Member since 2022
Views
17.6k Total number of views
Fair Values Set
668 Total number of fair values set
Comments
3 Total number of comments
Followers
7 Total number of followers

No bio added yet

No link added
RKLB logo
RKLB·Rocket Lab USA Will Ignite a 30% Revenue Growth Journey
As someone who grew up on a farm, I know the secret to farmers doing well is getting rid of as many extra tasks as possible. A farmer makes their money from setting the conditions for nature/the Sun to create the products that they sell. The less work needed from the farmer to get there, the more profitable they will be. Jumping on a bike or in a ute and driving around the farm to see how the crops or animals are doing might sound easy enough, but actually it takes a lot of time away from doing other things which a farmer can't skip doing (like fixing fences, or overseeing the person hired to do so). Using satellites to monitor farms sounds outlandish because the cost of satellite images has been so expensive and the quality so poor, it would never make sense. However this is because launching satellites into space has been so expensive, relatively few of them have been launched. Often the satellites sit at geo-stationary orbit (~35,000km up) as that lets a satellite stay in the same position as there weren't enough satellites to reliably cover a specific area. Cheaper space launch has changed that game. SpaceX launches its Starlink satellites to "Low Earth Orbit", relying on currently around ~7000 satellites to provide consistent coverage. At these lower orbits imaging is much clearer and the path of the satellite is determined more by fluctuations in the satellite's orbit, rather than a specific 'service area'. This means satellite imaging companies have their satellites constantly imaging whatever it is their satellite happens to be flying over, in the highest possible resolution. The imaging firm then looks to see who they can sell their data to. Currently, Military, weather, and research purposes are the main buyers of this imaging. Finding, negotiating with and then transferring the data to the buyer is the biggest limiter of greater adoption. This is changing rapidly to the point where small businesses (famers) could afford the imaging
2
|
0
RKLB logo
RKLB·Rocket Lab USA Will Ignite a 30% Revenue Growth Journey
Interesting. Are you saying SimplyWallSt sent you an email with a link to this Narrative with the heading "What Rocket Lab Has that SpaceX and others don't"? I wrote this "Narrative" for RKLB for my own investing purposes so that I could review it later. SimplyWallSt didn't ask me to or pay or anything to write it. I did not ever use the title contained in the email tease that you saw, it must have been created by the email creator. The reason why I include many factors for why RKLB might not succeed is so that when I go back and review how the stock is going, I can quickly assess if those factors have gotten better or worse. Short answer to "What Rocket Lab has that SpaceX and others don't" though: Compared to other space launch firms - RKLB has a working rocket, with a good launch cadence, good vertical integration for "space services", good forward contract growth (suggesting financial sustainability), good future rocket development in Neutron and its contracts are relatively more 'arms-length' than typical in the space industry (suggesting genuine demand, not subsidies/grants etc) Compared to SpaceX - RKLB's 'eccentric' CEO is fully focused on RKLB, his success and reputation relies on RKLB. Their vision is for cheap, regular space flight to support new business that can utilise space to make profits on Earth. Unlike SpaceX, which always has interplanetary travel as its end goal. Basically, RKLBs goals are easier and more profitable on Earth, that means their trajectory compared to SpaceX will drift towards that goal, while SpaceX remains bogged down on far more expensive ambitions (like people on Mars). Both companies should do fine though!
5
|
0
NVDA logo
NVDA·NVIDIA's future hinges on $400b revenue and AI software dominance
The transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy requires strong (government) leadership as there are too many non-freemarket influences at play. E.g externalities, subsidies, property right issues, patent issues, financing/cashflow issues, agency problems, national security, publicly funded research etc etc. Strong leadership on broad policy matters would mean no part of the energy transition causes excess harm on another part. The whole point of moving from fossil fuels is to reduce harm and increase efficiency, after all. To me, the leadership response has been very inconsistent. As a result, the transition to electric vehicles may occur faster than the electric grid and the various institutions that ensure its smooth operation, are prepared for. The real test will be how quickly EV adoption changes once new EV costs fall below those of ICE vehicles. If adoption is still at a modest rate (particularly if tariffs distort the purchase of the true cheapest EVs while subsidies that initially encourage EV purchases get slowly rolled back, which prevents EVs rapidly becoming cheaper), then there will be enough time for a smooth change in the grid. If not, then access to the grid and managing price surges could become very political. I doubt AI data centres would win out in that situation. However, the experience of the crypto boom and its similar explosion in electricity consumption found that crypto data centres often preferred locations with excess renewables, as wholesale electricity prices in those locations tend to be very low. Some firms set up their cryptominers in shipping containers which made it very easy to follow where ever the cheapest electricity is. AI data centres are not likely to be as flexible, but they could contribute to and encourage faster investment in renewables. New EVs could then act as a battery for any excess power over what the data centres use, if appropriate time of use pricing is used, averting an overloaded grid.
0
|
0