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

531–540 of 560 posts

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#531

Post by aurareturn »

tristanj wrote: post #521
aurareturn wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to know what your analysis. This is a genuine request. No snark. I'm genuinely curious of other view points.

I'll mention the ones no one else is talking about. The Golden Dome buildout will deliver $200-300 billion in revenue to SpaceX through 2040 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_s... . Golden Dome is only viable with low-cost Starship, and SpaceX will build the satellites housing the radars, IR detectors, interceptors, and backbone communications network. The interceptors themselves will likely…

Cool. If it drops, I might buy a few shares.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#532

Post by roysting »

goobatrooba wrote: post #447
roysting wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While not wrong, your perspective is very simplistic. A company gains massively from strong stock performance - they can issue more shares to raise capital, give handouts, take loans at better rate, pursue M&A with stock payment, ... So anyone who buys stock they ethically disagree with is certainly supporting that company - and inversely not using those funds to the advantage of other companies that they find morall…

I get your point and it is the reason I said “most of the time”. But frankly, what I think the perspective you espouse here is suffering from, is a kind of grandiosity and self-righteous moralization of the very kind that is self-defeating, because it misses the scope and scale of things. In other words, the perceived/expected and the actual effect are very far divergent.

Someone saying “I’ll show that mean ol’ corporation the business by not buying their product but buying their competitor’s product” or the like, is the very same kind of trap that this fake “democracy” of the western world produces, where effectively everyone who votes with any sense of that being an effective activity, simply does not understand that the whole system is captured and rigged against them. It’s all a managed illusion, a carnival game, a flashing, dinging, blinging, chiming slot machine that makes you think “I’m do close, I can tell…oh, well, better luck next time” when the behavior and signals are all programmed to play on well understood patterns of psychological behaviors of hope and despair.

It’s precisely why the ruling class cheers on and supports democracy so much … because it really is so great for them… and it makes the commoners think it’s great for them at the same time. So rather than the “activists” of the 60s having had billions upon billions in wealth they could have used to prevent wars and corporate evil we see all over the place today (assuming they would have done that, which is a bit of a stretch considering the “boomers” today), they have little more than moralization and virtue signaling.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#533

Post by ChoosesBarbecue »

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…

> If a catalytic number of those had formed, they could have also even made real impact through shareholder initiatives and actions demanding changes by pressuring board members who rely on votes, etc.

For SpaceX, from Matt Levine [0]:

> SpaceX will have dual-class stock, with Class B shares getting 10 votes per share. Musk owns 93.6% of the Class B (and 12.3% of the low-vote Class A), for total voting power of 85.1%.[5] Tesla does not have dual-class stock, Musk is a minority owner, and he has worried aloud about the risk of losing control of Tesla’s robot army because he doesn’t have voting control of the company. Not a problem at SpaceX! Build all the robot armies you want!

> Because of Musk’s voting control, SpaceX is a “controlled company” under stock exchange rules, so it doesn’t have to have a majority of independent directors or an independent compensation committee. So the board of directors can be made up of Musk’s buddies, and they can pay him whatever they want.

> Even aside from controlling 85% of the voting stock, Musk gets to appoint a majority of the board of directors himself, without the Class A shareholders even voting.[6]

Does not sound like this is remotely true for SpaceX, then?

[0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spa... (the other footnotes are from the article itself)

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#534

Post by stingraycharles »

tordrt wrote: post #366
stingraycharles wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more about trying to help the cleaner energy sources get off the ground, rather than a purely financial incentive.

How much extra investment to you think green tech companies get for pension funds excluding investment in this sector? They also only invest in publicly listed companies, not green startups. To me it seems like the exclusion is based on them viewing it immoral to invest in these companies.. I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption of fossil fuels in countries where we can afford it and use the mon…

> I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption of fossil fuels in countries where we can afford it

With the power that these companies have over the politicians through lobbying, that’s unlikely to happen.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#535

Post by tristanj »

thg wrote: post #528
tristanj wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starship in its current incomplete form (v3 fully expendable ship and booster) already has the lowest cost to orbit in $/kg of any launch vehicle ever. It's around $400/kg to orbit fully expendable. Add in booster reuse, which SpaceX has already demonstrated on test flight 9, and the cost to orbit drops to $200/kg.

A fully reusable Starship has a launch cost of around $75m - $90m and the last V3 launch managed 44 tonnes of payload on a sub-orbital flight of not even 200km (Starlink satellites have an orbit of around 550km). That's an optimistic launch cost of $1.700/kg for a rather meaningless altitude and assuming a fully reusable Starship that doesn't keep blowing up. I have no idea where you pulled your $400/kg number from,…

There's so much wrong here, a ton to unpack.

