SpaceX's Recent Move Should Have Investors Worried

Every company needs working capital, particularly to get things going. Space Exploration Technologies (NASDAQ: SPCX) is no exception.

The timing and scope of SpaceX's most recent fundraising, however, are a bit of a red flag. We're not talking about SpaceX's mid-June initial public offering, which raised proceeds of $85.7 billion when demand exceeded the $75 billion worth of stock it originally intended to issue.

Surprise!

Without nearly as much fanfare as that surrounding the record-breaking June 12 IPO, late last month SpaceX issued $25 billion in bonds with maturity dates extending all the way out to 2056. The primary purpose of these funds was to fully pay off its bridge loan, which stood at $20 billion as of the end of March. Any remaining proceeds were earmarked for "general corporate purposes," although nearly $10 billion more in other debt-based financing remains on the company's balance sheet.

Image source: Getty Images.

This begs the (not entirely rhetorical) question: Why didn't the company just sell enough stock less than two weeks earlier to eliminate this debt entirely? It certainly wasn't a lack of demand, or pricing power, or availability of shares to issue. SpaceX is now a $2 trillion behemoth, with only a tiny fraction of the company now publicly traded.

More to the point, perhaps the bond sale should have been disclosed -- even if only as a possibility -- prior to the public offering, particularly given that SpaceX is going to remain in the red for a while and is likely to raise more money in the foreseeable future. That was the case when CEO Elon Musk was turning Tesla into an electric vehicle titan, anyway.

That's not the only curveball SpaceX shareholders were thrown since its IPO, either. Shortly after its initial public offering, the company also disclosed its intent to acquire Anysphere, the parent company of AI coding specialist Cursor, for $60 billion, payable in stock. Again, it's material information that could have been -- and arguably should have been -- disclosed to investors prior to the public offering, given how few shares are now issued and outstanding.

Ordinary shareholders aren't in charge

There's nothing illegal, atypical, or untoward about any of it. Companies acquire other companies. Young companies are often unprofitable at the beginning and need cash, which is often supplied by the sale of stock at a bargain relative to that ticker's long-term potential.

The worry here, rather, is the lack of transparency that's already evident in just the first few days of SpaceX's existence as a publicly traded entity. It hasn't yet earned the leeway with investors to make a major acquisition at a price three times last year's revenue. The company's not yet deserving of the right to simply turn a bridge loan into a long-term debt burden that could be difficult for the unprofitable outfit to service with actual operating profits anytime soon.

Yet, that's exactly what's happened.

Shareholders should be hoping this sort of unilateral, unchecked decision-making doesn't remain the norm. Given that Musk controls over 80% of total shareholder voting rights, however, there's little that investors could do if it does.

James Brumley has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.