I really hope this is the first of many dominos to fall. How any fund manager could look at the S-1 filing and think it's a prudent investment is beyond me.
The valuation is basically at best case scenario for future earnings, maybe even beyond that. That's not a good risk management strategy, unless, of course, you believe that fundamentals dont matter and you'll ride the meme stock to the moon. Personally, ill pass on that.
Absorb is a funny word in that context. SpaceX now is unprofitable thanks to xAI/grok/X/whateverthefuckthatshitis. Even before that it was Starlink that made them money, the rocket business itself wasnt profitable either.
And it was merged to goose the numbers and hide that he is slowing down grok development. Fuck, him leasing out all the compute he built for Grok tells me he has all but given up in the AI space. He just could never admit to that big a failure so he will sideline it and push it farther out of the public consciousness.
But he still has to sell space based datacenters, which is probably the most insane, bullshit idea he's ever spouted.
he's going to fold tesla into it to reach his 1 tril market cap projection and get his paypackage, these goobers are going to pay him a trillion dollars
No, you act like that is a choice a company makes. The barrier to entry is extreme initial expenditures on research and development. No space launch company has ever been profitable from the start because of this. It is a niche that exists out of necessity- and spacex is really the only currently consistent success story in delivering on contracts.
Bud, this isn't the 1960s any longer. We, collectively, as a species, know how to launch shit into space now. SpaceX's novelty was a reusable launch system. That's gone now, most everyone sorted that out too. They have become a service-oriented company dependent on government handouts.
> SpaceX's novelty was a reusable launch system. That's gone now, most everyone sorted that out too.
they clearly haven't sorted it out since the falcon 9 is still 90% of all US launches, 50% of global launches (including every small orbital rocket), and only 2% of non-f9 launches were reusable rockets.
Well yeah, because there's no actual need for it if you remove SpaceX's own satellites from the equation. SpaceX is entirely funded by the concept of "nice to have". We don't need anything they produce, and humanity isn't any better because of their contributions. Especially not at the market cp they're getting for their IPO. It's a junk boondoggle stock for junk boondoggle science that we just don't need as a species.
We may know how to launch shit into space, but is there anyone doing it reliably? The answer is no… the whole reason spacex exists as a company is because we knew how to launch shit, but didn’t know how to launch shit reasonably efficiently.
They have success in delivering contracts unprofitably. Any competitor who wants to deliver contracts as successfully as spacex would also have to do so unprofitably due to competition with spacex. It’s not a matter of choice and besides that I have no idea what you’re on about.
I think you don’t understand how a company works, and are missing the point- that spacex has delivered reliably on contracts that other companies have failed to fulfill satisfactorily. This is a national security niche, so the company pretty much will not fail.
If a company fails to make a profit it is a failure of the company. Plenty of firms deliver successfully for a loss. Plenty of companies deliver to the govt and the DOD for a loss. Delivering for a profit is the hard part it doesn’t matter how reliable your customers are if you can’t make a profit selling to them. Making a profit is the measure of success for any business and the space delivery portion of spacex is failing at that. As is their ai division which accounts for 96% of the 1.75 trillion dollar valuation according to their own prospectus. The only portion that’s making a profit is starlink so really spacex is a successful isp that is also subsidizing space flight and ai.
That's not entirely true or clear. Because their launch capabilities feed their Starlink capabilities, spend in Launch, even if it causes losses in Launch, can will create disproportionate profits for Starlink. Adding to this, the R&D for Starship is probably dragging down the Launch side, simply because it's an investment in future capabilities.
Musk's business IPOs are like the today's specials at restaurants.
Some experiments from Chefs, but mostly just leftovers and mistakes from previous days. You come for name. Like Ramsay offering today's specials, or whoever else celebrity chef (not Brooklyn :)
Also starlink has a real, but niche market. It's worse and more expensive than fiber or 5G, so you're really only looking at rural areas, military purposes, and planes. Also, there's competition.
And given that there's only a single electromagnetic spectrum, more competitors ruins the customer experience because the only band they can work with would get clobbered. Capitalism in space makes everything worse.
Not really how it works with these systems. Your standard omni directional radios fill the volume with radio noise, when 2 radio volumes overlap you get interference. Two radio stations outputting 101.5mhz interfere when someone is trying to pick up just one station's signal. Parabolic transmitters can use the exact same frequency, close together, and not interfere because the signal power is mostly constrained to a tight cone volume. Yes there is noise, but if the interference noise power is .1% of the signal power, it can easily be filtered out.
Traditional geostationary satellite radios fill the spectrum space because their parabolic dish is roughly pointed at earth but it's so far away the signal is very weak and covers essentially the entire side of the globe. The weak signal means that introducing another signal on that band forces that new transmitting radio to be in the same low power regime, as the parabolic receiver dishes might otherwise pick up noise at levels that can't be filtered.
These phased array antennae do not fill the all the area. It's like having a bunch of parabolic dishes located very close by (200 miles away instead of 20,000 miles away like geostationary sats). It's an aimed signal so a lot of radios can operate pretty close together without significant crosstalk. Not nearly as much radio power is wasted blasting the entire countryside. And these radios have much higher power on the receiver's end, so errant low power signals don't interfere as much with the pickup.
It's still an issue, but technological improvements have made this a lot less of an issue than it would have been even 20 years ago. As long as all the competitors are also running these phased array systems then there should be plenty of spectrum space to use between them all.
NASA's been working on laser communications that can squeeze a lot more information into X bandwidth than traditional radio.
Eventually, all long-distance communication in space will be done with lasers.
The way I see it, the only way there's enough bandwidth to make several competing constellations of Starlink-style satellites possible is if they start using laser comms whenever they can.
But using laser comms in the atmosphere is trickier, especially in wet weather. And nobody's figure out how to make them work in a handset yet.
There's also the problem where starlink's satellites are in low earth orbit. So even if you could solve the laser-through-the-atmosphere problem, you're still shooting lasers from the ground at non-fixed targets, which requires insane precision and target tracking.
It's also not clear to me how you'd manage multiple clients trying to use the same satellite at the same time. A laser can only point in a single direction at a time. This isn't a problem for NASA's needs, because they're the sole client. But for Starlink, you'd have to somehow timeshare the transmission equipment between clients, which would involve mechanical hardware moving to a new angle.
Until it ends up nationalized because its CEO is a national security threat and the board hasn't shown any inclination to remove or restrain him. That would be my main concern about Starlink as an investor. Especially if it ends up being linked to any election fuckery. Is it even going to still exist in a few years as a profit-making entity?
There's an assumption that starlinks user base will grow significantly. Not sure it will because fiber exists and developing countries use mobile networks. 10m out of a potential 8bn users is nothing really.
Tbd. Their user base has grown at an insane rate, they’re nowhere near full deployment, and they probably haven’t even started doing their biggest value prop (orbital mm-scale radar imaging)
We’ll see. Starlink’s valuation is already north of $200B and their network is only quarter of its target size. There are a lot of govts who would pay $1T to have 24/7 mm radars in space
> How far into our lifetime could Space X launch 100 rockets instead of launching one.
