https://akademikerpension.dk/ansvarlighed/ekskluderede-selsk...
Good to see it isn't necessarily the case.
The old man is a caricature of Jens Stoltenberg (who seems to be running the Norwegian economic machine rather well nowadays, controversial or not)
Which is exactly why you wouldn't put it in a company with a ridiculous valuation.
This is about valuation not ESG
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.
In turn you also want democratically elected politicians above that saying “yes, but the people want their money made ethically, so you can’t do that”.
> "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 sovereign funds. A long term investment fund that optimizes for the next quarter at the expense of the long term is a bad fund.
And so the ESG and woke "hippie bullshit" is nothing more than the basic capitalism of maximizing your gains by 2100 by not destroying the one planet all your companies are on.
Long term funds do not have the luxury of being passive owners. If they take no role in management, that role will instead by taken by whatever short-term owner walks in next. They don't care about the value by 2100, they just want the company to tear the copper out of it's own walls so they can sell with a profit by next quarter, retail even sooner.
If nothing else, at least these should be choice of users to let them choose based on their values and requirements.
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…
Why are we pretending that slavery doesn't provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that it's horrible to invest or support building out any slavery production whatsoever?
Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to Africa...
___________________________________
Snide comparisons aside, I'd just say that we can accept that fossil fuels played a gigantic and important role in getting us to where we are, and also acknowledge that we'll continue to need fossil fuels in the near future, but that does *not* mean that we need to accept that investment in even more expansion of the fossil fuel industry is a good idea.
A lot of this stuff is hard to stop and too cheap to effectively stop economically anyhow, the best solution is distance and preemptive strikes at staging areas.
Do we need Americans weapons? Unlikely and probably counter-productive long-term. Do we need European weapons? Hell yeah!
The amount of military spending europe has, is already higher than russia.
Russia clearly showed how incapable they are, they are not even able to present modern war technology at their freedom parade.
And china we don't fight china.
I'm not a huge fan of Elon Musk but Tesla is a company that produces electric cars (mostly in western countries with half-decent labour laws), it's not associated with any of those things.
I guess one could argue with some merit that the governance is bad enough to exclude it on that basis alone?
https://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/Denmarks-Akademiker-Pens...
Then there's the autopilot misleading marketing, Cybertruck being glued together with spit glue and duct tape etc.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Worki...
And where would Norway be without fossil fuels, exactly? That's basically the sole source of your nation's wealth.
As for Tesla and other companies led by Elon Musk... well, yeah, F that guy. But don't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
Probably finding an ESG-focused ETF would do it. ESG basically meant "good governance, we follow laws" which translated into better governed public companies that therefore had better returns, as one would expect. Really weird how it was politicized into something entirely different...
P.S. Here's an example of S&P500 without the magnificent 7 https://www.defianceetfs.com/xmag/
You can just short SpaceX of an amount equivalent to its share of your SP500 holdings. You will have to pay borrowing costs though, but on something that liquid it will be very small.
I think it's less complicated than you'd think.. just buy LEAPS puts proportional to your exposure.
Personally, a company should be making money before adding it to the index.
> Historically index providers were in the business of making these sorts of quality decisions, so that index funds were not forced to buy stocks they didn’t like.
> These rules create some tension between the idea that an index is a list of all the stocks and the idea that an index is a list of all the good stocks. Historically, it didn’t matter all that much: The point of the stock market is to tell you which stocks are good, so a company with a high stock valuation should be a very good company, so it should get a high weighting in both the Index of Good Companies and the Index of All the Companies.
> But SpaceX — and also maybe OpenAI and Anthropic in their coming IPOs — will probably break that link. SpaceX will probably (1) do all sorts of stuff that index funds hate and that index providers have specifically tried to exclude and also (2) be gigantic, because the market loves it.
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind...
What exactly is the risk to normal investors if that’s the case? If it’s all a big scam then they will trade lower and they’ll naturally be kicked out of the index.
This is a rule that will apply to all new companies. When Anthropic and OpenAI go public they will also benefit from the rule. Do you think the media/public will be just as outraged when they do it?
