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

501–510 of 560 posts

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#501

Post by sublimefire »

nradov wrote: post #490
noodlesUK wrote: post #371

I think European countries need to get serious about investing money locally. The UK is a particularly egregious example but it’s taking begging and pleading with the mansion house accord to even convince pensions to try to invest in the UK economy. Every country should make a portion of local (at least within Europe) investment a prerequisite for whatever favourable tax treatment pensions and similar products get. S…

Requiring local investing by pension funds would be rather like pushing on a rope. Until more European countries get serious about a growth agenda and reducing government interference in free markets there won't be many good investment opportunities.

Everyone is serious about it but the problem lies in capital markets and investment funds and the fact that Europe is not a single country (multiple languages, slight difference in some laws). Banks tend to be too conservative and local investment vehicles are much smaller compared to what you can get in US. You are pretty much free to do anything you want otherwise, eg recent defense startups. What is more ageing population does not help and puts “a bit” of strain on the taxation.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#502

Post by NoahZuniga »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #425
NoahZuniga wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging a pension fund by how it performs in a bull market seems wrong. Like their main job is to limit your downside from market crashes (if they're not doing that then they offer nothing compared to an index fund), so its strange to not include 2008 crisis (or .com bubble popping). Checking this shows that the top 2 performers in this graph lost more money (~8%) in 2008 than the bottom 2 (~2%)

Judging a pension by how it performs in 2008 seems wrong. Like their main job is to perform well over long periods of time compared to other funds. Checking this shows that 12 years is longer than 1 year, and thus is a better metric.

well I agree, my point is that ie 2007-2021 is better than 2009-2021, and with my example I meant to illustrate that the best performers will perform less well and the poor performers perform better if you include 2008, showing that this does in fact matter.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#503

Post by HWR_14 »

bluecalm wrote: post #375

The issue is raised a lot but there is less and less time and I don't think it will hit mainstream before IPO is done and pension funds/passive investors will be forced to buy it. It really does look bad: low float multiplier rule (that will overweight SpaceX) introduced very recently, fast inclusion mechanism, insiders being allowed to sell faster than usual etc. It all looks like an orchestrated dump into passive i…

It will overweight SpaceX less than the old rule which was binary and weighed at 100% as soon as the float passed 10%. Which based on rolling lockout periods will probably be in the fall.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#504

Post by Gomotono »

derektank wrote: post #469
Gomotono wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe is still a democracy and while its apparently not relevant in the US America, Elon Musk as the richest person on the planet directly tried to involve him in europe elections.

In a liberal society governed by laws, increased scrutiny must follow evidence of wrongdoing, not mere association. If European countries have problems with Musk’s conduct (lord knows I do) they should either pass legislation targeting behavior he has engaged in that is not already illegal, or charge him with a crime/bring a civil suit against him if he has violated existing law. To be clear, this has already happene…

If a society fights an entity with extrem inbalance like wealth or power, i don't think principle of the generality of law is critical here.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#505

Post by scoofy »

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.

The secondary market isn’t where morally dubious choices get made.

There is a huge difference between funding oil extraction that is happening anyway, and funding a company to start extracting oil.

However, this is the intersection of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue theory.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#506

Post by T-A »

copx wrote: post #395
Geezus_42 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX isn't opening space to everyone. They're are preparing for the select few to be able to escape once the earth is no longer sustainable due to their own efforts.

Actually given that the first colonists on Mars will live pretty miserable lives before dying early of radiation poisoning Musk and Co are trying to recruit other people to move there. Musk, Thiel, Bezos etc. none of these guys have ever said they want to move there.

https://www.cnet.com/culture/elon-musk-at-sxsw-id-like-to-di...

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#507

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

Geee wrote: post #443
SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is Tesla destroying the planet? In my mind, Tesla is one of the most important companies in transition to clean energy. Yet it got dropped from the S&P ESG index. ESG is just another phony way for someone to manipulate stock prices, because it's decided by some committee with arbitrary and opaque ways. And that's why no one takes it seriously any more.

> How is Tesla destroying the planet? In my mind, Tesla is one of the most important companies in transition to clean energy. Yet it got dropped from the S&P ESG index.

ESG is more than just the environment. In Tesla's case, Elon Musk's governance is a serious risk to the corporation.

> ESG is just another phony way for someone to manipulate stock prices, because it's decided by some committee with arbitrary and opaque ways.

Right now as we speak, a bunch of "arbitrary opaque committees" are deciding to rush SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI into the major stock indexes.

Even completely passive investment leaves one at the whims of said committees.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#508

Post by rsync »

roysting wrote: post #372
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.

You are making a mistake in equating several things here. Not only is this SpaceX IPO that has latched itself onto pensions through accelerated inclusion in the S&P100 and other funds a different and rather unique matter, but excluding harmful industries is really rather stupid of people who oppose those industries. If, e.g., all those who opposed those industries had instead bought the industry stock, the people wit…

"... a stock is like if you went to some second hand/thrift store and bought a brand of clothing that was reviled for some reason or another, i.e., use of child sex slave labor, you giving a thrift store money to wear the second hand clothing not only does not benefit the reviled company ..."

This is incorrect and, frankly, ridiculous especially in light of your own scoffing at the "foolishness" of others.

The secondary market value for company stock has a direct impact on current and sustained operations in areas including, but not limited to:

- the ability to sell debt and the interest rates at which it can be sold

- the ability to attract and retain executive "talent" with stock compensation

- the ability to attract - or ward off - takeovers and buyouts from other firms

- the ability to expand operations, or development, through follow-up offerings

Your observation of this basic truth (that company shares purchased by at-large market participants don't yield funds directly to the firm) is, of course, correct.

However it is not as profound a factor as you think it is.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#509

Post by lefra »

scoofy wrote: post #505
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.

The secondary market isn’t where morally dubious choices get made. There is a huge difference between funding oil extraction that is happening anyway, and funding a company to start extracting oil. However, this is the intersection of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue theory.

Both are asking for money to extract oil (and hopefully sell it for more money). I don't see why the oil well being already drilled or not should make a difference if I don't want to invest in CO2-producing endeavours.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#510

Post by scoofy »

lefra wrote: post #509
scoofy wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The secondary market isn’t where morally dubious choices get made. There is a huge difference between funding oil extraction that is happening anyway, and funding a company to start extracting oil. However, this is the intersection of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue theory.

Both are asking for money to extract oil (and hopefully sell it for more money). I don't see why the oil well being already drilled or not should make a difference if I don't want to invest in CO2-producing endeavours.

The point is that in the secondary market, the oil will be extracted regardless. By you not participating, you actually increase the return on equity for others, making it more profitable. Buying the stock does not add money into the business.

The area for disincentivizing oil production is the political sphere, not the financial sphere. Refusing to participate in secondary market ownership does almost less than nothing to disincentivize the extraction. At least with ownership, you get a say in the firms harm mitigation.

Post reply on HN