I've done 0 research so I could be wrong. But isn't it true that it's not the number rockets but the payload in the rockets that counts?
So for example, if you had one really big rocket that could carry 100x the payload of one rocket, then you could get 100x price to sales. And I think that's the whole point of the Starship rocket, to get that volume.
Not defending SpaceX valuation, just pointing out the technicality.
Yeah bigger rockets cost more. But when everyone else throws the entire rocket away, SpaceX currently only throws away the upper stage and is getting very close to not throwing away any part of the rocket except fuel.
They've had 6 launches where the second stage has had a controlled landing in the ocean after reaching transatmospheric orbut. All but the very first landed next to pre-positioned bouys that streamed the landings. The most recent landing of the V3 ship showed minimal damage to the heat shield on landing after deploying a dummy 45t payload.
Best guesses is that they'll have a planned catch attempt this year. Some likelyhood that that they'll abort it and ditch it into the ocean rather than risk the tower. Within a year though I think they'll start deploying Starlink payloads.
Obviously, but there is still scalability per ton of cargo. Just like with shipping, there's a reason we build bigger ships.
EDIT: And I get it 100X P/S is bad, I personally would not buy Spacex, but if they can get Starship working, then they will have a more scalable rocket.
Right, but fuel isn't the biggest cost for rocket launches. The bigger cost is the launch vehicle. And with starship, you have a massive launch vehicle (6x Falcon 9) that is reusable.
Falcon 9 customer prices are ~$2,700–$3,000 per kg. Elon musk wants to get $10 per kg which is a 270x reduction in launch costs. Even a more conservative estimate of $100 per kg still gets you a 30x reduction in prices. So if they can optimize starship, then we're looking at an order of magnitude drop in space shipping per kg.
For comparison, stat international air shipping is like 10 dollars per kg. Just imagine if you could build a space station and the cost to ship the materials into space was equivalent 10 stat international air flights vs one on Earth. Vs the old cost of 100 international flights or 1000 flights.
Elon can want to get launch prices to $10 per kg all he wants, it doesn't mean it's going to happen. In order to reduce the launch prices that much, you'd need something completely novel and not just reusable vehicles. The initial sharp decline in costs are easy to find, we are probably close to the point where further launch cost reductions are going to be increasingly difficult to find.
The fuel cost isn't the issue at all. Fuel has weight. Big heavy rockets need a lot of fuel, which weighs a lot, which in turn requires more fuel. At a point you can't add more weight without needing exponentially more fuel.
Well.... regardless of how spacex turns out there are other reusable rocket companies both in the US and China. So even if Elon's vision doesn't pan out, I'm sure we'll see an order of magnitude drop in space transport costs in our lifetime.
Starship is absolutely capable of orbit. If you want to get technical several of its flights were in transatmospheric orbits with positive perigeees.
They just have always cut the engines 3s shy of reaching orbit because it's safer to have the experimental second stage designed to survive re-entry assuredly re-enter over the ocean. As opposed to China launching CZ-5Bs where the course stage's landing site is "somewhere within twenty degrees of the equator".
There's just not that much actual market demand to put stuff in orbit, certainly not enough to justify 100x in any reasonable timescale. SpaceX had to create their own demand in the form of Starlink in order to have enough payloads.
If a company S-1 filling's best case scenario includes a Kardashev Type II event that should be a huge red flag for every potential investor. The document is part SciFi and part scam.
>"SpaceX projects a “total addressable market,” or TAM, of $28.5 trillion across its present and future offerings in space, data, and AI services. However, of this amount, only about $2 trillion is directly related to space or the company’s Starlink network. The remaining $26.5 trillion is believed to come from AI, largely from enterprise applications."
If you believe that shit you might just deserve to lose your money.
The S1 might as well say they expect to make a bajillionty dollars when they discover time travel.
Recent NASDAQ regultory changes are going to have drastic consequences on new IPOs and on 401k stock portfolios, especially for corporate passive investors:
Nasdaq updated its rules to allow massive IPOs that rank in the top of the Nasdaq-100 to join the index after just 15 trading days, down from the traditional 3-month wait.
Float Requirements: The previous 10% minimum public float rule was eliminated.
Weighting Multipliers: For companies with a free float below 20%, the Nasdaq will apply a 3x multiplier to their float for index weighting purposes, inflating their representation.
Insider Lock-Ups: SpaceX shifted away from rigid lock-up periods, introducing a staggered system that allows insiders to sell shares much faster than in a traditional IPO.
Number 3 is insane. What kind of bribery had to be done to get a rule like that in place. It’s hard not to think this IPO season is the last hurrah before the market shits the bed. So much garbage coming to market and getting shoehorned into our retirement.
It's a signal for sure.
China is big on EVs, solar, AI, and have their own solid space program.
Trump needs their help to get out of the war without being branded a total loser to his base.
It's very likely he sold out to China and musk will be toast in a few years (good riddance).
At least someone is finally saying the quiet part out loud. American YouTubers and financial folks are making it seem like SpaceX is the opportunity of a lifetime. It’s just dropping a bag on retail investors.
“AkademikerPension will also avoid indexed equity products that include SpaceX”
Does this mean avoiding some of the more popular indexes (S&P 500 etc)?
So far it's only the NASDAQ which is changing its rules to get SpaceX on the books quicker.
The SP500 rules are still staying the same of needing to be traded for at least 6 months prior, needing to have a market cap of >$22 billion, and having an overall profit the 4 quarters preceeding addition.
The fiduciary duty includes avoiding dodgy investments. Investing in scams is likely to harm your customers. SpaceX is dodgy as hell, and any index that includes them is dodgy by that feat alone.
In any sane world, NASDAQ changing their rules to help Elon to scam people ought to sink them as a serious investment. Unfortunately, the stock market is not sane at the moment.
I complained for a decade about Tesla's valuation with no profits, but Tesla made EVs cool and ubiquitous and Space X is launching and landing rockets. The companies are making huge impacts.
If we consider investors may weigh social impact (heavily) with profits in their discount rates, it is possible to rationalize these valuations.
Yes, but europe has equalant tech indexes and funds.
So its a double whammy, investing in european stock instead of american just makes so much more sense with how things are going.
When investors buy indices they're trying to get exposure to a specific country, region or sector. European indices are not suitable when they want US exposure just as US Indices are not suitable when they want European exposure.
Pension plans and sovereign funds do this sometimes and it has negative effects for the plans. They'll say "No oil" or "No defense stocks" even in indices, and it limits them to either actively managed funds which typically underperform the index, or they try recreating the index themselves which costs more to trade.
I recently watched a documentary about OceanGate (the guys who made the imploding submersible a few years ago), and the entire time the late CEO was interviewed and kept complaining about safety regulations while bragging about ignoring the rules and thinking outside the box, I kept thinking, "He sounds just like Elon Musk, but with a lot less stammering and flopsweat."
the f9 is the most successful rocket in history and dragon 2 ferries astronauts from earth to the ISS. what are you basing this, "spacex is going to kill people eventually, too" speculation on? just recently boeing nearly killed astronauts with starliner, shouldn't you be more worried about SLS?
