Superdeal Review: Is Dylan Jovine’s Behind the Markets Worth It?

“NASA is Paying SpaceX to destroy the $160 Billion Space Station. This small company is poised to build the new one…” With that demolition headline, Dylan Jovine’s “Superdeal” presentation inverts the biggest space story of the year and lands on one of the most concrete pitches we have reviewed: NASA has budgeted roughly $1 billion a year to rent space-station services, the frontrunner to collect that rent is a tiny public company, and the award calendar is anchored to a real government fiscal year. The five-reasons section traces almost entirely to public record. Here is our complete review.

Images to be added when available.

The Presenter

Dylan Jovine is the founder of Behind the Markets, and his origin story is one of the better ones in the business: “I got my first job with Peter Jaquith, one of the investment bankers who became famous for saving New York City from bankruptcy. My clients bankrolled me to start my own brokerage firm when I was twenty-four years old. I have been doing this for over three decades.” Our own prior coverage corroborates the broker-dealer-at-24 story, his 2006 housing warning that led to a private meeting with President Bush, and his early Palantir recommendation near $7.

The track-record block is specific and dated, and the presentation distinguishes its own picks from market examples, which matters: “These are NOT stocks I recommended to my readers. Simply examples the market has shown over time.” His own picks include Intelsat at $3.30 for “a 339% gain in just four months,” Kratos for “a 575% gain in about a year,” and Rocket Lab recommended “back in 2024, when shares were trading for under $4,” with the share price since surging as high as $151. Plus Axon at $28 (over 3,000%), IonQ (944%), and Micron (2,181%).

The candor here deserves specific praise, because it appears twice: “Past performance does not guarantee future results. These are peak returns, not realized ones, and every one of these stocks fell hard at some point along the way.” That is a genuinely strong disclaimer, rare in this space, and it is paired with the presentation’s most honest walk-back: “To be clear, I am not promising a 6,700% gain on this space firm. Nobody can promise anything like that.”

The authority transfer runs through real institutions: NASA itself, JP Morgan’s “multi-trillion dollar industry” framing, Goldman Sachs, McKinsey’s “early internet” stage comparison, and Larry Fink’s “high walls” quote about private markets.

The Big Idea

The mechanism is a structural handoff inside the space economy: NASA is paying SpaceX up to $843 million to deorbit the ISS, but the replacement station will be privately built and privately operated, with NASA as a paying tenant rather than an owner. “Whoever builds it becomes the landlord of the new space station. NASA becomes the tenant. And NASA has budgeted roughly $1 billion a year in rent.” The event framing: “NASA’s FINAL CALL FOR BIDS IS IMMINENT. THE MONEY GETS DEPLOYED OCTOBER 1ST.”

The “why now” has three legs, all real: the station is old (“The station was designed to last fifteen years. It has been up there for twenty-five”), the geopolitics are stark (“If America does not build a replacement, then the day the ISS comes down, China becomes the only nation on Earth with a station in orbit”), and the money date is fixed, the start of NASA’s fiscal year.

The “why hasn’t everyone heard of this” answer is the presentation’s most intellectually honest passage, because it converts the pitch’s biggest weakness into its thesis: “NASA cannot simply hand out a contract this size to whoever they want. Federal law says a contract like this has to go through open competition… So on paper, officially, no winner exists yet.” Big funds “want 100% certainty. They will pile in after NASA makes it official,” which is exactly why the stock is still cheap.

We verified the factual core: NASA’s June 2024 award to SpaceX for the U.S. Deorbit Vehicle is a real single-award contract with total potential value of $843 million. The commercial-station program the clues point to is real and documented, a U.S.-led joint venture that has received over $217 million through a NASA Space Act Agreement, with Northrop Grumman having abandoned its own station project to join in October 2023, matching the promo’s NASA quote: “Northrop Grumman has determined that its best strategy is to join [this firm’s] team, and NASA respects and supports that decision.” The presenter’s October 1 award-date reading and the 39X potential are his interpretation, not documented fact.

The Key Claims

The headline claims, quoted:

  • The tiny firm “could hand early investors potentially up to 39X their money.”
  • NASA “has already told Congress it plans to spend roughly $1 billion a year on that service.”
  • The firm “has already signed over half a billion dollars in contracts with other firms that want to use the ISS successor.”
  • “NASA could pay it more in rent within three years than the entire company is worth today.”

The evidence section is the presentation’s spine, and it is checkable: NASA has “already funnelled $200 million into this tiny space company to design the ISS successor” (close to the documented $217.5 million Space Act Agreement), the design passed NASA’s official review, a life-size mockup stands at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, the launch is booked and paid (“signed a contract with SpaceX and paid Elon $90 million to carry their station into orbit”), the company has “deployed over 300 satellites” and run “more than 1,000 customer missions for organizations from over 35 countries,” and the defense arm carries Pentagon contracts “tied to the Golden Dome project” with “well over $300 million in backlog.”

