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

311–320 of 560 posts

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#311

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

petterroea wrote: post #271
devlovstad wrote: post #258

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...

In Norway the oil fund are actively arguing against boycotting these kinds of companies saying, and I paraphrase: "but our job is to earn money and we can't do that if you hippies keep standing in the way with your morals" Good to see it isn't necessarily the case.

It's maddening how quickly ESG and similar programmes have been thrown in the dumpster once the political climate in the US swung back to "anti-woke".

> "but our job is to earn money and we can't do that if you hippies keep standing in the way with your morals"

What these clowns conveniently forget is that their job is not just "to make money" but to make money over a span of decades and centuries in the case of the sovereign funds. A long term investment fund that optimizes for the next quarter at the expense of the long term is a bad fund.

And so the ESG and woke "hippie bullshit" is nothing more than the basic capitalism of maximizing your gains by 2100 by not destroying the one planet all your companies are on.

Long term funds do not have the luxury of being passive owners. If they take no role in management, that role will instead by taken by whatever short-term owner walks in next. They don't care about the value by 2100, they just want the company to tear the copper out of it's own walls so they can sell with a profit by next quarter, retail even sooner.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#312

Post by addandsubtract »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #142
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…

There's an ETF for everything out there. (There are more ETF's than stocks). There'll be a large market for "S&P500 without SpaceX" et al, so it's seems likely somebody will fill it. It probably will have to use a worse name because of the S&P trademark. P.S. Here's an example of S&P500 without the magnificent 7 https://www.defianceetfs.com/xmag/

A&W 500 (because it only lists companies A-W)

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#313

Post by tordrt »

devlovstad wrote: post #258

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...

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me.

Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever.

Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#314

Post by sgt »

pseudony wrote: post #218
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,…

Congratulations :) As a Dane, I would say yes. Especially among boomers there was always a genuine appreciation of the US and its role as guardian of a rules-based international order and western civilization more generally. I think that sentiment has gone, even as younger generations have increasingly incorporated English words, music, TV and more into their own, but you seldom hear the same genuine trust in the US…

I'd say in Norway there's more inherent trust in America. People may appear a bit more critical, but by now it's part of the culture. Even though you have some regresion of that trust due to Trump and polarization, I'd say most people see the US as a core part of Western society, cultural and critical to defense.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#315

Post by dchftcs »

sgt wrote: post #285
petterroea wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Norway the oil fund are actively arguing against boycotting these kinds of companies saying, and I paraphrase: "but our job is to earn money and we can't do that if you hippies keep standing in the way with your morals" Good to see it isn't necessarily the case.

[flagged]

SpaceX is headed by a person who is a strong ally of a politician who openly challenges Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland. Guess you wouldn't mind selling your organs to the same group of powerful people for a few bucks because you're not virtue signalling?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#316

Post by tristanj »

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #302
Hendrikto wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the Musk reality distortion field. The claim is that all data centers will move into space, and that SpaceX will completely own that market.

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. The actual distortion field is around Starlink. Which is the main product and the only one that's (nominally) profitable. It's the one all the hype centers around. xAI is barely even notable in the AI space. This also makes it possible to judge t…

I find it amusing to read comments like these, because they remind me of the massive awareness gap between people who understand SpaceX's product line, and those who don't.

In your world, you only see and interpret SpaceX's existing products. You then see SpaceX's eye-watering valuation, and then are confused where this comes from.

Meanwhile, people who understand SpaceX's product line, and the implications these products in five or ten years, can analyze the situation more accurately.

I can tell you are in the unaware group, since you don't mention nor analyze two of SpaceX's world-changing products (Starship and Starlink Mobile).

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#317

Post by andyjohnson0 »

myk9001 wrote: post #304
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #259

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.

> ... part of the reasons that Trump wants Greenland is to site ICBM detection and interceptor systems. Nothing is stopping the US from deploying those in Greenland right now. The only reason Trump wants Greenland is he's not all there -- Greenland looks big on the map so he's fixated on it.

> Nothing is stopping the US from deploying those in Greenland

That would require the (politically unlikely) agreement of the Danish government. See article 2 of the relevant treaty [1]:

"...establishing and/or operating such defense areas as the two Governments, on the basis of NATO defense plans, may from time to time agree to be necessary..."

> The only reason Trump wants Greenland is he's not all there -- Greenland looks big on the map so he's fixated on it.

I agree that that is part of it, but there is more to it than that.

[1] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#318

Post by kortilla »

SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #302
Hendrikto wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the Musk reality distortion field. The claim is that all data centers will move into space, and that SpaceX will completely own that market.

The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly. The actual distortion field is around Starlink. Which is the main product and the only one that's (nominally) profitable. It's the one all the hype centers around. xAI is barely even notable in the AI space. This also makes it possible to judge t…

> The datacenter thing is mostly just a meme that billionaires say because it makes them feel smart and gets them media attention, it doesn't seem to move stock significantly.

A significant portion of their valuation is based on this. The spacex private stock price moved significantly based on this data center narrative.

> And for what it concerns shareholders, a strictly worse one than a conventional ISP.

This is ignorance. There is absolutely zero meaningful competition to Starlink in the maritime, aviation, and remote internet markets. 150mbps down with > The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent.

No they aren’t. The only somewhat credible competitor so far is Amazon Kuiper(Leo) and they are still nascent.

You also forgot starshield.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#319

Post by pietervdvn »

tordrt wrote: post #313
devlovstad wrote: post #258

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...

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever. Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…

The fossil fuel industry is both the most subsidized industry worldwide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies) and the second most expensive source of energy (at least for electricity production). The only energy source that is more expensive is nuclear (!).

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#320

Post by 90d »

tordrt wrote: post #313
devlovstad wrote: post #258

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...

The fossil fuel part doesn't seem like a rational decision to me. Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever. Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…

It is a tricky situation isn't it? We wouldn't have gotten where we are without fossil fuels, but now we realize they are not sustainable to be dependent on and we cannot continue this level of growth. I don't think it is actually possible using current means to power what we have come to know as a "first-world lifestyle" for the majority of the planet.
Post reply on HN