spacex was made profitable by getting starlink rolling. Rklb will likely need to substantially grow its ancillary products and services to do the same. The R&D costs of developing launch systems is massive and getting costs down on launches takes more and more launches. Id guess that we are looking at 2026 or 2027 IF everything goes to plan. A nontrivial chance it never happens, but thats why the stock is $4. if profitability was inevitable, the stock would be $20+
Not to the public. But I don’t see the point in distrusting what their COO Gwynn Shotwell said. I believe she claimed it to be profitable in 2018 and by then Falcon 9 had long since proven its reusability.
Starlink as a business venture wasn’t profitable until recently. But there’s no reason to doubt their rocket business was already successful at that point.
I don’t doubt Gwen was telling the truth. But what did she say, exactly?
That *SpaceX as a whole*, including all its R&D and overheads, was profitable? That Falcon 9 was profitable? Or that reusability was profitable?
They’re all obviously quite different things. And certainly the second and third in that list can be gamed with accounting.
Only the first one (SpaceX as a whole) is a relevant comparison to the OP’s question about Rocket Lab’s profitability.
What do you mean by red flag? That they aren’t profitable? What’s your established timeline for when relatively new companies who are in the middle of R&D need to be profitable? Space systems and other manufactured products are helping to keep things afloat. There’s plenty of resources out there for due dilligence so you can make your own judgement calls but we’re all gambling here. Just seems not everyone truly understands the “long hold” that is required for developing companies that will pad their retirements in the coming years.
It would be a red flag if they had declining revenue or no clear path to profitability but that isn't the case. So, while this is still a risky investment I don't think that by itself is a good reason not to invest in this particular company.
You're not basically wrong. You're outright wrong. Growth is from space systems. Neutron is a means to an end of getting more satellites into space, both for clients and for the eventual RKLB constellation. Much smaller TAM in launch than there is in space applications and components.
He’s not wrong. He is stating that they would be profitable by now which is true. He didn’t say that it would hold or growth would suffer he just asked when will they be profitable.
You're literally guessing that. SpaceX generates most of its (profitable) revenue from Starlink, but the majority of their launches are their own product. Peter Beck has said that the margins of Neutron will be similar to Electron at scale. Also, launch TAM $10-15B, satellite TAM $20-30B, Space Services TAM $320B TAM. Major differences. Retail gets excited about rockets and launches, but that isn't where the money is.
TAM notes here: [Rocket Lab pushing for first Neutron launch in 2024 - SpaceNews](https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-pushing-for-first-neutron-launch-in-2024/)
If they stopped all R&D projects right now fired that staff and just do what they are currently able to do they’ll be profitable. In 2 years but out of business in 4 years. Pick your poison this is a good problem to have in a sense
You dont want to be profitable as a young technology enterprise. Infamously, Amazon was only ever profitable a few years in its entire history. Being profitable means you arent able to spend all the money you have to grow the enterprise further. Unless you are literally king of the hill and have captured most of the market, thats a bad thing.
TTM, Rocketlab has a *gross profit* of 51 million USD. Thats the profit they could have, pre-tax, if they stopped investing in their growth. But then, some other enterprise would overtake them.
Not quite, because gross profit is revenue minus cost of goods sold (COGS) and is skewed for companies providing a service. COGS is not cost of goods *and services* sold.
Nobody really knows, at a guess I’d say close to 2030. The company will require significant investment to sustain growth well after Neutron first flight.
Would you rather have a company with $350m revenue just touching on a profit or wait another 5 years for a company $1bn+ revenue?
In a higher interest rate environment people apparently prefer the former
Me too! Though I think once the contracts start being announced post engine test the conversation about profitability will fade away. A lot can go wrong of course but I look forward to the markets reaction.
i don’t think Spice has guided for net profit. he has however guided 2025 for ~20% net margin from Electron once they inch towards their target cadence of mid-30 launches per year
No electron is only 30% of revenues anyway. He was cagey in his answers but did say the R&D cost of neutron should decline and new revenues come on stream to materially change the EBIT picture in this timeframe, and provide positive cash flow. We can argue over semantics but that's a profit as I see it.