Super stunning and brave statement considering just about every single physical product sold can/has been used to kill people. Even tissue paper... let alone literal rocket science operating at the very edge of known physics.
Next you will predict at least 1 person will die in an automobile accident tomorrow somewhere in the world. How prescient of you.
your point is, "despite their unmatched track record of safety launching human astronauts and being responsible for half of all rocket launches from earth, they're definitely gonna kill someone because i feel like they are". it isn't a very good point.
The point you fanboys are desperate to miss is that when Musk gets directly involved in design, he cuts corners at the expense of safety. Or did you miss the people burning to death inside Tesla vehicles because they couldn't get out and rescuers couldn't get in?
If my large public service pension fund invested in such shit, i would consider divesting. That would tell me i could get better results just throwing my retirement money into VGRO and VEXT
True. Also, im sure any pension fund would have low allocations. But it's more of a loss of confidence in an actively managed fund (with a long horizon) that is buying the stuff vs a passive ETF.
As people have written before the main reason for American prosperity is the strict rules against fraud. People all over the world invest their money there because it’s secure.
Now when the rules relax to cater to a billionaire connected to the president the US is heading towards a banana republic and international investors will be scared away.
Well on the other hand, as an asset manager making a couple of hundred million with the introduction…not sure if they would run away of that (and their bonus)
lol he's going to talk about data centers in space for the next 10 years saying its right around the corner like FSD, and everyones going to pretend he doesnt have a track record of just blatantly lying
I'm telling my finance guy the same. I don't want any of my money going to Musk. Don't care if he says I'll leave money on the table. That fuck is trying to ruin the world and I don't want to contribute to it.
https://akademikerpension.dk/nyheder/vi-ekskluderer-tesla/
The 3 reason from the director literally states “Elon Musk” as a reason the Fond won’t by Tesla.
It’s wild how many people on this forum straight up refuse to understand what this Pension fond is all about
A pension fund owned by its own members with a commitment to sustainable goals? So what is the problem with that? Also, why would it be a problem if a pension fund is "political". You bots are getting weird
>I said their decision is political because they don’t like Musk and his politics.
And they say they are avoiding spaceX because they don't trust the valuation AND don't trust the leadership structure with Musk holding 85% of voting power. You know, actual arguments. You claiming "its political because they don't like musk politics" is not even an argument. It's a dumb speculative claim.
>You should work on your reading comprehension instead of calling people bots
If you'd acted less as a bot, copy pasting replies, ignoring the actual arguments of the article and clamping to AI search and so on, would help avoid confusion next time.
Seriously? And I had a problem with reading comprehension?
>They don’t like Elon Musk and they aren’t scared to say so.
This is only a part of a list of reasons they give. All of them are solid arguments. You are choosing to ignore all of that and reduce the whole thing to "hurt dur they don't like musk because of politics". As if any pension fund would be allowed to operate in that way.
Space x doesnt have a profit and wants to be valued at 2 trillion while also being in the nasdaq early so pension funds have to buy it. People could lose a lot of money
Rules being bend so that pension funds auto buy Musk companies is already existing political situatiom in the first place.
Yes Musk paid the more corrupt party and politician that is guaranteed to enabke further fraud on Musk side. So of course funds need and should react to that political situation as is rather then imaginary "business like any other" nonsense.
I imagine the Danish care more about Trump's remarks and Elon's initial support of annexing Greenland if it is political.
I doubt it is political though. My understanding is that some Economists predict SpaceX value to rise and then fall catastrophically after the IPO. It seems like a bad gamble unless you get in and sell on that initial rise.
The problem with AI is that it doesn't reply the same way all the time for everyone. It's not actually smart. I googled exactly what you posted and the AI summary is below:
"AkademikerPension (formerly Akademikernes Pension) is not a political party, but it operates as a highly activist, politically engaged institutional investor. The fund actively integrates ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) values into its investments, explicitly using its massive portfolio to advocate for human rights, climate action, and corporate responsibility.
Key examples of its activist stance include:International Divestment: The fund routinely excludes countries and companies associated with human rights violations from its portfolio, such as divesting from China in 2020 and dropping Israeli investments in 2025 due to ongoing conflicts.
U.S. Treasury Exit: In January 2026, the fund divested its $100 million portfolio of U.S. Treasuries, citing deteriorating U.S. government finances and rising risks related to U.S. policy.
Corporate Governance: They take aggressive voting stances against companies with deficient governance structures, such as blocking the board candidates of firms lacking Paris-aligned climate goals and formally placing exclusions on companies like SpaceX over extreme executive power.
While fund executives maintain that decisions like debt sell-offs are primarily rooted in financial risk management rather than partisan politics, AkademikerPension is widely recognized for its active, socially responsible, and politically driven approach to global capitalism."
You're the one that made a claim it's because Elon isn't pro Biden. Do you have evidence of it?
It does seem they are careful to avoid investing and thus supporting companies that they feel are unethical. I'd agree they're more political than most investment funds. But that's a low bar since most investment funds don't care to be so. I don't see anything that screams political entity. It seems more like they aim for ethical investing. Unless Google AI left out details you have?
Why would I apologize? What wrong have I done unto you?
If you understand how the pension industry works you would realise once a fund black lists an IPO, other funds will have to explain to their investment oversite why this fund is incorrect and such an investment is ok to make. Pensions are not about short term bucks, they are about ‘investment’. There’s a great deal of legislation surrounding such investments.
No need. Politics will feature in all investment decisions. It’s just not in this case. It’s rather astonishing how little people know about this stuff.
narwalfarts | 7 hours ago
I really hope this is the first of many dominos to fall. How any fund manager could look at the S-1 filing and think it's a prudent investment is beyond me.
The valuation is basically at best case scenario for future earnings, maybe even beyond that. That's not a good risk management strategy, unless, of course, you believe that fundamentals dont matter and you'll ride the meme stock to the moon. Personally, ill pass on that.
MojaMonkey | 7 hours ago
Its a 100x price to sales. How far into our lifetime could Space X launch 100 rockets instead of launching one.
Starlink is the biggest customer but who wants to buy into an ISP that has to replace its network in space every 5 years.
tutanotaio | 7 hours ago
Starlink is every military's dream of networking tech
SpaceX? It absorbed everything Musk did including his failures and the plan is to capitalize on cult-personality naiviety
HonourableYodaPuppet | 6 hours ago
Absorb is a funny word in that context. SpaceX now is unprofitable thanks to xAI/grok/X/whateverthefuckthatshitis. Even before that it was Starlink that made them money, the rocket business itself wasnt profitable either.
Cabana_bananza | 3 hours ago
And it was merged to goose the numbers and hide that he is slowing down grok development. Fuck, him leasing out all the compute he built for Grok tells me he has all but given up in the AI space. He just could never admit to that big a failure so he will sideline it and push it farther out of the public consciousness.
