Earlier quoted context omitted.
I partially agree, but if my private pension needed to invest into the underperforming FTSE250 by law, I’d just opt out of that system and put my savings into a US/Emerging-markets index myself. I’m not patriotic enough to spaff my compound interest opportunity on a bunch of dying tobacco, oil, & mineral extraction companies to put any of it to work in the FTSE250.
I don't think regular people should have a say where their pensions are invested. It should automatically be in what's best long term for the country they live in.
Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
431–440 of 560 posts
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
I partially agree, but if my private pension needed to invest into the underperforming FTSE250 by law, I’d just opt out of that system and put my savings into a US/Emerging-markets index myself. I’m not patriotic enough to spaff my compound interest opportunity on a bunch of dying tobacco, oil, & mineral extraction companies to put any of it to work in the FTSE250.
I don't think regular people should have a say where their pensions are invested. It should automatically be in what's best long term for the country they live in.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#433If you do not like Elon, you can simply move your assets to a direct indexing fund, there are plenty of them at reasonable cost, including from the large brokerages. If you believe SpaceX is overvalued or do not like the way it is being handled by the big index funds, again, use direct indexing. akademikerpension is pretty decent fund, it is about 50/50 asset allocation, losing out by only .9% per year compare to a U…
The TAM of that is under $10 billion. So even owning that entire market shouldn't get you anywhere near a trillion. Then factor in the development cost of starship which has been going on forever and still hasn't even made it to orbit.
Even the IPO filing isn't claiming the value comes from the rockets but from data centers in space which seems questionable. The real cash cow right now is Starlink but they aren't leaning into that heavily because those numbers also indicate that revenue growth might be stalling out.
If you just look at the pure numbers the case is very weak. No reason to change the inclusion rules. In fact I'd argue they never should change the inclusion rules. Let the market find a price first. Index funds are supposed to be boring and track the market. Including any recent IPO just adds chaos beyond simply tracking the overall market. It's trivial to buy some SpaceX if one wants and unlike selling your entire fund holding either doesn't trigger a taxable event at all or it's a much smaller one if you cannot avoid it.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pro…
Do you have anything to add to that sentiment? Maybe a pro-forma, rather than feelings?
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can discuss if a society should have a certain amount of GDP invested into defense and i'm not necessarily against it. I would think educating people properly is good, I also think the swizz model is good in sense of everyone learns to handle a gun and can have it at home (as long as high security standards are set and its taken very serious). It could be used as a tool to strengthen societies responsibility, comm…
I think that's less true than the media would have you believe. We're undergoing a lot of propaganda about how effective Ukraine is against Russia, but that's despite most European countries practically immolating their own stockpiles of defence capability, and they're doing so somewhat unoformily (while Russia does everything they can to weaken the European homogeneity; see their funding into brexit and anti-EU seni…
My statement still stands, we do not need to increase defence spending to beat russia.
You said something different though: "We need to increase defence spending to have as little as human risk as possible".
I wouldn't call it naive, more optimistic. And even before Ukraine, we do have military. EU has high tec military.
Even before Ukraine, the EU spend more in military than Russia.
And regarding resources for Ukraine: We do fight a proxy war. We are not fighting Russia directly. This means some people don't want to spend money and resources on this, we are nog aligned across europe and it is always very unclear how and how much we help. This would look differently if russia would declare war against the EU.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Space is not lucrative or profitable. The SpaceX profit story rests entirely on Starlink. Starlink has a plausible moat servicing ships at sea and extreme remote areas. The big problem for Starlink is that they are trying to grow into a shrinking TAM, as terrestrial wireless expands with ever cheaper equipment ever farther into the countryside that Starlink is counting on for their TAM. Elon's visions border on s…
> No. Space is not lucrative or profitable Yet. To be clear, I don't support SpaceX specifically, but the amount of resources available to us from beyond our planet are quite literally infinite, only bounded by our ability to move fast enough to get it. Comets that routinely pass by our planet have rare-earth metals in quantities that we don't even have on the planet at all. Hell, that's where our rare earth metals c…
How many decades ago were people hyping space manufacturing? Where are the space factories? Where are the profits?
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#437With 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'
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would we do the whole industrial revolution thing on whale oil and lumber? Whales would most certainly be extinct by now, thats for sure. 100 years later is an immense amount of extra human suffering, not to say that reaching current level would most certainly take much much longer than 100 extra years. Im sorry but this whole tirade is just delusional. Its cheaper and better to replace all use of fossil fuels wi…
Because people didn't care that oil and gas is breaking our planet 100 years ago. Or didn't knew and capitalism made the people in power very very rich very fast. At that time we still lived and heated normally. For sure the brits destroyed a lot of their trees but you know? They could. What do you think would have happened if we had a small population collaps at that time and HAD to consume sustainable? We would be…
The first EV an the first solar panel are second order effects and only possible because of the industrial revolution driving massive human innovation and growth. Good luck reaching the levels of industrialization and tech required to mass produce solar panels by using wood. Producing 1 ton of charcoal from wood, requires 4-7 tons of wood. To smelt a single ton of iron you then again need multiple tons of coal. Good luck industrializing without turning the whole planet into woodchopping and wood planting farm. It was all made possible by fossil coal, oil and gas.
Everything is essentially downstream of industrialization enabled by coal and subsequently the superior oil and gas.
And saying that oil and gas was breaking our planet doesn't make sense, if anything these are great replacements of coal.
You are also diminishing the brutal life of pre-industrialization times. Staggering high child-mortality rates, low life expectancy, and an high amounts of deaths caused by starvation and extreme weather events, like droughts and floods.
Solar plus battery takes many years to be paid back. If this setup is actually cheaper, industrial scale solar+battery would be huge. Solar on its own is a great cheap pairing with stable energy sources like hydro, gas and coal, which is partly why china is doing this.
People do actually adopt green tech when it makes financially sense, just look at the huge boom of adoption of AC and heatpumps around the world. Because it massively reduces electricity cost of heating and cooling.
Its not because people cant do math.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of people actually dont realize the value it gives humanity. Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas. How is this short therm value for people using them? They are drivers of the most fundamental stuff in our day to day lives. Either enabling billions of people cheap efficient transport, efficient agriculture producing cheap food, ch…
> Lots of people think we would have been better of in an alternate universe where we never discovered oil & gas. Who? Other than strawmen, I mean.
You must not be very much exposed to the environmental movement, or be much online, if you havent seen this.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Let the market decide... They're changing the rules on inclusion ... You have the market deciding and the rules changing in the same paragraph and nothing's bothering you. I genuinely envy your peace of mind, my friend. Some of us are truly blessed.
Just be honest with yourself. The only reason you and others have an issue is because of politics. You don't like Musk for whatever reason and now you're very opinionated about the internal workings of index selection, when prior to reading about it in the NYT or something, you had no idea.
You don't care about the arcane byzantine process, you think rocket man is bad. I feel bad for people that get so easy manipulated. It's a hell of a way to live your life, waking up and reading corporate media to tell you what you should be angry about today