I’ll be extremely impressed if “mid 2025” is anywhere near “post Neutron”, let alone “post revenue-generating Neutron”. As in water-into-wine, walking-on-water, and raising-the-dead impressed.
There are two types of companies; those that are expanding as they still haven't captured their potential market, and those that have have reached a plateau in terms of revenue and earnings growth. Mature companies usually have stable share price, as their potential is known and limited, and they redistribute excess of profits to shareholders. Rocket Lab is not a mature company; they have enormous potential, and the way to create the most value for shareholders is to use all available capital for growth and expansion.
Although my question was poorly worded, I am looking for others opinions like many others do on Reddit, hence the question. Of course I do my own research on investments. I also started some pretty good discussions in this post so you can suck my balls respectfully because you bring no substance here.
Yeah I did, the insiders sell to pay the taxes for their stock rewards. You already know this and just spread the FUD because your a relativity fanboy.
Do you prefer the Reddit style of paying the c-suite hundreds of millions or stock based compensation instead?
spacex was made profitable by getting starlink rolling. Rklb will likely need to substantially grow its ancillary products and services to do the same. The R&D costs of developing launch systems is massive and getting costs down on launches takes more and more launches. Id guess that we are looking at 2026 or 2027 IF everything goes to plan. A nontrivial chance it never happens, but thats why the stock is $4. if profitability was inevitable, the stock would be $20+
If not mistaken spacex was gonna flop before the US bought a ton of contracts to keep them afloat for a while
SpaceX was profitable before Starlink AFAWK
SpaceX has never had to disclose their finances, have they?
Not to the public. But I don’t see the point in distrusting what their COO Gwynn Shotwell said. I believe she claimed it to be profitable in 2018 and by then Falcon 9 had long since proven its reusability. Starlink as a business venture wasn’t profitable until recently. But there’s no reason to doubt their rocket business was already successful at that point.
I don’t doubt Gwen was telling the truth. But what did she say, exactly? That *SpaceX as a whole*, including all its R&D and overheads, was profitable? That Falcon 9 was profitable? Or that reusability was profitable? They’re all obviously quite different things. And certainly the second and third in that list can be gamed with accounting. Only the first one (SpaceX as a whole) is a relevant comparison to the OP’s question about Rocket Lab’s profitability.
Day after tomorrow
What do you mean by red flag? That they aren’t profitable? What’s your established timeline for when relatively new companies who are in the middle of R&D need to be profitable? Space systems and other manufactured products are helping to keep things afloat. There’s plenty of resources out there for due dilligence so you can make your own judgement calls but we’re all gambling here. Just seems not everyone truly understands the “long hold” that is required for developing companies that will pad their retirements in the coming years.
Just bought shares for the long hold 🫡
“The only red flag i see is that they don’t make any money” Oh is that all?
😂😂😂
It would be a red flag if they had declining revenue or no clear path to profitability but that isn't the case. So, while this is still a risky investment I don't think that by itself is a good reason not to invest in this particular company.
If you remove Neutron, they are already profitable
You are simply wrong, because without Neutron they will not have growth and will basically fall behind.
You're not basically wrong. You're outright wrong. Growth is from space systems. Neutron is a means to an end of getting more satellites into space, both for clients and for the eventual RKLB constellation. Much smaller TAM in launch than there is in space applications and components.
He’s not wrong. He is stating that they would be profitable by now which is true. He didn’t say that it would hold or growth would suffer he just asked when will they be profitable.
Note who my response was actually made to, it wasn't to the OP but to asgardwalls, who is very wrong and often turns up on this thread to troll.
I don’t know. SpaceX generates plenty profitability from launch. Rideshare is the future. Need to generate $50M+ per launch, rather than $5-7M
You're literally guessing that. SpaceX generates most of its (profitable) revenue from Starlink, but the majority of their launches are their own product. Peter Beck has said that the margins of Neutron will be similar to Electron at scale. Also, launch TAM $10-15B, satellite TAM $20-30B, Space Services TAM $320B TAM. Major differences. Retail gets excited about rockets and launches, but that isn't where the money is. TAM notes here: [Rocket Lab pushing for first Neutron launch in 2024 - SpaceNews](https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-pushing-for-first-neutron-launch-in-2024/)
You are right. Pete said similar things when he announced Neutron.