But he still has to sell space based datacenters, which is probably the most insane, bullshit idea he's ever spouted.
writewithparagraphs4 | an hour ago
rioters cant get into the datacenters in space to destroy them though
Flat-Fun-7298 | an hour ago
Maintainers can't either
Own_Shower_6000 | 2 hours ago
he's going to fold tesla into it to reach his 1 tril market cap projection and get his paypackage, these goobers are going to pay him a trillion dollars
Few-Sheepherder-1655 | 5 hours ago
Space launch capabilities have a massive barrier to entry
Haggardick69 | 3 hours ago
The barrier to entry is that any of spacex’s competitors would also have to be unprofitable to compete with spacex
Few-Sheepherder-1655 | 3 hours ago
No, you act like that is a choice a company makes. The barrier to entry is extreme initial expenditures on research and development. No space launch company has ever been profitable from the start because of this. It is a niche that exists out of necessity- and spacex is really the only currently consistent success story in delivering on contracts.
the_blastomatic | 3 hours ago
Bud, this isn't the 1960s any longer. We, collectively, as a species, know how to launch shit into space now. SpaceX's novelty was a reusable launch system. That's gone now, most everyone sorted that out too. They have become a service-oriented company dependent on government handouts.
Dub-MS | 3 hours ago
On the government tit just like every Musk company
writewithparagraphs4 | an hour ago
space x didnt even pilot the reusability -- the DC-X did it first.
gay_manta_ray | an hour ago
> SpaceX's novelty was a reusable launch system. That's gone now, most everyone sorted that out too.
they clearly haven't sorted it out since the falcon 9 is still 90% of all US launches, 50% of global launches (including every small orbital rocket), and only 2% of non-f9 launches were reusable rockets.
the_blastomatic | 58 minutes ago
Well yeah, because there's no actual need for it if you remove SpaceX's own satellites from the equation. SpaceX is entirely funded by the concept of "nice to have". We don't need anything they produce, and humanity isn't any better because of their contributions. Especially not at the market cp they're getting for their IPO. It's a junk boondoggle stock for junk boondoggle science that we just don't need as a species.
Few-Sheepherder-1655 | 3 hours ago
We may know how to launch shit into space, but is there anyone doing it reliably? The answer is no… the whole reason spacex exists as a company is because we knew how to launch shit, but didn’t know how to launch shit reasonably efficiently.
the_blastomatic | 3 hours ago
We were doing it reliably just fine before SpaceX. My god. What kool-aid you have swallowed.
Haggardick69 | 3 hours ago
They have success in delivering contracts unprofitably. Any competitor who wants to deliver contracts as successfully as spacex would also have to do so unprofitably due to competition with spacex. It’s not a matter of choice and besides that I have no idea what you’re on about.
Few-Sheepherder-1655 | 3 hours ago
I think you don’t understand how a company works, and are missing the point- that spacex has delivered reliably on contracts that other companies have failed to fulfill satisfactorily. This is a national security niche, so the company pretty much will not fail.
Haggardick69 | 3 hours ago
If a company fails to make a profit it is a failure of the company. Plenty of firms deliver successfully for a loss. Plenty of companies deliver to the govt and the DOD for a loss. Delivering for a profit is the hard part it doesn’t matter how reliable your customers are if you can’t make a profit selling to them. Making a profit is the measure of success for any business and the space delivery portion of spacex is failing at that. As is their ai division which accounts for 96% of the 1.75 trillion dollar valuation according to their own prospectus. The only portion that’s making a profit is starlink so really spacex is a successful isp that is also subsidizing space flight and ai.
Cmdr_Shiara | 3 hours ago
The falcon 9 part of the rocket business is profitable they just spent $3 billion on developing starship last year.
Blah_McBlah_ | 2 hours ago
That's not entirely true or clear. Because their launch capabilities feed their Starlink capabilities, spend in Launch, even if it causes losses in Launch, can will create disproportionate profits for Starlink. Adding to this, the R&D for Starship is probably dragging down the Launch side, simply because it's an investment in future capabilities.
Or I could be talking out of my ass.
tutanotaio | an hour ago
so was Tesla's profit.
Musk's business IPOs are like the today's specials at restaurants.
Some experiments from Chefs, but mostly just leftovers and mistakes from previous days. You come for name. Like Ramsay offering today's specials, or whoever else celebrity chef (not Brooklyn :)
narwalfarts | 7 hours ago
Also starlink has a real, but niche market. It's worse and more expensive than fiber or 5G, so you're really only looking at rural areas, military purposes, and planes. Also, there's competition.
tigeratemybaby | 6 hours ago
Plus have a dozen competitors popping up and launching their own satellites.
China is looking to undercut starlink - SpaceX willl need to drastically cut prices to compete.
-Saucegurlllll | 3 hours ago
And given that there's only a single electromagnetic spectrum, more competitors ruins the customer experience because the only band they can work with would get clobbered. Capitalism in space makes everything worse.
Ghudda | 41 minutes ago
Not really how it works with these systems. Your standard omni directional radios fill the volume with radio noise, when 2 radio volumes overlap you get interference. Two radio stations outputting 101.5mhz interfere when someone is trying to pick up just one station's signal. Parabolic transmitters can use the exact same frequency, close together, and not interfere because the signal power is mostly constrained to a tight cone volume. Yes there is noise, but if the interference noise power is .1% of the signal power, it can easily be filtered out.
Traditional geostationary satellite radios fill the spectrum space because their parabolic dish is roughly pointed at earth but it's so far away the signal is very weak and covers essentially the entire side of the globe. The weak signal means that introducing another signal on that band forces that new transmitting radio to be in the same low power regime, as the parabolic receiver dishes might otherwise pick up noise at levels that can't be filtered.
These phased array antennae do not fill the all the area. It's like having a bunch of parabolic dishes located very close by (200 miles away instead of 20,000 miles away like geostationary sats). It's an aimed signal so a lot of radios can operate pretty close together without significant crosstalk. Not nearly as much radio power is wasted blasting the entire countryside. And these radios have much higher power on the receiver's end, so errant low power signals don't interfere as much with the pickup.
It's still an issue, but technological improvements have made this a lot less of an issue than it would have been even 20 years ago. As long as all the competitors are also running these phased array systems then there should be plenty of spectrum space to use between them all.
Wurm42 | an hour ago
NASA's been working on laser communications that can squeeze a lot more information into X bandwidth than traditional radio.
Eventually, all long-distance communication in space will be done with lasers.
The way I see it, the only way there's enough bandwidth to make several competing constellations of Starlink-style satellites possible is if they start using laser comms whenever they can.
But using laser comms in the atmosphere is trickier, especially in wet weather. And nobody's figure out how to make them work in a handset yet.
More info:
https://www.nasa.gov/communicating-with-missions/lasercomms/
-Saucegurlllll | 34 minutes ago
There's also the problem where starlink's satellites are in low earth orbit. So even if you could solve the laser-through-the-atmosphere problem, you're still shooting lasers from the ground at non-fixed targets, which requires insane precision and target tracking.
It's also not clear to me how you'd manage multiple clients trying to use the same satellite at the same time. A laser can only point in a single direction at a time. This isn't a problem for NASA's needs, because they're the sole client. But for Starlink, you'd have to somehow timeshare the transmission equipment between clients, which would involve mechanical hardware moving to a new angle.
Few-Sheepherder-1655 | 5 hours ago
I don’t think China will operate in the same market- mainly western governments.