The goal of the S&P 500 is to keep the index representative of the US market. They have in fact changed rules in the past when market conditions have changed. These mega IPOs are an entirely new market condition, as private companies have never been this big before listing in history. So large that they immediately fall into the top 100 or 500 largest companies in the country.
There’s also the fact that Nasdaq is a private company and it now has competition from the new Texas exchange. SpaceX is actually dual-listing on TXSE and Nasdaq. Nasdaq needs to keep these giant IPO companies happy because if they don’t they will list on the competitor exchange which would be disastrous for Nasdaq (supercharging their competitor).
These things affect each other as well. Nasdaq wants to make sure they get the IPO on their exchange, so they include them in the Nasdaq 100. S&P 500 doesn’t want to be outdated by missing a trillion dollar company from their index, while other exchanges like the Nasdaq 100 include them.
There’s a real case to be made that this is just self interest on the part of the exchange and the other index providers.
These greedy capitalists are after the pension funds + retail investor (ETFs in particular) through IPOs but there's no profitability in sight.
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.
Yet.
To be clear, I don't support SpaceX specifically, but the amount of resources available to us from beyond our planet are quite literally infinite, only bounded by our ability to move fast enough to get it.
Comets that routinely pass by our planet have rare-earth metals in quantities that we don't even have on the planet at all. Hell, that's where our rare earth metals came from in the first place. Getting access to 100 million tonnes of platinum could totally change how we use the metal, right now it's most effective use is probably within catalytic converters to reduce emissions from cars.
Helium-3 and Deuterium in high quantities can be used as clean fusion fuel, basically clean atomic energy.
I struggle to see how these can't be lucrative in the long term.
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 the size of the distortion field, as Starlink is just an ISP, for which we have accurate valuations. And for what it concerns shareholders, a strictly worse one than a conventional ISP. Space infra is much more expenive than putting some glass in the ground, once.
Comcast is a behemoth of a company doing far more than just ISP. Worth a "mere" $90 billion. Charter Communications is a similarly sized "pure" telecom. Worth $20 billion.
Both of the above ISP companies have roughly 30 million subscribers. Starlink has 10 million. Yet they want $2 trillion at IPO.
A 20x to 100x overvaluation. And what do you get beyond an ISP?
* A private aerospace company that's not doing notably better than the space divisions of old aerospace. (Remember: Starlink is already accounted for so doesn't count here)
* An AI company that has so little demand it's currently handing a bunch of compute to Anthropic for such a deep discount the latter has claimed to become profitable.
* Twitter. Which is worth either $33b if you count Elon's internal buyout valuation, or $10b if you count realistic valuations.
While there is some hype around "The future of space!", the reality is that the long term growth for that is fairly dead in the current geopolitical climate. Nobody's saying it out loud yet but US Aerospace is being replaced. Fewer and fewer US launches will be bought. The EU is even building their own Starlink equivalent.
That or the good ol’ « dump it on retail » scheme
SpaceX is growing quite slowly. You could argue that Starship is likely to somewhat accelerate growth.
Starlink is doing well but also growing somewhat slow.
A more rational valuation would be 900b-1000b.
The rest is Musk and FOMO.
Yes, eventually, the humans have to sober up, and stock market valuations return to approximately what the economic theories say they should be. But the dangers of betting on that "eventually" are very well known: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/08/09/remain-solvent/
All this might not make sense in a standard business sense. Real profits might be decades away, who knows. Anyway, people are willing to throw their money at it, because they think it's important.
If they succeed in the long term, it'll easily be the most valuable company on Earth.
Most shareholders don't really care about the company they have shares in.
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/funds/dfus/us-equity-market-etf
(I have no relationship with Dimensional, nor do I invest in these funds - I just saw them mentioned in a YT video on this topic a few months ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqIHa6URUPk )
[1] https://fund-docs.vanguard.com/F0958.pdf
[2] https://www.msci.com/indexes/documents/methodology/2_MSCI_25...
[3] https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/6bafd9e3-0474-f03b-16bd...
