Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 668

Why SpaceX is coming to your super fund

SpaceX’s long anticipated IPO went smoothly. The shares opened above the offering price before finishing its debut knock 19% higher. Heavy subscription by institutions and retail investors meant allocations were slim, leading to strong demand once shares began trading.

SpaceX (SPCX.NAS) is now the 6th-largest US listed company, exceeding Tesla in terms of market capitalisation. The initial public offering price valued SpaceX at US$135 per share. Morningstar’s fair value sits at US$63, less than half the offer price. SpaceX investors are being asked to cough up today for a set of future possibilities that may or may not ever materialise.

So why does this impact the everyday Aussie? When a behemoth of a company like SpaceX lists, it becomes part of the global index ecosystem. This involves a complex web of index inclusion rules that flow through to superannuation funds and passive ETFs. For Australians, that process is where the IPO starts to impact your future, whether you like the company or not.

Firstly, understanding the valuation allows investors to get a better grasp on why the index implications really matter.

Why we think SpaceX is overvalued

Morningstar analyst Nicolas Owens highlights a significant gap between the IPO price and the intrinsic value for SpaceX. SpaceX’s future depends on the successful execution of technologies that are not yet proven at scale, particularly around rapidly reusable rockets and the commercialisation of launching data centres into space. To address this, our analyst created three scenarios for SpaceX and weighted them on probability.

Nicolas noted that even at US$63 per share, a significant amount of leeway was given in two of the three scenarios. In these two scenarios, Nicolas assumes the company can achieve a rapidly reusable Starship rocket enabling multiple launches per week and successfully commercializes data centres in space. Neither problem has been solved and both remain years away from fruition.

In the most optimistic ‘moonshot’ scenario, the company would be worth $1.97 trillion or $154 a share which is 3% below the closing price on Friday. However, Nicolas assigns this scenario, in which both Starship is reusable and scaled orbital data centres are highly successful, a 7% chance of happening.

The core space and connectivity businesses (think Starlink) adds around US$40 per share and is the key driver in two of the three scenarios. The three scenarios for the AI segment add $16.50 to our overall valuation estimate. The AI segment drives upside in the best case however contributes no value in the worst.

Based on the three scenarios, the most likely scenario according to this model is that orbital data centres are viable and benefit from SpaceX’s decreasing cost to launch from Starship. While the technology is not yet proven, SpaceX is best positioned in the industry to capitalise on the endeavour. This scenario models space data centres generating US$47 billion in revenue by 2035.

Why index inclusion matters

The path from IPO to widespread ownership is governed by index providers. Typically, a newly listed company doesn’t go straight into the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq 100. It needs to establish a trading history, demonstrate sufficient liquidity and meet minimum free float requirements.

For flagship benchmarks like the S&P 500, profitability is also a key hurdle. These rules exist to ensure indexes can avoid illiquid or highly speculative companies. This also helps index funds replicate index performance with minimal tracking errors.

Index inclusion triggers forced buying, as index funds must replicate benchmark weights. The result is a synchronized wave of buying that has little to do with valuation and everything to do with rules. Interestingly, despite the size of SpaceX, its float-adjusted market cap is only US$90 billion. This means SpaceX will not immediately be one of the largest holdings in broad index funds. Its small initial float limits the immediate size in many index funds. For example, the SpaceX weighting is expected to initially collect less than 0.20% of Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF VTI once added.

As locked-up shares from insiders become available to sell, the float-adjusted market capitalisation will increase. This will also increase the weighting in index funds and ETFs which will trigger ongoing buying as funds rebalance. Most Australian superannuation portfolios have substantial exposure to global equities, either through passive vehicles or mandates that closely track major indices.

The index timeline

SpaceX is expected to be added to several indices over the next month, while inclusion in the S&P 500 will likely take at least 12 months due to additional profitability requirements. Once included, exposure flows quickly into superannuation portfolios through routine rebalancing.

In practical terms, many Australian investors will own SpaceX indirectly within one to two years of its IPO, regardless of whether they actively follow the stock. The weighting is expected to increase over time as insiders sell shares and expand the free float. As a result, the short-term impact is minimal but weightings in portfolios are likely to rise steadily over time.

The big picture for Aussie investors

For Australian investors, the key takeaway is straightforward: you don’t need to own SpaceX intentionally for it to influence your portfolio. As the company moves through index inclusion, it will be absorbed into superannuation funds via passive allocations and benchmark linked mandates.

Crucially, that exposure reflects index mechanics rather than valuation discipline. In a market where probabilities are being priced aggressively, it’s important to understand both the index mechanics and the valuation fundamentals. This will help investors shape their own assessment of SpaceX and the market implications from the recent IPO.

 

Tyger Fitzpatrick is an Associate Investment Specialist at Morningstar Australia, writing for retail investors and advisers on equity markets. He also authors Morningstar’s Ask the Analyst column. 

 

  •   24 June 2026
  • 4
  •      
  •   
4 Comments
Barry
June 28, 2026

Elon Musk owns cash, and your super fund also has some cash, so you are already investing in something that Elon Musk owns.

I'm sorry, but you've already broken your own rule of never investing in anything that Elon Musk owns

4
Nadal
June 25, 2026

A good reason to be in a SMSF and not an index-hugging industry fund / passive ETF.

2
Mike
June 30, 2026

Just like flying in economy and getting a meal, whether you want it or not. And most people will eat it because it's "free"

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

History says US market outperformance versus Australia will turn

How ETFs and indexes cope with company delistings

Why it’s better to be a small investor

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why have Australian living standards 'fallen' and how do we fix it?

For the last few years there has been much talk of a 'cost-of-living' crisis in Australia and of 'falling living standards'. Lately this has flared up again with the pickup in inflation resulting in a renewed fall in real wages.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

Four options for an income investor’s next dollar

What if Australia’s golden age of dividends is ending? Rather than overhaul your portfolio, it may be worth considering where new capital can work harder. I discuss four income strategies and the trade-offs behind each.

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

The ageing ‘crisis’ has not and will not happen

Rising age dependency is frequently treated as a warning sign for economies. But when actual workforce participation is examined, a strikingly different picture emerges about ageing, productivity and economic sustainability.

Retirement

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Shares

Four charts that expose market concentration risk

Investors have recently been rewarded for backing market leaders, but history suggests this eventually comes at a cost. Now may be the time to review whether your portfolio is carrying unintended risks beneath the surface.

Investment strategies

The case for gearing beyond property

Most Australians gear into property but ignore shares. That may be a mistake. Used carefully, geared equity strategies can enhance long-term returns, reduce cash tied up in growth assets and support retirement income goals.

Economy

Australia's $1 trillion debt pile

The headlines exclaiming that Australian government debt has hit A$1 trillion and US government debt has hit $40 trillion has turned heads, but how serious are they really? Will Australia's mix of debt create challenges?

Economy

Has 100 years of growth made us any happier?

For decades, GDP has been the benchmark for economic success, but has it made us materially happier? If happiness does not rise in lockstep with prosperity, are we overlooking what constitutes a successful society?

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.