Option 1: Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars, and maybe abuses the corporate entity a bit, as a piggy bank, or whatever. Option 2: the market has control, and optimizes for short term starlink revenue and the launch business. I prefer Option 1.
Tesla is already publically traded. It's valuation depends on investors buying into Musks vision.
As a rule, investors optimize for long term growth since that's what maximizes valuations. All the megacap companies are judged by future growth.
The effect is companies tend to exaggerate and lie about what they can achieve in the long term to juice their own stock. Elon's def got the juice.
I'm more worried about the early inclusion into the Nasdaq 100 index and if other indexes will follow. I don't want my retirement to be passively buying Elon's latest shell game.
This is why he (and other billionaires) are pining to get Social Security replaced with an indexed based retirement fund?
Who knows, I mean it would certainly make it easier for them to turn the entire population into their bag holders. Don't even have to hype the company any more or spin up a bunch of bullshit about space.
Option 1: Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars, and maybe abuses the corporate entity a bit, as a piggy bank, or whatever. Option 2: the market has control, and optimizes for short term starlink revenue and the launch business. I prefer Option 1.
If you want Option 1, then stay a private company. Don't ask the public for money and then not provide any of the corporate requirements under the SEC for the proper operation of the markets. You can't have both.
You can, e.g. Zuck/Meta. (I understand you are making a moral argument, not a legal one, I understand it, I disagree, courts disagree too)
I'm more worried about the early inclusion into the Nasdaq 100 index and if other indexes will follow. I don't want my retirement to be passively buying Elon's latest shell game.
Yeah this is pretty shady. The S&P 500 in particular has fairly strict criteria (e.g. 4 consecutive quarters of profitability) and those criteria exist for a reason. They made me more comfortable buying the S&P 500 knowing I'm not buying pre-revenue companies. This is a bad precedent to set just to please Elon.
I’d love to hear one of you staunch capitalists tell me why the description of this persons control over 13,000+ employees is any different than a feudal “Lord” Over the entire lifetime of SpaceX Nearly 100% of the revenue comes from the government They pay gifts and tributes to the government They spend an absurd amount of money on lobbying and writing laws to take monopoly control of the subsection of the market Wh…
Why lie about something that's easily proven false with a Google search? Over last 5 years government revenue is under 25% and if you go off of last 2 years its closer to like 10-15% (and declining!) Starlink is the vast majority of spacex revenue
You don’t need to accuse someone of lying when correcting them.
I’d love to hear one of you staunch capitalists tell me why the description of this persons control over 13,000+ employees is any different than a feudal “Lord” Over the entire lifetime of SpaceX Nearly 100% of the revenue comes from the government They pay gifts and tributes to the government They spend an absurd amount of money on lobbying and writing laws to take monopoly control of the subsection of the market Wh…
Why lie about something that's easily proven false with a Google search? Over last 5 years government revenue is under 25% and if you go off of last 2 years its closer to like 10-15% (and declining!) Starlink is the vast majority of spacex revenue
Option 1: Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars, and maybe abuses the corporate entity a bit, as a piggy bank, or whatever. Option 2: the market has control, and optimizes for short term starlink revenue and the launch business. I prefer Option 1.
Tesla is already publically traded. It's valuation depends on investors buying into Musks vision. As a rule, investors optimize for long term growth since that's what maximizes valuations. All the megacap companies are judged by future growth. The effect is companies tend to exaggerate and lie about what they can achieve in the long term to juice their own stock. Elon's def got the juice.
Investors should optimize for long term growth, yes. The problem is Management (CEO, etc.) will get fired if things look bad. So the incentive for management, if they can get fired, is to ensure monotonic increase. Sometimes — especially for a rocket company! — you should be allowed to fail for a few years. You should be allowed to take big swings, without risk of getting fired. If Elon knows he is in control, he can think long-term. If he's at risk of being let go if things look bleak, his optimization function will be different (and, IMO, net worse for society).
Why lie about something that's easily proven false with a Google search? Over last 5 years government revenue is under 25% and if you go off of last 2 years its closer to like 10-15% (and declining!) Starlink is the vast majority of spacex revenue
You don’t need to accuse someone of lying when correcting them.
> Elon has control and optimizes for cool shit and going to Mars This trope needs to die. SpaceX has no plans to go to Mars. Elon meanwhile regularly says forward looking stuff to attempt to justify the lofty valuations of his companies. Let's just say there is a ... mixed track record on these proclamations (Full self driving, Hyperloop anyone?)
This trope has to die. SpaceX Starship design is optimized for Mars (instead of Blue Origin NG) and the gigantic Starship Factory and multiple launch pads under construction in Texas, Florida and Louisiana (plus potentially foreign countries) only make sense with Mars.
This is subjective, there are companies that are mostly an investment vehicle and companies that have a strong motivation to make changes in the world. Investors, especially passive investors like pension funds that are only interested in returns, should know in advance what they are getting into and decide if they want to buy shares or not; it should not be "I will buy shares and try to change the company". I worked…
As investors for other people, the pension funds, have a fiduciary responsibility to ask questions. I don't care if Space X is changing the world or making potato chips for consumers. If you read the article, they have concerns about the governance structure of Space X and the ability of investors to question what the company is doing.
I think the investors should NOT invest if they don't like the governance structure. This is calling "voting with your wallet".