[4] https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...
[5] https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/about.html
The problem is that the NASDAQ 100 and most likely also S&P 500, change their rules to permit SpaceX to be added early without traditional time for price discovery. It happens jsut five trading days before the major index rebalance.
After float adjustment SpaceX could be 1% of NASDAQ and 0.7% of SP500, but after full tranche escalation that takes over 130 days, SpaceX weight can be over 3% of NASDAQ and almost 2% of SP500 if the market cap stays near $1.5T.
(I think the price will decrease, so the weight will be smaller)
This is just a ploy to get exit liqudity as brikym, said. SpaceX collects enough capital to pay Twitter acquisition loans and then some, but the IPO not major boost for SpaceX finances. The coming merger with Tesla is clearly in the plans (C stocks).
If, e.g., all those who opposed those industries had instead bought the industry stock, the people with those ideals opposed to those industries could have at the very least profited from the sale of the stock...which the company itself basically does not see direct benefit from (you are not buying the stock from the company or giving the company any money in most case)...and used/committed that money to even greater opposition. 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.
It's one of those nonsensical, moralistic and ...sorry... foolish mindsets that common people have, the idea that simply by not participating the King will leave them be. The psychopathic narcissists in control will never leave you be, no matter how much you virtue signal by not buying their stock from someone else that is not the company or no matter how much you ask or how far you run and beg and ask to be left alone.
Frankly, although I am not certain that it was done intentionally, if I were a major mover and more powerful person, I would propose the very kind of moralizing, self-righteous campaign that has shot the commoners in their feet by getting them to simply check out and not participate in things the could have otherwise controlled a lot more.
So instead of people who actually care...but are clearly rather foolish...all/a disproportionate amount of control and power and money is left to those who do not have those qualms. Hence why none of this "excluding harmful industries" has affected anything whatsoever and we now have square mile measured AI data centers and tens of millions of low climate impact people being moved into high climate impact countries, and we have more war and death and addiction than humanity has seen in 90 years.
In case it is not yet clear to some of us, 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, but just alone wearing second hand clothing will likely have more a positive impact than guying some other company's clothing that will later turn out to have used regular child labor.
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)
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.
You want an ESG fund
Also I dont see how weapons companies are harmful. Unless you're so naive to think defense is not a thing any person or country has to worry about in 2026
You have the market deciding and the rules changing in the same paragraph and nothing's bothering you. I genuinely envy your peace of mind, my friend. Some of us are truly blessed.
The pension fund is the customer here. The market is already deciding. You're free to invest your own money as you see fit. The pension fund's money is not yours to decide what to do with.
https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/what-the-nasdaqs-new-fas...
Buuut if Anthropic does the same and lists on the Nasdaq then I might reconsider.
What’s holding you back? And what alternative investments are you considering?
I recently did homework to decide whether to double down on VOO (S&P 500 index) or to diversify via VXUS (ex-US index), and concluded VOO is better for my risk-adjusted ROI outlook and time horizon.
This just being an incomplete list or is there another reason you name the last two but not Google?
Yes their compute costs are astronomical, but that can be managed down over time by more efficiency or mild enshittification that doesn’t create too much churn.
It’s pretty depressing to be honest. I don’t know how I could work in any of these military industry companies.
Because no part of this statement is accurate. They’d like investors to believe it’s very rare but they have multiple strong competitors, most of whom have much better financials, and the entire sector is worried that the open models are going to effectively cap rates below what they need to pay off their massive investments. Lastly, they’re not universally must-have in software development which is one of the domains best suited for LLMs but most corporate work lacks similar correctness oracles and we’re already seeing major corporate customers reconsider the cost/benefit ratio.
None of that means they’re doomed but a lot of stars need to align for them to keep their valuation up. They don’t need to go out of business for investors to lose money buying in at the peak.
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…
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 dramatically inflated valuations based on vaporware, lies, & hype (cough - Tesla - cough) it just makes me far more skeptical than I might otherwise be.
I think caution is warranted here.
Essentially - I want to own the SpaceX that could have been if we didn't end up with the shoddy k-hole version of musk in charge of things.