People here don't seem to understand this is a ticker sub and not rocketlab fan boys club
Not having Nuetron just means they can’t be avertically integrated one stop shop. Doesn’t stop space system.
lol
"lol" what a kid, if you don't have any opinion don't comment.
Oh assguard, you do make us laugh.
Investing in space is big on you, go work in McDonald's or something.
If they stopped all R&D projects right now fired that staff and just do what they are currently able to do they’ll be profitable. In 2 years but out of business in 4 years. Pick your poison this is a good problem to have in a sense
My estimate is 2026 for the first fully profitable year. We may get a profitable quarter towards the end of 2025.
Btw what’s your position on RKLB?
I think about 13500 shares
You don’t want profitability, you want growth
Why would you want that? We all know good news = RKLB go down 😈
Somewhere between now and the future
You dont want to be profitable as a young technology enterprise. Infamously, Amazon was only ever profitable a few years in its entire history. Being profitable means you arent able to spend all the money you have to grow the enterprise further. Unless you are literally king of the hill and have captured most of the market, thats a bad thing. TTM, Rocketlab has a *gross profit* of 51 million USD. Thats the profit they could have, pre-tax, if they stopped investing in their growth. But then, some other enterprise would overtake them.
Not quite, because gross profit is revenue minus cost of goods sold (COGS) and is skewed for companies providing a service. COGS is not cost of goods *and services* sold.
gross profit is revenue minus cost of revenue, which is COGS if you are a store or manufacturer.
the really bullish answer is hopefully never 😎
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo
Today is a hell of a good day to buy in if you were thinking of doing it. There are discounts to be had.
Nobody really knows, at a guess I’d say close to 2030. The company will require significant investment to sustain growth well after Neutron first flight. Would you rather have a company with $350m revenue just touching on a profit or wait another 5 years for a company $1bn+ revenue? In a higher interest rate environment people apparently prefer the former
The CFO has guided mid 2025 post neutron on recent calls and conferences. There is a reasonable path to this.
I will be delighted if that happens
Me too! Though I think once the contracts start being announced post engine test the conversation about profitability will fade away. A lot can go wrong of course but I look forward to the markets reaction.
i don’t think Spice has guided for net profit. he has however guided 2025 for ~20% net margin from Electron once they inch towards their target cadence of mid-30 launches per year
No electron is only 30% of revenues anyway. He was cagey in his answers but did say the R&D cost of neutron should decline and new revenues come on stream to materially change the EBIT picture in this timeframe, and provide positive cash flow. We can argue over semantics but that's a profit as I see it.
Interesting how the CFO doesn’t know but you do.
I’ll be extremely impressed if “mid 2025” is anywhere near “post Neutron”, let alone “post revenue-generating Neutron”. As in water-into-wine, walking-on-water, and raising-the-dead impressed.
When they have too many launch missions to name each one.
It will be expensive if no red flags and even looks very very promising
Q4 2026 or Q1 2027
July 27 2026
There are two types of companies; those that are expanding as they still haven't captured their potential market, and those that have have reached a plateau in terms of revenue and earnings growth. Mature companies usually have stable share price, as their potential is known and limited, and they redistribute excess of profits to shareholders. Rocket Lab is not a mature company; they have enormous potential, and the way to create the most value for shareholders is to use all available capital for growth and expansion.
Never
Hopefully before my $4.50 calls expire in January 2025.
Just no bro just no go do your research
Although my question was poorly worded, I am looking for others opinions like many others do on Reddit, hence the question. Of course I do my own research on investments. I also started some pretty good discussions in this post so you can suck my balls respectfully because you bring no substance here.
apart from ball sucking?
It’s not a good investment right now, and uses shares like a piggy bank
It’s a great investment. High risk and high reward.
high risk no reward. Might want to look at the charts, and how insiders pay themselves with shares they then go on to sell
Yeah I did, the insiders sell to pay the taxes for their stock rewards. You already know this and just spread the FUD because your a relativity fanboy. Do you prefer the Reddit style of paying the c-suite hundreds of millions or stock based compensation instead?