PoopyisSmelly | an hour ago
Probably seeking the good guy countries like North Korea, Russia, Iran, and Chad.
Few-Sheepherder-1655 | 12 minutes ago
Well that, and some consumer markets too.
msut77 | 5 hours ago
Totally trust the guy who said we would be living on mars already
StrebLab | 5 hours ago
The guy can't even predict when a car is going to be released by HIS car company. Still waiting on the Tesla Roadster supposed to be due in 2020.
Greedyanda | 5 hours ago
Starlink is actually pretty profitable so it doesn't really matter that they have to replace satellites.
It's just the rest of the company that's the problem.
VeteranSergeant | 21 minutes ago
Until it ends up nationalized because its CEO is a national security threat and the board hasn't shown any inclination to remove or restrain him. That would be my main concern about Starlink as an investor. Especially if it ends up being linked to any election fuckery. Is it even going to still exist in a few years as a profit-making entity?
lanternhead | 5 hours ago
> who wants to buy into an ISP that has to replace its network in space every 5 years.
A lot. Starlink has 10M users and runs a 60% profit margin
Pesh_AK | 3 hours ago
There's an assumption that starlinks user base will grow significantly. Not sure it will because fiber exists and developing countries use mobile networks. 10m out of a potential 8bn users is nothing really.
lanternhead | 3 hours ago
Tbd. Their user base has grown at an insane rate, they’re nowhere near full deployment, and they probably haven’t even started doing their biggest value prop (orbital mm-scale radar imaging)
Loop_Within_A_Loop | 3 hours ago
yeah, that parts off the mark, but starlink is not the lynchpin of a trillion dollar company, it just isn't
lanternhead | 3 hours ago
We’ll see. Starlink’s valuation is already north of $200B and their network is only quarter of its target size. There are a lot of govts who would pay $1T to have 24/7 mm radars in space
JitteryJoes1986 | 3 hours ago
But how long can that be sustain?
lanternhead | 3 hours ago
We’ll find out. As long as they can keep launching sats, they’ll keep growing. The ceiling could be a long way off
Wurm42 | an hour ago
Starlink reaching their planned network scale will require frequent Starship launches.
Using only the existing Falcon 9 launch capabilities, the ceiling is a lot lower.
Eventually SpaceX will need to get Starship working or expand their Falcon 9 launch capabilities-- perhaps with this new site in Louisiana.
Spare-Dingo-531 | 7 hours ago
> How far into our lifetime could Space X launch 100 rockets instead of launching one.
I've done 0 research so I could be wrong. But isn't it true that it's not the number rockets but the payload in the rockets that counts?
So for example, if you had one really big rocket that could carry 100x the payload of one rocket, then you could get 100x price to sales. And I think that's the whole point of the Starship rocket, to get that volume.
Not defending SpaceX valuation, just pointing out the technicality.
MojaMonkey | 7 hours ago
Im not an expert either. But this isn't scalable like software.
Bigger rockets cost more than smaller ones.
RT-LAMP | 3 hours ago
Yeah bigger rockets cost more. But when everyone else throws the entire rocket away, SpaceX currently only throws away the upper stage and is getting very close to not throwing away any part of the rocket except fuel.
ebfortin | 2 hours ago
Define very close.
RT-LAMP | 2 hours ago
They've had 6 launches where the second stage has had a controlled landing in the ocean after reaching transatmospheric orbut. All but the very first landed next to pre-positioned bouys that streamed the landings. The most recent landing of the V3 ship showed minimal damage to the heat shield on landing after deploying a dummy 45t payload.
ebfortin | an hour ago
OK. Define close in terms of time.
RT-LAMP | an hour ago
Best guesses is that they'll have a planned catch attempt this year. Some likelyhood that that they'll abort it and ditch it into the ocean rather than risk the tower. Within a year though I think they'll start deploying Starlink payloads.
Spare-Dingo-531 | 7 hours ago
Obviously, but there is still scalability per ton of cargo. Just like with shipping, there's a reason we build bigger ships.
EDIT: And I get it 100X P/S is bad, I personally would not buy Spacex, but if they can get Starship working, then they will have a more scalable rocket.
MojaMonkey | 6 hours ago
No. I dont think there is. Rockets have to power directly against gravity.
The bigger the payload the more fuel you need. Extra fuel means more fuel to carry the fuel weight.
There definitely can be breakthroughs in reducing weight or fuel efficiency. But not 10x. Let alone 100x.
Just my humble opinion.
thordh5 | 2 hours ago
You are incredibly wrong. The cost per pound of payload into low earth orbit with Starship is around 100x less than it was for the Space Shuttle.
Spare-Dingo-531 | 6 hours ago
> The bigger the payload the more fuel you need.
Right, but fuel isn't the biggest cost for rocket launches. The bigger cost is the launch vehicle. And with starship, you have a massive launch vehicle (6x Falcon 9) that is reusable.
Falcon 9 customer prices are ~$2,700–$3,000 per kg. Elon musk wants to get $10 per kg which is a 270x reduction in launch costs. Even a more conservative estimate of $100 per kg still gets you a 30x reduction in prices. So if they can optimize starship, then we're looking at an order of magnitude drop in space shipping per kg.
For comparison, stat international air shipping is like 10 dollars per kg. Just imagine if you could build a space station and the cost to ship the materials into space was equivalent 10 stat international air flights vs one on Earth. Vs the old cost of 100 international flights or 1000 flights.
Sofer2113 | 4 hours ago
Elon can want to get launch prices to $10 per kg all he wants, it doesn't mean it's going to happen. In order to reduce the launch prices that much, you'd need something completely novel and not just reusable vehicles. The initial sharp decline in costs are easy to find, we are probably close to the point where further launch cost reductions are going to be increasingly difficult to find.
FinsFan1557 | 3 hours ago
The fuel cost isn't the issue at all. Fuel has weight. Big heavy rockets need a lot of fuel, which weighs a lot, which in turn requires more fuel. At a point you can't add more weight without needing exponentially more fuel.
MojaMonkey | 6 hours ago
I hope that happens because I'd love to see a Mars mission go ahead.
Spare-Dingo-531 | 6 hours ago
Well.... regardless of how spacex turns out there are other reusable rocket companies both in the US and China. So even if Elon's vision doesn't pan out, I'm sure we'll see an order of magnitude drop in space transport costs in our lifetime.
ebfortin | 4 hours ago
Doesn't matter, the S-1 hint at multiple launch of Starship, that still can't complete a full orbit, a DAY!
RT-LAMP | 3 hours ago
Starship is absolutely capable of orbit. If you want to get technical several of its flights were in transatmospheric orbits with positive perigeees.
They just have always cut the engines 3s shy of reaching orbit because it's safer to have the experimental second stage designed to survive re-entry assuredly re-enter over the ocean. As opposed to China launching CZ-5Bs where the course stage's landing site is "somewhere within twenty degrees of the equator".
dern_the_hermit | 5 minutes ago
There's just not that much actual market demand to put stuff in orbit, certainly not enough to justify 100x in any reasonable timescale. SpaceX had to create their own demand in the form of Starlink in order to have enough payloads.
gay_manta_ray | an hour ago
> but who wants to buy into an ISP that has to replace its network in space every 5 years.
when the company that owns it is already launching 100 rockets a year, this doesn't sound like a very big problem to me.
schacks | 6 hours ago
If a company S-1 filling's best case scenario includes a Kardashev Type II event that should be a huge red flag for every potential investor. The document is part SciFi and part scam.
