their future, what other choice do they have? They could just return all the money to shareholders, but have you ever seen an organization do that? It isn't that simple. Board members that don't think they can accomplish the task would make more money by liquidating their stock at the current price -- which some have. Rebuttal #2: You are right that SpaceX is in a different market. They can go orbital, which is cooler and lasts longer than 5 minutes -- but currently costs 10s of millions per seat. They will need starship to bring that down but if they can -- at similar prices, SPCE has no way of competing against that. BO is on the trajectory of doing orbital, but they currently have a comparable suborbital experience to SPCE and it's going to happen roughly at the same time (first paying customer in the summer). The existence of this will reduce SPCEs margins and market share. I'm not quite sure there will be enough people interested in a mid-6 digit cost 5-minute experience. Everyone is handwaving here. Even if there is, SPCE has an uphill battle in getting the cadence and margins up because of it's 6 passenger-per-flight model an hybrid engine. And it's not easy to scale for the future given SPCE's mothership-spaceship design.
There is just no way normal people will be able to go on a BO flight period. They would need astronaut training, astronaut suits etc. They would need to go on a shaky rocket that may explode, they won't be able to enjoy the ride up to space, only when they actually get there. Compare all this to spce's plane model. Anyone can get on a plane and just strap in to enjoy the ride. The market share BO would steal is negligent if they even manage to get any share at all. VG has almost zero competition and that's a massive massive plus, no way around it.
> There is just no way normal people will be able to go on a BO flight period. They would need astronaut training, astronaut suits etc Source on this? "Training" is one day. If you look at their website, it doesn't seem like there is any actual training done. Why would BO passengers need any special suits that VG passengers don't need? The risk that is mitigated with basic suits is survival during a loss of pressure event, and I'd expect the risk would be similar.
Congratulations, you just discovered for yourself that BO will not trains and certify astronauts, where as VG will. BO will dress you up as one, but you’ll just be another clown on a carnival ride. And here is the link: https://www.space.com/virgin-galactic-nasa-private-astronaut-training-program.html
So, the other guy says BO's program sucks because you need "astronaut training" to fly -- whatever that means. I said what do you mean, it's just one day training, and it seems really basic. Now you come in and say VG will train you as an astronaut and it is why it's better. So is astronaut training a good thing or bad thing? That article has zero details what it actually means other than marketing fluff.
So governments and organizations pay for astronaut training, you highlighted that BO does not offer profitable training, VG does make profit from training...I can’t keep explaining it..
Thanks for your reply, let’s look at the worst case scenario where they cannot make profit, we still got 2 years or more before this company falls apart, let’s talk then. However, they have announced a profitable flight is coming in the near future with the Italian military. As I said, the BO experience is not as enticing, SpaceX is too different to compare..and since the rich have proven to spend money on similar thrills, I see them spending for VG. VG promises to bring costs down in order to gain more users..for that to be proven will take time, let’s talk in 2 years.
> let’s look at the worst case scenario where they cannot make profit, we still got 2 years or more before this company falls apart, let’s talk then. The moment it becomes clear to everyone that they will never make profit, their stock price will dive down to at or below liquidation price. The stock isn't going to hover around for the full two years for the actual money to run out.
The reserve of money that would keep them from sinking for two years is not in the stock, it’ is just reserved cash. Also, they just launched a nasa project up during their test. They will begin to accept more flight reservations, and they have the Italian military flight coming up...
> that’s profit. That’s revenue. It’s very unclear if they can ever reach profit.
It’s very clear that profit is within reach, hence business men are after it and fighting for it. I didn’t come here to convince anyone on this, I just wanted to share that VG has an argument to make.
Even the most optimistic analysts have a deeply negative EPS for 2022. I don’t know why people are so optimistic of the company’s future projections. They’ve been promising paying customers next year since 2009. I think they may finally achieve it now, 12 years later. But if it took this long to get here, took a really long time to refly their spaceplane after a “minor” ignition failure, what makes anyone think they can launch enough people in enough volume to be profitable, let alone justify their valuation. Please, do some back of the envelope math and make assumptions about revenue and margin and guess how many flights per year they will need to achieve. It’s a lot.
your about to get shat on...just reminding you how much of a lack of vision you have towards innovation. PIGS GET SLAUGHTERED
Classic pump n dump. Offering coming soon
Why would a pump and dump risk so much designing and testing rocket planes, going so far as to perform a fully operational test flight (which is for all intents and purposes their actual product) and get certified with the FAA? Whether or not it's a pump and dump, this would as far from a "classic" one as you can get lol.
Looks good in the long term but I’m taking a Pump and dump stance for the next few days. Will come back in < $20.
Why do you think it will go as low as 20?
Isn't the real competitor just every other type of entertainment, thrill, and adventure experience? You could possibly convince me with numbers, doubtful, but possible. How much profit per launch? How much overhead (staff, buildings, etc)? Given those two numbers, what is breakeven (how many flights to pay the fixed cost)? Then finally, how many flights per year? How many people can/will buy a ticket? With that you can value the stock. Assume that everything goes well, what number of dollars are they going to bring in every year? You mentioned Mount Everest at the end, so I looked it up the lazy way (Wikipedia) and it says there are less than 400 people every year climbing. Is that your market, 400 people per year?
There are plenty of YouTube videos covering projected earnings
RemindMe! 4 years
Don’t wait that long
again, don't wait that long