I am thinking of moving over my investments from S&P 500 to S&P 500 ESG, as they have excluded SpaceX and Tesla.
$XVV (iShares ESG Select Screened S&P 500 ETF) holds $TSLA
SRI and ESG advanced funds exclude Tesla.
Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
341–350 of 560 posts
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#342Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#343I am waiting to see if the same outrage will be in place when Anthropic and OpenAI go public. This surely isn't just a dislike of a certain individual, is it?
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#344I 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…
If it's so valuable why don't you want to buy it from the Russians and the Gulf?
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... 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 -- Greenla…
Why wouldn't Denmark agree? Danish and Greenlandic politicians have reminded the US several times that more bases can be established under the terms of this treaty.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#346Earlier 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…
> 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 ig…
>> The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent.
> No they aren’t.
That’s exactly what IRIS [0] is though…
[0] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-s...
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#347I 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’s more about trying to help the cleaner energy sources get off the ground, rather than a purely financial incentive.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If it's so valuable why don't you want to buy it from the Russians and the Gulf?
We do want to buy it from the Gulf. It’s just that a certain country started a certain war and this is now off the table.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#349I 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.
Dimensional runs a bunch of ETFs which are effectively US & world equity index trackers that don’t slavishly follow the indices & can therefore avoid being forced to buy into IPOs or index updates. E.g. DFUS is effectively VTI (IIRC) without the requirement to immediately buy into IPOs that are added to the index: https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/funds/dfus/us-equity-market-etf I don’t think they have a QQQ equivale…
I knew that would be a Ben Felix vid. He's awesome.
Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'
#350Apologies 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?
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 self parody. If I told you that humanoid robots were going to be digging tunnels for the Boring Company you'd have to stop and think if I was pulling your leg.