Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 139 posts

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#11

Post by aNoob7000 »

asdfaoeu wrote: post #9
lotsofpulp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it should not be "I will buy shares and try to change the company". it should not be “I will go public and try to stop the public from exercising their rights as shareholders”...just stay private. Or, if those business owners want to retain their right to make all the decisions, they should structure the shares like Meta or Alphabet.

More like if these funds have an issue with the management structure they should just not buy the shares.

Maybe Nasdaq shouldn't put Space X in the Nasdaq-100 index fund 15 trading days later vs six months.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#12

Post by jbecke »

Option 1: Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars, and maybe abuses the corporate entity a bit, as a piggy bank, or whatever.

Option 2: the market has control, and optimizes for short term starlink revenue and the launch business.

I prefer Option 1.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#13

Post by lotsofpulp »

saalweachter wrote: post #7
lotsofpulp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it should not be "I will buy shares and try to change the company". it should not be “I will go public and try to stop the public from exercising their rights as shareholders”...just stay private. Or, if those business owners want to retain their right to make all the decisions, they should structure the shares like Meta or Alphabet.

Super voting shares were a mistake to allow in general.

For whatever reason, there are a few very successful businesses with super voting shares. If the alternative was to keep those businesses private, I do not know if that would have been better for the public.

Presumably, the market will price in the risks of super voting shares.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#14

Post by inglor_cz »

saalweachter wrote: post #7
lotsofpulp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it should not be "I will buy shares and try to change the company". it should not be “I will go public and try to stop the public from exercising their rights as shareholders”...just stay private. Or, if those business owners want to retain their right to make all the decisions, they should structure the shares like Meta or Alphabet.

Super voting shares were a mistake to allow in general.

Why? Accredited investors don't seem to mind, and they should be able to judge the pluses and the minuses.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#15

Post by inglor_cz »

jbecke wrote: post #12

Option 1: Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars, and maybe abuses the corporate entity a bit, as a piggy bank, or whatever. Option 2: the market has control, and optimizes for short term starlink revenue and the launch business. I prefer Option 1.

I suspect that the set of interested investors would look very different in both cases. Maybe even with an empty intersection.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#16

Post by pjc50 »

jbecke wrote: post #12

Option 1: Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars, and maybe abuses the corporate entity a bit, as a piggy bank, or whatever. Option 2: the market has control, and optimizes for short term starlink revenue and the launch business. I prefer Option 1.

Option 3: Elon takes over the Federal government, causes some major security incidents, and cuts off USAID stranding a number of Federal employees and cutting off short term food support for hundreds of thousands of people depending on it.

Option 4: Elon takes over a social network and tries to Orbanize the West with it.

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#17

Post by AndrewKemendo »

jt2190 wrote: post #6

Same article syndicated on msn.com, without paywall: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/new-york-californi... The issues: > The New York and California pension systems would become holders of SpaceX shares through their passive allocations if the company is admitted to major U.S. stock indexes. > The officials… objected to the amount of power the board has given Musk over the company, including: - voting contr…

I’d love to hear one of you staunch capitalists tell me why the description of this persons control over 13,000+ employees is any different than a feudal “Lord”

Over the entire lifetime of SpaceX Nearly 100% of the revenue comes from the government

They pay gifts and tributes to the government

They spend an absurd amount of money on lobbying and writing laws to take monopoly control of the subsection of the market

What am I missing here? Pretty sure there’s Universal agreement that the feudal system is not something anybody should be promoting

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#19

Post by shafyy »

jbecke wrote: post #12

Option 1: Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars, and maybe abuses the corporate entity a bit, as a piggy bank, or whatever. Option 2: the market has control, and optimizes for short term starlink revenue and the launch business. I prefer Option 1.

You must be living under a rock if you think all super rich billionaires like Musk are doing is "abuses the corporate entity a bit, as a piggy bank, or whatever"

Re: New York, California pension leaders oppose 'extreme' SpaceX control structure

#20

Post by ashoeafoot »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #4
AdrianB1 wrote: post #2

This is subjective, there are companies that are mostly an investment vehicle and companies that have a strong motivation to make changes in the world. Investors, especially passive investors like pension funds that are only interested in returns, should know in advance what they are getting into and decide if they want to buy shares or not; it should not be "I will buy shares and try to change the company". I worked…

> it should not be "I will buy shares and try to change the company". it should not be “I will go public and try to stop the public from exercising their rights as shareholders”...just stay private. Or, if those business owners want to retain their right to make all the decisions, they should structure the shares like Meta or Alphabet.

[dead]
Post reply on HN