King_Chochacho | 3 hours ago
>"SpaceX projects a “total addressable market,” or TAM, of $28.5 trillion across its present and future offerings in space, data, and AI services. However, of this amount, only about $2 trillion is directly related to space or the company’s Starlink network. The remaining $26.5 trillion is believed to come from AI, largely from enterprise applications."
If you believe that shit you might just deserve to lose your money.
The S1 might as well say they expect to make a bajillionty dollars when they discover time travel.
narwalfarts | 3 hours ago
A fool and his money are soon parted
DataWeenie | an hour ago
And they'll make that Bajillionty dollars by being early VC investors in SpaceX......
JitteryJoes1986 | 3 hours ago
Recent NASDAQ regultory changes are going to have drastic consequences on new IPOs and on 401k stock portfolios, especially for corporate passive investors:
Nasdaq updated its rules to allow massive IPOs that rank in the top of the Nasdaq-100 to join the index after just 15 trading days, down from the traditional 3-month wait.
Float Requirements: The previous 10% minimum public float rule was eliminated.
Weighting Multipliers: For companies with a free float below 20%, the Nasdaq will apply a 3x multiplier to their float for index weighting purposes, inflating their representation.
Insider Lock-Ups: SpaceX shifted away from rigid lock-up periods, introducing a staggered system that allows insiders to sell shares much faster than in a traditional IPO.
Knerd5 | 2 hours ago
Number 3 is insane. What kind of bribery had to be done to get a rule like that in place. It’s hard not to think this IPO season is the last hurrah before the market shits the bed. So much garbage coming to market and getting shoehorned into our retirement.
WingerRules | an hour ago
Are these regulatory changes a Trump thing or did it start under Biden?
Takemyfishplease | 5 hours ago
Tbf memes have made Elon the richest person ever so who knows what matters anymore. Especially with the WH blessing
giraloco | 7 hours ago
I'm afraid nothing will stop the party until the NASDAQ crashes at least 50%.
Dry-Interaction-1246 | 2 hours ago
The argument is that it trades like a meme coin, just like Tesla. Vibe investing.
apoliticalinactivist | 2 hours ago
It's a signal for sure. China is big on EVs, solar, AI, and have their own solid space program.
Trump needs their help to get out of the war without being branded a total loser to his base. It's very likely he sold out to China and musk will be toast in a few years (good riddance).
website-buyer | 2 hours ago
They got paid to put their stock on the list. Simple as that.
yappi211 | 54 minutes ago
>Personally, ill pass on that.
It will join index funds 15 days after launch. Fyi.
narwalfarts | 12 minutes ago
Ive only got 20% of my 401k in index funds. Everything else won't be affected.
Practical-Dinner-643 | 34 minutes ago
Beyond best case - it's like finding Mars and bringing back some new Tesla tech valuation.
adario7 | 14 minutes ago
Doesn’t matter, they’re building up the exit liquidity. By the time it implodes, the American taxpayer would be left holding the bag.
rabbit_in_a_bun | 7 hours ago
With respect to Denmark, a firm from there is not a domino stone.
robustofilth | 7 hours ago
Some of the largest investment funds in the world are Scandinavian buddy. This is actually quite important.
Hells88 | 6 hours ago
It’s a small underperforming activist pensionfund - unfortunately it’s mine :( they are doing. ESG climate and feministic investing.
They hate musk and that is the reason for this pr stunt
rabbit_in_a_bun | 3 hours ago
Oh no you made people downvotes you...
CyberSmith31337 | 6 hours ago
At least someone is finally saying the quiet part out loud. American YouTubers and financial folks are making it seem like SpaceX is the opportunity of a lifetime. It’s just dropping a bag on retail investors.
jacenat | 4 hours ago
Casual finance did an interesting bit about the SpaceX IPO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X6YzlY_8tM
tl;dw: Musk wants to jam SpaceX into the Nasdaq quicker so index funds HAVE to buy it.
JitteryJoes1986 | 3 hours ago
Haha I watched this last week.
This IPO is going to be terrible to 401k investors. They won't have a choice but to buy it from their corporate 401k portfolio's.
BigDemeanor43 | 15 minutes ago
This is me here. I'm tempted to just sell all my large cap and go all in on small and mid cap for the time being.
Or just throw it all in bonds for a few months.
Merijeek2 | 3 hours ago
It is, as long as you get out before reality catches up.
Just like any grift.
Derek-Dick | an hour ago
Well not all of them. Ben Felix, Patrick Boyle and others are not impressed.
https://youtu.be/iOyFja87uyw
https://youtu.be/IHD8BDFYyGI
https://youtu.be/sYA-z0Y8WRQ
https://youtu.be/-X6YzlY_8tM
Zirkulaerkubus | 3 hours ago
Really? I've never seen anything but derision about the spacex ipo.
WSBpawn | 19 minutes ago
I must have a different algo because my videos are all showing that this stock is way over valued and do not buy
KolobokEyes | 7 hours ago
“AkademikerPension will also avoid indexed equity products that include SpaceX” Does this mean avoiding some of the more popular indexes (S&P 500 etc)?
SUMBWEDY | 7 hours ago
So far it's only the NASDAQ which is changing its rules to get SpaceX on the books quicker.
The SP500 rules are still staying the same of needing to be traded for at least 6 months prior, needing to have a market cap of >$22 billion, and having an overall profit the 4 quarters preceeding addition.
Streiger108 | 4 hours ago
S&P 500 is 12 months, but looking to reduce it to 6.
SUMBWEDY | 3 hours ago
Yeah misread, it's getting hard to search through google and avoid wrong AI answers these days.
But technically 12 months is still 'at least 6 months'.
tobberoth | 4 hours ago
SpaceX is not close to making a profit, they are not going to be included in S&P500 for a long time.
Haggardick69 | 3 hours ago
But there is talk of them being added to s&p 100 within 5 days of the IPO.
CommercialAttempt210 | 4 hours ago
Political options > fiduciary duty
sfurbo | 2 hours ago
The fiduciary duty includes avoiding dodgy investments. Investing in scams is likely to harm your customers. SpaceX is dodgy as hell, and any index that includes them is dodgy by that feat alone.
In any sane world, NASDAQ changing their rules to help Elon to scam people ought to sink them as a serious investment. Unfortunately, the stock market is not sane at the moment.
CommercialAttempt210 | 2 hours ago
I complained for a decade about Tesla's valuation with no profits, but Tesla made EVs cool and ubiquitous and Space X is launching and landing rockets. The companies are making huge impacts.
If we consider investors may weigh social impact (heavily) with profits in their discount rates, it is possible to rationalize these valuations.
sfurbo | an hour ago
If we include social impact, helping fascism destroy US democracy also has to be weighted in. It hard to argue that the benefits are worth it.
