Goldman Sachs expects SpaceX’s AI revenue to surge 100-fold by 2030, FT reports

Goldman Sachs reportedly sees SpaceX’s AI division revenue rising to $322 billion by 2030 from $3.2 billion in 2025, while total company revenue is forecast to reach $474 billion from $18.7 billion last year. The IPO is targeting $75 billion in proceeds at a $1.75 trillion valuation, with shares priced at $135 and trading expected to begin on Nasdaq June 12. The outlook is positive for SpaceX’s growth narrative, but Morningstar’s much lower $780 billion valuation and competition from OpenAI and Anthropic highlight execution and valuation risk.

Analysis

The real market signal is not the headline valuation; it is that public-market fee pools are getting pulled forward into private-market mega-deals. If this listing clears anywhere near the target, GS/MS/C will have proven that scarcity plus brand can overcome normal valuation discipline, and that should help keep the IPO window open for late-stage AI/infra names into 2H—not because fundamentals are suddenly clearer, but because allocators will be forced to benchmark against a new private-market reference price.

Second-order, the underwriting syndicate benefits unevenly. GS likely captures the most strategic value because it is anchoring the narrative and can monetize follow-on financing, structured products, and future capital raises; MS and C gain less from economics and more from distribution credibility. NDAQ is a quieter beneficiary if this deal catalyzes more large-cap listings and secondary supply, but the bigger risk is that an ugly aftermarket would chill the pipeline and hit IPO-related trading/research monetization faster than it hurts underwriting fees.

The consensus is probably underestimating how binary the AI division piece is. If the growth claims start to look even modestly achievable, the stock could re-rate via scarcity and optionality; if not, the market will likely discount the AI narrative first and rerate the whole deal as a capital-raising story rather than a platform story. MORN is the cleanest contrarian loser because a high-profile challenge to its valuation discipline is a reputational headwind for a firm that sells skepticism; its underweight thesis is less about this one transaction and more about the risk that public investors stop paying up for independent fair-value opinions in frothy private-markets tapes.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Long GS vs. MORN into the IPO pricing/date window (1-3 weeks): GS has the most direct fee and franchise upside if the deal clears; MORN is vulnerable if the market interprets its valuation call as being early/isolated. Risk/reward favors a small pair because the catalyst is event-driven and the spread should move quickly on aftermarket headlines.
• Buy GS call spreads expiring in 4-8 weeks: upside is tied to a successful deal and follow-on mandate flow, while downside is limited to the premium if the IPO stumbles. Use this as a tactical expression of underwriting/LPF monetization rather than a broad-market bet.
• Long MS/C basket on any post-pricing weakness, but only if the deal is well received: these names benefit from process participation and future distribution flow, yet the first-order economics are less compelling than GS. Better entry is after initial volatility fades; target 1-2 month horizon with disciplined stops if the aftermarket trades down sharply.
• Keep NDAQ on the watchlist for a sympathy long only if the offering sparks a broader secondary and IPO revival: this is a lower-conviction trade, but a successful megadeal can lift listings sentiment and trading volumes. If the stock fails to confirm within 48-72 hours of pricing, fade the move.
• Avoid chasing the private-market headline itself; instead wait for the lock-up/secondary narrative to surface before taking a view on the underlying company. The risk/reward is cleaner in the brokers and exchanges than in the issuer, where valuation dispersion is likely to stay extreme.