> A fully reusable Starship has a launch cost of around $75m - $90m

No, that's the Starship build cost, i.e. the cost of an expendable Starship. A fully reusable Starship currently does not exist, but reusable launch cost be around $5m/launch (amortized).

> the last V3 launch managed 44 tonnes of payload

Intentional, Starship wasn't fully loaded.

> on a sub-orbital flight

Intentional, test flights are sub-orbital.

> of not even 200km

Intentional, done to target the landing site in the Indian Ocean.

> That's an optimistic launch cost of $1.700/kg

You can do basic math, but you are intentionally using incorrect numbers. Garbage in, garbage out.

> I have no idea where you pulled your $400/kg number from

Starship V3 manufacturing cost (one-off, not mass manufactured) is around $80-100m. Mass manufactured V3 would be in the $50m range. Starship V3 has 100T payload capacity to orbit in reusable config, see https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/05/future-starship-bloc... . In expendable config, Starship can carry 200T, see https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2026/04/16/detailed-review-of-sta...

Using today's numbers, we get:

$80 million / 200 tons = $400/kg to orbit (fully expendable).

This number is already exaggerated, the booster is already proven to be reusable.

If the current Starship is mass produced, this improves to $50 million / 200 tons = $250/kg to orbit (fully expendable).

> To be economical at all, Starship needs to reach its target capacity of 100 tonnes to orbit

You do realize the Starship + Booster stack weighs 5,000 tons, and that a 100 ton payload is only 2% of the rocket mass? And that 2% is an achievable fraction, both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have a payload fraction >4%. The Starship upper stage alone weighs 1,600 tons.

> refueling requirements

In terms of problem difficulty, orbital refueling is a minor engineering challenge to solve.

> fuel boil-off in orbit

I hope you are being facetious at this point. How do you think LNG is transported around the world? You realize this problem was solved decades ago?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#536

Post by xorcist »

davedx wrote: post #391
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.

If you want to make money, buying SpaceX stock isn't the way to do it This is about valuation not ESG

ESG is supposed to be about valuations, long-term. People conventiently tend to forget that when it doesn't suit them. It has been shown over and over again that it is a working predictor of valuation, in which it is not alone of course. Economy students regularly invent such predictors. And the dirty little secret about ESG is that it is probably G that is doing the heavy lifting. Companies without good governance seldom survive the first change of leadership.

No one in the green movement ever spoke about "ESG" as if that was a thing. It is an investor thing. Invented by bank economists, to sell financial products. It's not like your local environmentally concious hippie type figure would suddenly start investing in Shell, just because they improved their ESG score.

Does it work as a predictor for company valuation? It seems so. But it would probably have worked better if you separated E and G, because they have nothing to do with one another. Will it work in the future? No one knows. Once you start gaming these things, all initial bets are off by a lot.

Just don't say "valuation, not ESG". It does not make sense. If you mean "short term valuation, not long term", then just say so.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#537

Post by [deleted] »

NoahZuniga wrote: post #502
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#538

Post by [deleted] »

carlosjobim wrote: post #307
pimeys wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... Strip searching and jailing young German girls in the border is not something I hear happening very often in countries like Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland... Actually I have not heard that happening even once! My American partner has crossed the German border countless of times from US. Before they got an EU passport, even then the border queue was prompt and the guard sometimes asked a joke in German and…

> Actually I have not heard that happening even once! Have you heard that happening more than once? Having your luggage searched, long interrogations, dog sniffing, and then more interrogations - that has been common on international borders. All for no other reason than the border guard didn't like your face. That's my real life experience as a person who used to travel a lot. And many others I've met told similar s…

[deleted]

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#539

Post by pickleRick243 »

I'm just curious- how many of you changed your portfolio allocation last April because "obviously" the Trump tariffs would tank the market? If you had similar thoughts when TSLA joined the S&P 500, what are your thoughts on its performance since then?

You are welcome to your investment opinions, but just know the level of sophistication here is more or less comparable to a wallstreetbets thread telling people to diamond hand Gamestop. At least there, what they accomplished was surprisingly clever- force liquidating short hedge funds via a bunch of shitposting.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#540

Post by burnerRhodov3 »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #323
apexalpha wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defensive weapons are very much needed in Europe…

The new asymmetric reality is mostly short/medium range drones, ECMs and hypersonic missles. Loitering munitions are going to make tanks mostly obsolete and Jets are too expensive to risk over enemy territory that still has working radar/anti-air except for large shock&awe actions. A lot of this stuff is hard to stop and too cheap to effectively stop economically anyhow, the best solution is distance and preemptive s…

we have seen .005 radar ap is the most important because drones aren't long range enough in a real war. Ukraine and Russia should be looked at as a local conflict and not indicative how a real "war" would be fought now.
Post reply on HN