The bearish case against SpaceX keeps finding new voices. I’ve now tracked short theses from Doug Kass, warnings from the former Nasdaq CEO, my colleague’s piece on Michael Burry walking away from the trade, and Jim Cramer urging patience before the lockup expiration.
Now add Peter Andersen of Boston-based Andersen Capital Management to that list.
Andersen has managed money across separate accounts, mutual funds, and world asset classes since 1993. He isn’t just skeptical of SpaceX (SPCX). He’s actively shorting it. And when asked whether a Tesla-SpaceX merger would change his mind, his answer was immediate and unambiguous.
I actually think that that’s even a more confusing situation.
Andersen continued to say in a recent CNBC interview. “I don’t think that would be a solution.”
That’s a pointed rebuttal to one of the most widely discussed potential catalysts for both stocks. And given everything that’s happened since SpaceX’s June IPO, it’s worth understanding exactly why.
Also Read: SpaceX Latest News and Stories
Why Andersen thinks a Tesla-SpaceX merger makes things worse, not better
The merger speculation has been building since SpaceX’s blockbuster June IPO. On Tesla’s (TSLA) recent earnings call, an analyst asked Elon Musk directly whether combining the companies made sense.
“We can’t talk about combining companies on an earnings call,” Musk replied, according to Investopedia, before listing several areas where the businesses already collaborate, including the Terafab chip manufacturing facility and Starlink integration with Cybercabs.
More SpaceX:
- Elon Musk’s startling claim to SpaceX investors
- Citi sends powerful sign to SpaceX investors
- Beaten-down stock lets you buy SpaceX below market price
Andersen’s objection wasn’t about synergies, but about analytical complexity. SpaceX already operates three distinct segments — Starlink connectivity, rocket launches, and artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure — that are genuinely difficult to model and value independently.
Adding Tesla’s electric vehicles, energy storage, Optimus robotics, and a massive China manufacturing operation into the same corporate structure doesn’t simplify that picture. We end up with several variables.
“It makes it even geometrically more complicated,” Andersen said. “From a conceptual basis and for when you’re looking at the risk.”
Related: AMD Stock tumbles because of SpaceX
The regulatory dimension is also another layer to crack. SpaceX is a sensitive U.S. defense contractor. Tesla has deep manufacturing ties to China, including its massive Shanghai facility.
I think merging a critical U.S. defense supplier with a company heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing would face serious national security scrutiny. Musk has publicly downplayed reports of selling the China business, but the speculation hasn’t disappeared.
I think Andersen is right that a merger announcement would likely trigger more uncertainty than relief in the near term. Markets tend to punish complexity, not reward it. Especially when the base business hasn’t yet proven itself as a strong public company.
What SpaceX’s first earnings report actually revealed
SpaceX delivered a revenue beat in its inaugural quarterly report on Aug. 4, posting $7.8 billion in revenue, up 92% year-over-year (YoY) and above Wall Street estimates of roughly $6.8 billion, according to TheStreet.
Net loss narrowed dramatically to $541 million from $1 billion in the prior year period. Adjusted EBITDA jumped 191% YoY to $3.5 billion.
Yes. Those are genuinely strong numbers. But the market sold the stock anyway, and Andersen’s short thesis explains why.
Related: Bank of America doubles down on SpaceX after earnings
Capital expenditure for the second quarter read $18.4 billion, with $15.8 billion directed toward AI-related investments, up from $2.8 billion in the same period a year earlier. Total capital expenditure for the first half of 2026 reached $28.5 billion, according to SpaceX‘s earnings report.
For a company still generating net losses at the consolidated level, that cash burn rate demands extraordinary confidence in future AI revenue — confidence Andersen doesn’t share at current valuations.
“At the IPO, the price-to-sales was very, very high,” Andersen said. “Now it’s come down. It’s still high, but relatively speaking, I think it’s about 50 times; that is a very high valuation for a company like this.”
Related: JPMorgan resets SpaceX price target after earnings
My previous coverage at TheStreet showed that SpaceX debuted at $135 on June 12, surged to an all-time high of $225.64 by June 16, then fell more than 50% before recovering slightly after the earnings period.
The AI segment did generate $2.6 billion in revenue in Q2, according to SpaceX‘s earnings report.
But Andersen isn’t convinced the segment is insulated from competition. “The AI segment is competing against many other well-known chatbots,” he said. “I would call it a horse race, frankly.”
The one scenario that could change Andersen’s mind, and when SPCX becomes interesting
Short sellers rarely admit the conditions under which they’d cover. Andersen did. When asked what would make him more constructive on SpaceX, he pointed to meaningful valuation compression, Starship progress, and continued Starlink free cash flow generation.
He also floated an extreme but analytically logical scenario: that Starlink could eventually be spun off as the only profitable entity within the three-segment structure. On valuation, he suggested a price-to-sales ratio around 25 times (roughly half the current level) would bring more rational institutional attention to the stock.
Related: Jim Cramer sees the writing on the wall for SpaceX investors
As for sub-$100 as a potential buying opportunity for long-term investors? “For those willing to go into it with a very sober view of the risk involved,” he said, it could pass muster for the most aggressive portion of a portfolio.
Tesla shares are down 26.94% year-to-date, according to Yahoo Finance data as of this report. The S&P 500 has returned 13.32% over the same period. Both Tesla and SpaceX stocks are carrying the weight of merger speculation, Musk attention risk, and a market still trying to figure out how to price a company that lost $41.3 billion in its first two decades of existence.
In a few words, the story is real, yes, but the valuation is not. Until those two things get closer together, Andersen suggests that you should stay short.
Related: SpaceX’s own ambitions just became Rocket Lab’s opportunity
