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

81–90 of 560 posts

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#81

Post by Danox »

rvz wrote: post #6

Good. Would love to buy SpaceX stock at a 90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction.

Why is it a good thing to buy something that is financially not well run up front, and usually things don’t get better as time goes on however, if you’re in first, you can just sell it down the road and let someone else hold the bag in time.

Tesla was a great ride if you got in early but long-term from this point on if you had any significant amount of money, why would you buy them now? Unless you like sleepless nights…

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#82

Post by rchaud »

hparadiz wrote: post #13
rvz wrote: post #6

Good. Would love to buy SpaceX stock at a 90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction.

Imagine not wanting to own a piece of the first company to make a re-usable orbital class booster.

With this governance structure, you won't actually own anything. Ownership implies that you have a say as a shareholder.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#83

Post by philwelch »

fluidcruft wrote: post #14

It's really concerning given how the indexes are changing rules to fast-track SpaceX being forced into index funds. S&P is also working on updates to S&P 500 to force it down everyone's throats quickly and algorithmically.

Almost all of the YoY growth in the S&P500 is in a very small number of tech companies. If one of those fast-growing tech companies isn't in the S&P500, the index as a whole becomes obsolete.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#84

Post by lostlogin »

hparadiz wrote: post #39
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine not wanting to own a piece of the first company to make a re-usable orbital class booster. They didn't say they didn't want to own it, they said they wanted to own it at a : "90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction." It is possible for a company to be both technically impressive and horrifically overvalued.

I think it's undervalued.

If Musk thought that, why would he need to have all the rules changed?

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#85

Post by amanaplanacanal »

hparadiz wrote: post #39
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine not wanting to own a piece of the first company to make a re-usable orbital class booster. They didn't say they didn't want to own it, they said they wanted to own it at a : "90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction." It is possible for a company to be both technically impressive and horrifically overvalued.

I think it's undervalued.

Have you looked at the S1? The valuation is not based on launchers, it's based on all the potential money they can make as an AI company. Given that they are probably not even in the top 10 in that business, it's just pie in the sky.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#86

Post by logifail »

hparadiz wrote: post #71
MBCook wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. At this point burying money in jars in the back yard and forgetting where some are has a much higher rate of return.

Using Google’s own IPO S-1 / SEC filings: Year Revenue Net income / loss 1998 Not reported 1999 $220k -$6.076M 2000 $19.108M -$14.690M Do you guys not know what a loss lead is?

> Do you guys not know what a loss lead is?

We don't know which of today's companies will be successful and/or highly-valued in N years' time.

Check Cisco's valuation on March 27, 2000; it was briefly the most valuable publically traded company in the world. Almost everyone believed it was worth it. Then it fell 88% over two years.

Full disclosure: some of us are old enough to have held stocks during the dot-com boom. Fortunately I was still a student and therefore too poor to have had any significant amount of money to lose :)

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#87

Post by wombatpm »

hparadiz wrote: post #13
rvz wrote: post #6

Good. Would love to buy SpaceX stock at a 90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction.

Imagine not wanting to own a piece of the first company to make a re-usable orbital class booster.

SpaceX is now an AI company with a rocket side hustle. At least that’s how the S1 looks.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#88

Post by Danox »

hparadiz wrote: post #30
horsawlarway wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I also don't want to eat a tasty morsel if you roll it around in the dirt and serve it up covered in bugs and hair. And that's basically what SpaceX is right now after you account for xAI and twitter in the mix. So I'd love to own a piece of the SpaceX from a decade ago - but the current offering smells pretty bad. Combined with the fact that at this point, Musk clearly isn't opposed to running a business with…

The current SpaceX is in a far better financial and operational position than 10 years ago. By an order of magnitude. 90% of all payload to orbit right now is SpaceX alone. Starlink is profitable all on it's own. Right now. And they are just now picking up steam. American Airlines just signed onto Starlink just last week. This company is most likely gonna be the Coca-Cola of transportation between celestial bodies in…

SpaceX is completely dependent upon the government. If said government decides to move on then what long-term and they will move on because of China, Russia and the EU but mostly because of China.

This brief dalliance in private enterprise in space will not last long-term.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#89

Post by MadxX79 »

hparadiz wrote: post #71
MBCook wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. At this point burying money in jars in the back yard and forgetting where some are has a much higher rate of return.

Using Google’s own IPO S-1 / SEC filings: Year Revenue Net income / loss 1998 Not reported 1999 $220k -$6.076M 2000 $19.108M -$14.690M Do you guys not know what a loss lead is?

But Google didn't go public until 2004, when they were highly profitable.

Every startup goes through a phase where they aren't profitable... For most of of them that ends when they go bankrupt.

Re: Danish Pension Blacklists SpaceX over 'Catastrophic Governance'

#90

Post by mrweasel »

tclancy wrote: post #36
hparadiz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Didn't we have a story just yesterday that Anthropic's run-rate now looks like $49 billion/ year and they might have their first quarterly profit? I would suggest if you have billions of dollars coming in the door and aren't breaking even, maybe you do have a small leak somewhere?

Part of that potential profitability is reportedly coming the fact that they get a discount on compute from SpaceX in May and June. Anthropic and SpaceX signing a contract where Anthropic leases datacenter capacity for the low low price of $1.25 billion per month, except for the first two month when they get some sort of discount.

Anthropics expected profitable quarter just happens to be the quarter were their cost is artificially low?

Post reply on HN