Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
6. Pension funds tend not to exclusively hold index funds. Individual retail investors do in their 401ks or personally. Pension funds tend to be fairly sophisticated and can easily insulate themselves from SpaceX/OpenAI/Anthropic if they want either by owning index funds and shorting the other companies or by not purchasing the stock. Also, pension funds are immune to (9) as taxes are handled differently for them.

7. ETF managers that track an index aren't allowed to put discretion into what they buy. They offer much lower fees because they don't have to do any thinking, just executing on an algorithm.

8. SpaceX servicing the X/Twitter debt isn't really a question. The total amount of debt is equal to about one year of revenue at the moment, and it's under 3% of the expected market cap of SpaceX. It's less than a third of what SpaceX's IPO is expected to generate selling new shares to the public. It's a non-issue. On the other hand, the fees the banks will get for the IPO could easily convince them to support the rules waivers.

9. This is true of some passive investors. It is not true of pension funds (which are usually not passive) or 401ks or other tax-advantaged retirement accounts. It is likely to be partly true for any individual depending on how much of their assets is in a tax-advantaged account vs a regular account.

10. Yes to Texas. It seems like the arbitration part is likely to be true (SpaceX is certainly claiming it in the prospectus), but there is not the certainty of having a long history of litigation.

Returning to 2+3: The rolling up of all other private Musk companies into SpaceX certainly impacted the investors in those companies, and how much Musk owns vs other people. But the equity adjustments there would be interesting, not the debt.

> can easily insulate themselves from SpaceX/OpenAI/Anthropic if they want either by owning index funds

> ETF managers that track an index aren't allowed to put discretion into what they buy.

I detect a contradiction here.

Pensions are not ETFs, they are very different purchasers of securities. Pension funds are sometimes referred to as relatively passive investors, but even to the extent that there may be a sense where that is accurate, they are not the same kind of passive as ETFs. They do actively make decisions about what to invest in and alter those with changing curcumstances, and they do at times actively engage with the governance of the firms that they directly invest in (and they definitely engage about the governance structures, in part to manage risk and minimize the need to engage with governance details.)
Pension fund managers are not ETF managers. They both buy securities in a fund, but that's about the extent of the similarities.