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.
It doesn't matter if it's successful or not. Their space business is worth virtually nothing on paper and the funding structures and profit/loss accounts are scary.
And Starlink is a pretty big deal, particularly in a time of conflict where undersea cables are very vulnerable.
If Elon hadn't shifted so far to the right, these threads would be near-universally praising SpaceX despite Starship's struggles.
The unfortunate thing is, a lot of people have no idea this rule change has gone into effect, and that they're about to get fleeced by a bunch of professional investors.
https://www.kiplinger.com/investing/what-the-nasdaqs-new-fas...
It's legalized theft, and the victims are people least able to defend themselves from it. Most people have no idea what's in their retirement accounts, or track very closely what's being tracked by the index funds they've been told for decades was the safest way to invest in the stock market for non-pros.
Their skepticism seems pretty valid to me
So much wealth is tied up in pensions and it’s folly to let it all go to supporting the U.S. and eschew local investment altogether.
I’m not patriotic enough to spaff my compound interest opportunity on a bunch of dying tobacco, oil, & mineral extraction companies to put any of it to work in the FTSE250.
Even sovereign funds (example Norway) are invested in American tech, funds, and indexes.
It is interesting to think about (from the perspective of an immigrant to Norway) how I moved my life’s savings from the US to Norway.
I’m now fully invested into Norway (real estate, savings, and retirement).
My understand is that Norwegians (and the nordics) have historically looked up to the US as a world leader.
I think that is no longer true and maybe this decision by Denmark is a data point of how the Nordics are changing?
It kind of feels like we all have been caught holding the bag (US reserve currency) and now we have to carefully unwind our position.
I’ve lost my point. Maybe my goal here is to just contribute to this discussion to distract from the exhaustion.
But this has definitely changed for me now. The idea of crossing the border and having to flip a coin is the border control guy a nice guy or not is not appealing as a diabetic who needs his phone to be with him untampered and who doesn't want to sit in a cell somewhere for days/weeks because they posted a funny meme of a person you can't joke about. Or who just witnesses this absolute inequality happening, and who witnesses the leaders of this country coming to my country and giving their support for parties who want me to not marry and who doesn't want to see me existing.
I am just tired. And sad. I wish I could get our relationship back with the US but I don't know... Even if we backtrack from here, get back to the "olden times", it will take a moment until I can enjoy US again.
P.S. Conan is still a treasure!
Strategically modifying one’s pension fund choices to prevent having sub-prime companies bundled into a possible success is not a sign of anything. The Nordic nations will attempt to stay allied to the US because survival depends on it. They are much closer to the frontier and Western Europe’s ability and desire to protect them is substantially weaker.
In the event of a fall of NATO far western countries like Spain or Portugal will likely free-ride by virtue of their geography. The Finns get no such benefit.
As a Dane, I would say yes. Especially among boomers there was always a genuine appreciation of the US and its role as guardian of a rules-based international order and western civilization more generally.
I think that sentiment has gone, even as younger generations have increasingly incorporated English words, music, TV and more into their own, but you seldom hear the same genuine trust in the US as a force for good.
No, this is just standard pension fund governance.
[1] https://www.finanshus.dk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Pensions...
Checking this shows that the top 2 performers in this graph lost more money (~8%) in 2008 than the bottom 2 (~2%)
You want some risk-adjusted return metric parameterized by average returns and also volatility.
Checking this shows that 12 years is longer than 1 year, and thus is a better metric.
Musk is a prominent Trump/MAGA supporter, and Trump has threatened to annex Greenland by force. SpaceX is part of Trump's Golden Dome project, and one 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.
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 -- Greenland looks big on the map so he's fixated on it.
I agree that that is part of it, but there is more to it than that.
I interpret their management risk analysis as being more about the buss factor of 1 than it being about not liking musk, which I also think is a reasonable take.
It’s based on the total market and not artificially limited to a small number of large companies. Plus it’s free-float adjusted so only the publicly-tradable portion of SpaceX is considered when weighting its inclusion so it will constitute only a small portion of the fund. There is also a (small) mandatory delay period which I don’t recall between it going public and it becoming included in the index which should give time for the SpaceX valuation to stabilize on something notionally realistic.
