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

Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 560 posts

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#111

Post by nothercastle »

jakub_g wrote: post #104
epistasis wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm usually a Boglehead, with some exceptions, and one exception I'd love is some sort of trade that would eliminate my exposure to SpaceX for the next few years. I'm sure there's some combo of options that would do it. Probably finding an ESG-focused ETF would do it. ESG basically meant "good governance, we follow laws" which translated into better governed public companies that therefore had better returns, as one…

One annoying thing is that those "non-standard" ETF variants have much higher management costs than basic S&P500 / All World ETFs.

Dimension funds aren’t bad

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#112

Post by horsawlarway »

hparadiz wrote: post #30
horsawlarway wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I also don't want to eat a tasty morsel if you roll it around in the dirt and serve it up covered in bugs and hair. And that's basically what SpaceX is right now after you account for xAI and twitter in the mix. So I'd love to own a piece of the SpaceX from a decade ago - but the current offering smells pretty bad. Combined with the fact that at this point, Musk clearly isn't opposed to running a business with…

The current SpaceX is in a far better financial and operational position than 10 years ago. By an order of magnitude. 90% of all payload to orbit right now is SpaceX alone. Starlink is profitable all on it's own. Right now. And they are just now picking up steam. American Airlines just signed onto Starlink just last week. This company is most likely gonna be the Coca-Cola of transportation between celestial bodies in…

I guess I don't consider leadership integrity and honesty to be "peanuts".

If anything - as an investor I'd call those core concerns about how I'll make my money back.

Further... this company isn't actually making ANY DAMN MONEY. Of the bundled orgs, only Starlink is profitable, and not profitable enough to offset the losses on spaceX and xAI/Grok. (starlink +4b, spacex -700mm, xAI -6b = -2.7b..., with 30b in debt).

So... no... right now this company is not "Coca-Cola". And that delusional comparison is part of why I think it's correct to be wary right now. On a scale between Enron and Coke... I'd wager we're closer to Enron.

I'll pick up some shares by default given the ETFs I'm in anyways, and that's enough for me...

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#113

Post by BJones12 »

parliament32 wrote: post #109
Galanwe wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love is some sort of trade that would eliminate my exposure to SpaceX You can just short SpaceX of an amount equivalent to its share of your SP500 holdings. You will have to pay borrowing costs though, but on something that liquid it will be very small.

Shorts have unlimited risk. Buying a put is risk-defined and probably a better strategy.

No, because the unlimited risk of shorting is balanced (hedged) by the unlimited upside of holding the same number of shares via the ETF.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#115

Post by zardo »

vondur wrote: post #9
thesimon wrote: post #8

Matt Levine described it well ( https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spa... ) > The deal, with SpaceX, is that Elon Musk runs it however he wants, and he does weird stuff, and you have to trust him, and if you don’t like it you can’t complain. > When SpaceX acquired xAI a few months ago, did a special committee of independent directors approve the transaction? Did Musk recuse himself from negotiat…

Isn't that how Facebook is ran too? Basically Zuckerberg's private company, that in theory is public?

Though (at least to my knowledge) Zuckerberg doesn't have a history of abusing his authority to make deals that advantage other companies he owns at the expense of Facebook.

E.g. SpaceX buying up large numbers of Cybertrucks Tesla couldn't sell at MSRP, not even negotiating a good fleet sale deal.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#116

Post by MBCook »

hparadiz wrote: post #71
MBCook wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. At this point burying money in jars in the back yard and forgetting where some are has a much higher rate of return.

Using Google’s own IPO S-1 / SEC filings: Year Revenue Net income / loss 1998 Not reported 1999 $220k -$6.076M 2000 $19.108M -$14.690M Do you guys not know what a loss lead is?

Survivorship bias.

Also, those numbers are multiple orders of magnitude smaller than the AI stuff going on now.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#117

Post by ambicapter »

lokar wrote: post #102
ambicapter wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VTI > Seeks to track the performance of the CRSP US Total Market Index. The index that is changing its rules is the NASDAQ100, commonly referred to as the NASDAQ, although NASDAQ is also the name of the exchange.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/morningstar-conside... Morningstar said its CRSP Market Indexes will "undergo enhancements to introduce an alternative liquidity screen", making it possible to add SpaceX and other giant IPOs to these benchmarks more rapidly. The funds that use the CRSP indexes as a portfolio benchmark include Vanguard's $607 billion Total Stock Market ETF.

Well shit.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#118

Post by FireBeyond »

hparadiz wrote: post #39
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine not wanting to own a piece of the first company to make a re-usable orbital class booster. They didn't say they didn't want to own it, they said they wanted to own it at a : "90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction." It is possible for a company to be both technically impressive and horrifically overvalued.

I think it's undervalued.

Great, you have an opportunity to make bank, then, no?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#119

Post by wg0 »

fluidcruft wrote: post #14

It's really concerning given how the indexes are changing rules to fast-track SpaceX being forced into index funds. S&P is also working on updates to S&P 500 to force it down everyone's throats quickly and algorithmically.

We're going to witness bigger blast than the great depression, dot com bust and 2008 crisis combined.

These greedy capitalists are after the pension funds + retail investor (ETFs in particular) through IPOs but there's no profitability in sight.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#120

Post by ngriffiths »

fluidcruft wrote: post #14

It's really concerning given how the indexes are changing rules to fast-track SpaceX being forced into index funds. S&P is also working on updates to S&P 500 to force it down everyone's throats quickly and algorithmically.

In addition to covering the IPO in general last week, Matt Levine also wrote about this specific question Tuesday[1]:

> Historically index providers were in the business of making these sorts of quality decisions, so that index funds were not forced to buy stocks they didn’t like.

> These rules create some tension between the idea that an index is a list of all the stocks and the idea that an index is a list of all the good stocks. Historically, it didn’t matter all that much: The point of the stock market is to tell you which stocks are good, so a company with a high stock valuation should be a very good company, so it should get a high weighting in both the Index of Good Companies and the Index of All the Companies.

> But SpaceX — and also maybe OpenAI and Anthropic in their coming IPOs — will probably break that link. SpaceX will probably (1) do all sorts of stuff that index funds hate and that index providers have specifically tried to exclude and also (2) be gigantic, because the market loves it.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind...

Post reply on HN