The compliance notes, honestly: the 39X sits next to its “could” and “potentially” qualifiers, but the example stack, “$5,000 into three space stocks becoming $635,000,” does the persuading the qualifier disclaims. The October 1 framing presents the presenter’s calendar interpretation as an agency decision date. And “I guarantee you, 99% of Americans are still sleeping on this opportunity” uses “guarantee” for a market-penetration claim, an odd juxtaposition with the honest “Nobody can promise anything like that” two sections later.

The Free Ticker

The main pick is gated behind the report, as is the laser-firm bonus pick. But the transcript is unusually rich with named, verifiable examples: BlackSky, Planet Labs, AST SpaceMobile, Redwire, EchoStar, Globalstar, Intuitive Machines, KULR, Coherent, Applied Optoelectronics, Lumentum, Momentus, Sidus Space, Rocket Lab, Kratos, Axon, IonQ, Micron, and ASML, each with its real price history cited. The “NASA Effect” section documents real single-day moves, Intuitive Machines “66% in a single day,” Momentus “155% in a single day,” Sidus Space “exploded 225% in a day,” to argue that the window closes on announcement.

The hero pick’s fingerprint points strongly toward a specific company, but the promo never names it, and we follow that discipline here: a $2.5 billion firm that built “the only privately-owned piece of the entire International Space Station” (an airlock, the first privately owned module ever attached to the ISS), holds the NASA design funding, has the Starship launch contract, counts the ISS-builder aerospace giants as partners, and carries Golden Dome interceptor work. The Ticker Revealer will do the confirmation; readers should treat any identification they see elsewhere as a hypothesis until it is verified against the market-cap figure.

What You Get

The product is Behind the Markets, the presenter’s monthly research service: the monthly issue (“One deeply researched opportunity at the frontier… the name, the ticker, my buy-up-to price, and the case, start to finish”), the complete model portfolio, buy and sell alerts, and special situation reports.

The report stack: SpaceX’s Superdeal: The Tiny Firm Poised to Soar (the main pick with “the name, the ticker symbol, and my full analysis”), the bonus report Elon’s Final Bottleneck: The #1 Laser Stock For the AI Chip Boom, and The Gauntlet System, his screening methodology, “Yours to keep forever.” The Gauntlet is a genuinely interesting inclusion, three knockout tests quoted in full: “No real revenue? Gone. We do not invest in PowerPoints and pitch decks. Less than twelve months of cash? Gone. I do not care how exciting the technology is. No moat a competitor couldn’t copy in eighteen months? Gone.”

Price anchor: “the retail price to join Behind the Markets is only $399 per year,” discounted to $49 for one year, framed as “less than 13 cents a day, less than the cost of a sandwich.” The risk reversal is a six-month double guarantee: “Guarantee #1: The 100% Satisfaction Promise… If at any point in the next six months you are not completely thrilled… we will refund 100% of your subscription fee. Guarantee #2: You Keep Everything. Even if you ask for a refund, you keep the reports, the research and the ticker symbols.” Real cost: $49 for year one implies a steep renewal step unless cancelled; the refund window is among the longest in the industry.

One practical note for readers evaluating the catalyst: the presentation’s own honesty about the open competition is your best research tool. Because the pitch correctly explains that federal law requires open competition and that “no winner exists yet” on paper, the public record is fully checkable: the Space Act Agreement funding, the design reviews, the launch contract, and the eventual award announcement will all surface in NASA’s own channels. A careful reader can track the competition alongside the stock without subscribing to anything, which is a live audition most teaser pitches never offer.

Our Take

This is one of the most verifiable space pitches we have reviewed, and its differentiator is that the catalyst is a dated public event, a NASA award, rather than a valuation argument or a secret project. Every factual claim in the five-reasons section traces to public record: the deorbit contract, the Space Act Agreement funding, the Northrop decision, the launch payment, the satellite and mission counts. Jovine also gives away his method (the Gauntlet) as a permanent bonus, which tells you the pitch is confident enough in its research to teach you how to reject it.

The honest counterweights: the 39X is a best-case scenario built on the Rocket Lab precedent, and the presentation itself concedes it is promising nothing of the sort; the October 1 award date is the presenter’s reading of the fiscal calendar, not an announced agency decision; and the concentrated single-stock structure means the whole thesis rests on one award competition that, by the presentation’s own correct explanation, is legally open. The “why not just buy SpaceX” objection is answered with clean arithmetic, “From here to $10 trillion is roughly a 5X gain… It is not a life-changing one,” which is honest about the mega-cap’s remaining upside.

Who is this for? Readers who want event-driven space exposure with a documented contract trail and are comfortable with small-cap volatility around a government decision. The $49 first year with the six-month, keep-everything guarantee makes the trial nearly costless to evaluate. If the frontier thesis appeals to you, this is one of the more credible ways to research it, and the Gauntlet framework is worth the price of admission on its own.

Where to Learn More

NewsletterVetter is an independent publication. We receive compensation from some of the services we review through affiliate links. Nothing on this site is investment advice. Always do your own research.