Just_A_Dogsbody | 3 hours ago
Ugh, I've come to realize this is absolutely true, sadly.
I would like to think that the "invisible hand of the market" is a politics-free-zone. I would also like world peace.
BardicSense | 2 hours ago
Growing up is realizing there is no free market. Maybe world peace can come more quickly after neoliberal delusions have been laid to rest.
GISP | 7 hours ago
Yes, but europe has equalant tech indexes and funds.
So its a double whammy, investing in european stock instead of american just makes so much more sense with how things are going.
CasualEcon | 4 hours ago
When investors buy indices they're trying to get exposure to a specific country, region or sector. European indices are not suitable when they want US exposure just as US Indices are not suitable when they want European exposure.
CasualEcon | 4 hours ago
Pension plans and sovereign funds do this sometimes and it has negative effects for the plans. They'll say "No oil" or "No defense stocks" even in indices, and it limits them to either actively managed funds which typically underperform the index, or they try recreating the index themselves which costs more to trade.
evilkumquat | 3 hours ago
I recently watched a documentary about OceanGate (the guys who made the imploding submersible a few years ago), and the entire time the late CEO was interviewed and kept complaining about safety regulations while bragging about ignoring the rules and thinking outside the box, I kept thinking, "He sounds just like Elon Musk, but with a lot less stammering and flopsweat."
SpaceX is going to kill people eventually, too.
gay_manta_ray | an hour ago
the f9 is the most successful rocket in history and dragon 2 ferries astronauts from earth to the ISS. what are you basing this, "spacex is going to kill people eventually, too" speculation on? just recently boeing nearly killed astronauts with starliner, shouldn't you be more worried about SLS?
BaldBeardedBookworm | 26 minutes ago
Well there’s the fact that it’s CEO has murdered a couple hundred thousand people with his DOGE bullshit. For starters.
gay_manta_ray | 24 minutes ago
i have no idea what this even means
SohndesRheins | 47 minutes ago
So far SpaceX has a far better track record than NASA when it comes to not getting astronauts killed.
random49678 | 2 hours ago
> SpaceX is going to kill people eventually, too.
Super stunning and brave statement considering just about every single physical product sold can/has been used to kill people. Even tissue paper... let alone literal rocket science operating at the very edge of known physics.
Next you will predict at least 1 person will die in an automobile accident tomorrow somewhere in the world. How prescient of you.
FreeRangePixel | an hour ago
Imagine intentionally missing the point and working yourself into a rage over it. lol, fanboy.
random49678 | an hour ago
So true, I'm trying to work on my rage. Can you please identify the portion(s) of my post that indicated rage?
FreeRangePixel | an hour ago
lol
gay_manta_ray | an hour ago
your point is, "despite their unmatched track record of safety launching human astronauts and being responsible for half of all rocket launches from earth, they're definitely gonna kill someone because i feel like they are". it isn't a very good point.
FreeRangePixel | 56 minutes ago
The point you fanboys are desperate to miss is that when Musk gets directly involved in design, he cuts corners at the expense of safety. Or did you miss the people burning to death inside Tesla vehicles because they couldn't get out and rescuers couldn't get in?
codecrodie | 5 hours ago
If my large public service pension fund invested in such shit, i would consider divesting. That would tell me i could get better results just throwing my retirement money into VGRO and VEXT
Prestigious_Load1699 | 4 hours ago
VGRO is going to include SpaceX once it goes public…
codecrodie | 3 hours ago
True. Also, im sure any pension fund would have low allocations. But it's more of a loss of confidence in an actively managed fund (with a long horizon) that is buying the stuff vs a passive ETF.
BrushNo8178 | 4 hours ago
As people have written before the main reason for American prosperity is the strict rules against fraud. People all over the world invest their money there because it’s secure.
Now when the rules relax to cater to a billionaire connected to the president the US is heading towards a banana republic and international investors will be scared away.
KoseteBamse | 7 hours ago
The market has lost its ability to adjust stock prices based on outlook and valuation.
At this point, the market trades on air and half-empty promises, where corporations seem to exist only to dilute existing shareholders.
JitteryJoes1986 | 3 hours ago
100% agree. Corporate and the 1% just looking for retail bag holders.
Just_A_Dogsbody | 3 hours ago
I recently retired and I get paralyzed trying to figure out where to put my retirement funds. Everything is so irrational.
ChemistryOk9353 | 7 hours ago
Well on the other hand, as an asset manager making a couple of hundred million with the introduction…not sure if they would run away of that (and their bonus)
Own_Shower_6000 | 2 hours ago
lol he's going to talk about data centers in space for the next 10 years saying its right around the corner like FSD, and everyones going to pretend he doesnt have a track record of just blatantly lying
Capt_Blahvious | an hour ago
I'm telling my finance guy the same. I don't want any of my money going to Musk. Don't care if he says I'll leave money on the table. That fuck is trying to ruin the world and I don't want to contribute to it.
Seaguard5 | 53 minutes ago
Well as many YT vids and posts here have already found out all index funds will include it regardless.
So yeah. You are buying this stock whether you want to or not if you have a retirement account.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 8 hours ago
A tiny Danish pension fond has made that statement.
And if you know anything about that pension fond you will also know that it’s an entirely political decision, they don’t like Elon Musk.
Had Elon been a large Biden donator they would happily invest.
Edit:
People who downvote me
Ask google AI this:
is the danish pension fond akedemikernes pensions fond political
And read the answer.
Edit 2:
https://www.responsible-investor.com/akademiker-set-to-ditch-tesla-cites-musks-involvement-in-politics/
https://akademikerpension.dk/nyheder/vi-ekskluderer-tesla/ The 3 reason from the director literally states “Elon Musk” as a reason the Fond won’t by Tesla.
It’s wild how many people on this forum straight up refuse to understand what this Pension fond is all about
Spes-Caritas | 7 hours ago
That...or they read the S-1 filing and doubt that even Elon Musk's magic can fix this pile of dog shit.
robustofilth | 7 hours ago
Correct. Pension funds actually read IPO documents.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 7 hours ago
It may be garbage but that is still not why this pension fond has made this decision.
They don’t like Elon Musk and that’s it.
The pension fond is highly political
sesamerox | 6 hours ago
well they probably don't like both? i mean, why would anyone
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
No other Danish pension find has made similarly statements.
Only Akademikernes does, because they are highly motivated by politics and they say it out loud.
Don’t take my word for it, just google instead of guessing
sesamerox | 6 hours ago
i don't care so much about the statements, we should really be discussing how many funds have or are planning to invest in this
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
On Reddit you will get downvoted for simple stating the fact that this is a political choice from a pension fond that bases it’s decision on politics
There is not enough reading comprehension on this forum to have an informed discussion about anything
RoboChrist | 5 hours ago
You're being downvoted for citing google ai while insisting that a glorified autocorrect proves your point.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 5 hours ago
They have publicly stated that they won’t invest in anything with Elon Musk.
