Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance' • Hacker News Board

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#251

Post by bko » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:35 AM UTC

brikym wrote: post #196

I really want a QQQ/VOO replacement that excludes these new rushed IPOs that are just exit liquidity. There are ETFs that exclude harmful industries like gambling, weapons and tobacco. How about an ETF that doesn't include IPOs for six months or until insider lock ups periods are over.

The point of these broad ETFs is that they include everything. Let the market decide. Of course they should own one of the largest public companies in the world. They're changing the rules on inclusion because the ipo is unprecedented and not owning it because [reasons] would be a dereliction of their duties.

You want an ESG fund

Also I dont see how weapons companies are harmful. Unless you're so naive to think defense is not a thing any person or country has to worry about in 2026

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#252

Post by brikym » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:36 AM UTC

wjnc wrote: post #222

brikym wrote: post #196

I really want a QQQ/VOO replacement that excludes these new rushed IPOs that are just exit liquidity. There are ETFs that exclude harmful industries like gambling, weapons and tobacco. How about an ETF that doesn't include IPOs for six months or until insider lock ups periods are over.

A long and a short cancel out. So you could construe this yourselves. (Recognise that this has a long tradition on HN ;)

Besides laziness being a tradition among programmers (in a good way), that kind of complex activity is going to generate tax in a lot of jurisdictions.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#253

Post by BLanen » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:36 AM UTC

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #225

whatevaa wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon achived this valuation by merging xAI into SpaceX. The future of xAI is questionable, and without it SpaceX is very overvalued.

SpaceX has the potential to be the most valuable company ever if the space economy expands. Starlink will be a tiny puzzle piece by then. How is this even debatable.

The SpaceX S-1 contradicts your claim by including an optimistic "TAA" (total addressable market) figure for "the space industry". Which falls heavily short of your claim. While the SpaceX claimed total TTA is mostly (like 80%) AI-powered "enterprise applications" which don't exist and are not related to space data centers or whatever.

How is this even debatable.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#254

Post by yokoprime » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:39 AM UTC

shivpat wrote: post #213

ksimukka wrote: post #210

(Apologies for the bad grammar, my son was born a little over 24 hours ago. I’m choosing not to use a LLM, so you are getting the real me) Even sovereign funds (example Norway) are invested in American tech, funds, and indexes. It is interesting to think about (from the perspective of an immigrant to Norway) how I moved my life’s savings from the US to Norway. I’m now fully invested into Norway (real estate, savings,…

Get off your phone and enjoy the time lol - journal instead if you must write something

Gatekeeping is never a good look.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#255

Post by Tepix » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:39 AM UTC

swingboy wrote: post #226

Apologies for the naivety, but, why is SpaceX valued so high? Starlink? Are rockets really a lucrative business? Don’t get me wrong, being able to send objects up into orbit is cool, but is it $1.8T cool?

We know that xAI (with X) is struggling.

SpaceX is growing quite slowly. You could argue that Starship is likely to somewhat accelerate growth.

Starlink is doing well but also growing somewhat slow.

A more rational valuation would be 900b-1000b.

The rest is Musk and FOMO.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#256

Post by zdc1 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:40 AM UTC

With schemes like SpaceX, and the general number of large-cap-but-negative-earnings companies trading on the market, I feel like the conventional wisdom of DCA and chill / just passively buy the index will turn into an underperforming strategy vs a slightly more active or opinionated approach.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#257

Post by dools » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:42 AM UTC

zdc1 wrote: post #256

With schemes like SpaceX, and the general number of large-cap-but-negative-earnings companies trading on the market, I feel like the conventional wisdom of DCA and chill / just passively buy the index will turn into an underperforming strategy vs a slightly more active or opinionated approach.

Just buy ETFs of index funds that only include dividend paying stocks

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#258

Post by devlovstad » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:42 AM UTC

I have AkademikerPension as my pension fund through work and this move suits me quite well. They've already excluded Tesla as well as a variety of companies that profit of weapon production, fossil fuel production or are suspected for human rights violations.

https://akademikerpension.dk/ansvarlighed/ekskluderede-selsk...

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#259

Post by andyjohnson0 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:43 AM UTC

For those commenting that this decision may have a political element: Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Musk is a prominent Trump/MAGA supporter, and Trump has threatened to annex Greenland by force. SpaceX is part of Trump's Golden Dome project, and one of the reasons that Trump wants Greenland is to site ICBM detection and interceptor systems.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#260

Post by vibrio » Sat, May 30, 2026, 10:43 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #251

brikym wrote: post #196

I really want a QQQ/VOO replacement that excludes these new rushed IPOs that are just exit liquidity. There are ETFs that exclude harmful industries like gambling, weapons and tobacco. How about an ETF that doesn't include IPOs for six months or until insider lock ups periods are over.

The point of these broad ETFs is that they include everything. Let the market decide. Of course they should own one of the largest public companies in the world. They're changing the rules on inclusion because the ipo is unprecedented and not owning it because [reasons] would be a dereliction of their duties. You want an ESG fund Also I dont see how weapons companies are harmful. Unless you're so naive to think defen…

I think their point is not the ESG component, but firms with traditionally irrational valuations (à la GameStop) for which index inclusion exceptions have been made to facilitate short term liquidity for IPO participants. Seems as though one should be able to hold the broad market less that component.