Thankfully, Vanguard and its member funds are investor-owned so are likely more resilient against someone like Elon trying to change the rules.
And most index funds including Vanguard track an external index. So when the index changes the rules, Vanguard changes what it buys. Vanguard is also famous for always siding with the management, they take the activist side of any debate approximately 0% of the time, so don't expect them to be fighting this for you.
It's not a "scam" in the traditionnal sense, it's riding the bubble while it's there, stock value is "supposed" to be about the company performance and potential but technically it doesn't have to be, it's about what some people are willing to pay for it (the stock, not the product the company sells) and that's all. That's also why tesla has such a valuation.
You can see it in the comments even here and other thread about this IPO, some people read the numbers, and some have just religious sounding comments about it being the biggest revolution ever or making the history book etc ...
And that's also why they need to keep elon as CEO because in the scenario where they remove it and get the best car company CEO and become a great regular car company that works and ships lots of great car ... Their valuation would be reduced a factor of ten
If you believe SpaceX is overvalued or do not like the way it is being handled by the big index funds, again, use direct indexing.
akademikerpension is pretty decent fund, it is about 50/50 asset allocation, losing out by only .9% per year compare to a US equity/bond portfolio. Better than many active funds:
https://www.finanshus.dk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Pensions... https://testfol.io/?s=h8azNZvMICk
You do not like the valuation ? What should a company that launches 98% of the world's non government tonnage to space (80% if you include the Chinese government) be valued at ? The only company that has figured out how to very reliably launch at a sustained and rapid pace ? Pioneered and is perfecting rocket reuseability ? The only thing we can can say with a degree of certainty is that $2T is either very overvalued or very undervalued. If you believe that space will become a huge part of our economy in the future, and believe that SpaceX will play a significant role, $2T is cheap. Dirt cheap. The only way to prosper is to be bold.
For all those who come here to say that they do not like Elon or that the valuation is ridiculous, or that SpaceX will not succeed, that is perfectly fine - you are just a few clicks away from making it happen. Sell your assets and buy a direct indexing product, simply buy the stocks you want, buy ex-US, or any other number of options you can do on your phone with a few clicks. Less clicks than it takes to virtue signal on this forum.
The TAM of that is under $10 billion. So even owning that entire market shouldn't get you anywhere near a trillion. Then factor in the development cost of starship which has been going on forever and still hasn't even made it to orbit.
Even the IPO filing isn't claiming the value comes from the rockets but from data centers in space which seems questionable. The real cash cow right now is Starlink but they aren't leaning into that heavily because those numbers also indicate that revenue growth might be stalling out.
If you just look at the pure numbers the case is very weak. No reason to change the inclusion rules. In fact I'd argue they never should change the inclusion rules. Let the market find a price first. Index funds are supposed to be boring and track the market. Including any recent IPO just adds chaos beyond simply tracking the overall market. It's trivial to buy some SpaceX if one wants and unlike selling your entire fund holding either doesn't trigger a taxable event at all or it's a much smaller one if you cannot avoid it.
Many people have appreciated gains locked into their indexing products such that changing is very expensive.
The biggest issue is not SpaceX/Elon per se, but indexes bending over backwards for him and changing their indexing rules to fleece index investors.
Most IPOs perform badly, to the point where the SP500 excludes all of them for a year, and I think that is actually appropriate for an indexing product. Though they're looking to change that and their float weighting for Elon.
Though after doing some digging I am not personally meaningfully impacted since Vanguard uses CRSP, which is float weighted, so only 0.1% of that is going to be SpaceX and I can live with that.
I short the stock on the actual financials if I was exposed to it (and it was actually possible), but it's a small float and there are apparently tonnes of Elon fanboys propping up Tesla beyond belief already so I expect this to be one of the hardest to predict stocks/IPOs.
> The deal, with SpaceX, is that Elon Musk runs it however he wants, and he does weird stuff, and you have to trust him, and if you don’t like it you can’t complain.