But facts apparently trigger Reddit lmao
luisantonio197 | 7 hours ago
Or maybe they're just blessed by common sense
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
Ask google AI this:
is the danish pension fond akedemikernes pensions fond political
And then come back and apologise
redwoods81 | 23 minutes ago
Always use -no ai
lhx555 | an hour ago
“it is not why” … show us the prove then.
“Google it” is not an acceptable answer. You state something, you provide evidence, or GTFO.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 17 minutes ago
https://www.responsible-investor.com/akademiker-set-to-ditch-tesla-cites-musks-involvement-in-politics/
Like this?
Electronic-Salt9039 | 5 minutes ago
https://akademikerpension.dk/nyheder/vi-ekskluderer-tesla/
The director literally states under the 3. Reason that Elon Musk and his politics is why they won’t invest in Tesla.
redwoods81 | 23 minutes ago
No that's capitalism in action 🤷🏻♀️
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
Ask google AI this:
is the danish pension fond akedemikernes pensions fond political
And then come back and apologise
Muisan | 6 hours ago
A pension fund owned by its own members with a commitment to sustainable goals? So what is the problem with that? Also, why would it be a problem if a pension fund is "political". You bots are getting weird
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
Where did I say it was a problem.
I said their decision is political because they don’t like Musk and his politics.
You should work on your reading comprehension instead of calling people bots
Muisan | 6 hours ago
>I said their decision is political because they don’t like Musk and his politics.
And they say they are avoiding spaceX because they don't trust the valuation AND don't trust the leadership structure with Musk holding 85% of voting power. You know, actual arguments. You claiming "its political because they don't like musk politics" is not even an argument. It's a dumb speculative claim.
>You should work on your reading comprehension instead of calling people bots
If you'd acted less as a bot, copy pasting replies, ignoring the actual arguments of the article and clamping to AI search and so on, would help avoid confusion next time.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
Go read about them instead of being so happy about being wrong.
They don’t like Elon Musk and they aren’t scared to say so.
Lmao it’s wild you Reddit people can be so triggered by simple facts
Muisan | 5 hours ago
Seriously? And I had a problem with reading comprehension?
>They don’t like Elon Musk and they aren’t scared to say so.
This is only a part of a list of reasons they give. All of them are solid arguments. You are choosing to ignore all of that and reduce the whole thing to "hurt dur they don't like musk because of politics". As if any pension fund would be allowed to operate in that way.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 5 hours ago
Dude just go read about Arkedemikernes Pension fond and what they stand for.
Muisan | 5 hours ago
I did.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 5 hours ago
Your last comment:
As if any pension fond would be allowed to operate likes this”
Clearly shows that you know nothing about them
Muisan | 5 hours ago
You might want to look up what pension funds do and the legal obligations they have.
Kromgar | 7 hours ago
Space x doesnt have a profit and wants to be valued at 2 trillion while also being in the nasdaq early so pension funds have to buy it. People could lose a lot of money
GISP | 7 hours ago
They properly have itchy tricker fingers urging to sell asap to minimize thier loses.
unsafeideas | 7 hours ago
Rules being bend so that pension funds auto buy Musk companies is already existing political situatiom in the first place.
Yes Musk paid the more corrupt party and politician that is guaranteed to enabke further fraud on Musk side. So of course funds need and should react to that political situation as is rather then imaginary "business like any other" nonsense.
_Tagman | 7 hours ago
Confidently incorrect
Unfoundedfall | 7 hours ago
I imagine the Danish care more about Trump's remarks and Elon's initial support of annexing Greenland if it is political.
I doubt it is political though. My understanding is that some Economists predict SpaceX value to rise and then fall catastrophically after the IPO. It seems like a bad gamble unless you get in and sell on that initial rise.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
Ask google AI this:
is the danish pension fond akedemikernes pensions fond political
And then come back and apologise
Unfoundedfall | 5 hours ago
The problem with AI is that it doesn't reply the same way all the time for everyone. It's not actually smart. I googled exactly what you posted and the AI summary is below:
"AkademikerPension (formerly Akademikernes Pension) is not a political party, but it operates as a highly activist, politically engaged institutional investor. The fund actively integrates ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) values into its investments, explicitly using its massive portfolio to advocate for human rights, climate action, and corporate responsibility.
Key examples of its activist stance include:International Divestment: The fund routinely excludes countries and companies associated with human rights violations from its portfolio, such as divesting from China in 2020 and dropping Israeli investments in 2025 due to ongoing conflicts.
U.S. Treasury Exit: In January 2026, the fund divested its $100 million portfolio of U.S. Treasuries, citing deteriorating U.S. government finances and rising risks related to U.S. policy.
Corporate Governance: They take aggressive voting stances against companies with deficient governance structures, such as blocking the board candidates of firms lacking Paris-aligned climate goals and formally placing exclusions on companies like SpaceX over extreme executive power.
While fund executives maintain that decisions like debt sell-offs are primarily rooted in financial risk management rather than partisan politics, AkademikerPension is widely recognized for its active, socially responsible, and politically driven approach to global capitalism."
You're the one that made a claim it's because Elon isn't pro Biden. Do you have evidence of it?
It does seem they are careful to avoid investing and thus supporting companies that they feel are unethical. I'd agree they're more political than most investment funds. But that's a low bar since most investment funds don't care to be so. I don't see anything that screams political entity. It seems more like they aim for ethical investing. Unless Google AI left out details you have?
Why would I apologize? What wrong have I done unto you?
redwoods81 | 21 minutes ago
Like I told them, always use -no ai in the search to get real academic citations.
robustofilth | 7 hours ago
Total rubbish. Danish pension funds based their thinking on facts and not silly opinions.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
Not this tiny one. Are you danish and understand what they are? Or just guessing? Jeg tror nemlig ikke på du er dansk.
Btw the big ones have made no such statements.
robustofilth | 3 hours ago
If you understand how the pension industry works you would realise once a fund black lists an IPO, other funds will have to explain to their investment oversite why this fund is incorrect and such an investment is ok to make. Pensions are not about short term bucks, they are about ‘investment’. There’s a great deal of legislation surrounding such investments.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 6 hours ago
Ask google AI this:
is the danish pension fond akedemikernes pensions fond political
And then come back and apologise
robustofilth | 3 hours ago
No need. Politics will feature in all investment decisions. It’s just not in this case. It’s rather astonishing how little people know about this stuff.
Electronic-Salt9039 | 13 minutes ago
https://www.responsible-investor.com/akademiker-set-to-ditch-tesla-cites-musks-involvement-in-politics/
You owe me an apology
robustofilth | 3 hours ago
I sincerely hope you never use the phrase ‘ask google Ai’ in any professional job. 🤣
Electronic-Salt9039 | 14 minutes ago
https://www.responsible-investor.com/akademiker-set-to-ditch-tesla-cites-musks-involvement-in-politics/
You owe me an apology
BardicSense | 2 hours ago
No rational person likes Musk.
darther_mauler | 2 hours ago
Everything’s black or white with you, huh?
Electronic-Salt9039 | 17 minutes ago
https://www.responsible-investor.com/akademiker-set-to-ditch-tesla-cites-musks-involvement-in-politics/
Educate yourself instead of throwing pathetic insults
subsonico | an hour ago
Ah, ah. What a stupid thing to say