> When SpaceX acquired xAI a few months ago, did a special committee of independent directors approve the transaction? Did Musk recuse himself from negotiations? Was the price set by independent valuation experts using a rigorous process? Did outside shareholders sue to block the deal? Stop. Musk wanted SpaceX to buy xAI, so it did.
> [...] Surely SpaceX has created all that shareholder value more because Musk does what he wants than in spite of Musk doing what he wants; it is hard to accidentally create $1.75 trillion of value. SpaceX’s shareholders signed up for this deal — letting Musk cook — and have been rewarded;
Similarly I don't understand why indicies are rushing to change their rules to allow SpaceX in. People accept a certain risk tolerance and changing the rules to ramp up the risk seems questionable at best.
https://www.ft.com/content/a401b0c0-fcc0-4bae-9f57-e8d5c0957...
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 investors/pension funds/other ETF holders.
Investing in IPOs is a terrible strategy historically. Here we have several mega IPOs incoming with rules being re-designed just for them to be included faster in your "passive" portfolio.
Yeah, for all the technical excellence by Shotwell and the team ... I don't want my ETF's and pensions buying into that piece of shit CEO and his corrupt 'at a whim' entity manipulation.
Sorry, fuck SpaceX
the piece explains how modern finance is de facto built on the shoulders of the privatization of the welfare state. i find it particularly relevant here: the finance class - in this case musk - wants pensioners money via mutual funds, even modifying the rules of indexing...
it’s not a great sight tbh.
Edit: glad to see vanguard VT tracks FTSE which isn’t impacted. The amount of overvalued spacex stock in VT will be minimal down the line as they use the amount of publicly available shares to calculate the weight in the index, which is the more sensible way to do it, Musk’s scam not withstanding.
Elon is rigging the stock market and getting index funds to invest in companies that are over-valued and thus not stable.
But, if the index funds don't then there are going to be quite a few shares dumped to make room for the SpaceX share. This could be interesting.
The whole market is running on fumes, most of the actual value of the physical economy has been extracted by the Epstein class. It will not be pretty when it implodes, and people have to actually make things for a living again. (I've worked in a job shop, making gears, I know what its like).
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.
The funny part of all this is that SpaceX has achieved a lot but what might break them, or at least weigh them down heavily, is the impulsive and forced purchase of Twitter. Before anyone claims it was some kind of master plan, Elon went to court to get out of it but was forced into it [1].
What happened? Mass firings, pushing his own tweets because his fragile ego couldn't handle Joe Biden getting more likes [2] and Twitter opened the floodgates for hate speech [3] and worse [4]. Advertisers fled. Fidelity (who foolishly was part of the acquisition) massively wrote down the value [5]. Elon had used Tesla shares as collateral and was possibly facing a margin call.
How did he get out of it? Well, in 2023 Elon founded xAI to challenge OpenAI. People invested in this for some reason. And by 2025, Elon merged Twitter with xAI, overvaluing Twitter at $33 billion (which is still down 25% from the purchase) [6].
Now, I imagine the xAI investors were unhappy with Elon using xAI to bail out himself so what did he do? Easy. Make SpaceX acquire xAI of course [7].
Thing is, xAI and Twitter/Grok are a massive drain on SpaceX's finances, losing more than $10 billion annually allegedly [8].
Twitter did not have to end up as part of SpaceX. SpaceX would've been a better company without it. SpaceX already faces headwinds from the incredibly expensive and behind-schedule Starship program. Part of all of this regulatory fixing is to make sure the insiders (and Elon himself) get bailed out.
It's also not the first time [9].
[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/elon-musk-offers-to-end...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/15/elon-musk...
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-s...
[4]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter...
[5]: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/29/fidelity-twitter-x-value-el...
[6]: https://www.fintechweekly.com/magazine/articles/xai-acquires...
[7]: https://www.reuters.com/business/musks-spacex-merge-with-xai...
[8]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/musk-s-xa...
[9]: https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/21/13698314/tesla-completes...
