They Banned SpaceX 😂😭

以下是将内容翻译为中文： 所提供的文本是对一部关于SpaceX首次公开募股（IPO）及其治理结构的纪录片的强烈个人观点回应。这位发言者在与该纪录片互动时，反驳了其对SpaceX对待投资者“公平性”的隐晦批评，尤其关注埃隆·马斯克过高的投票控制权。 以下是该文稿中关键点和“新闻”的总结： 1. **SpaceX IPO与公平性（纪录片与发言者之争）：** * **纪录片的主旨：** 该纪录片（似乎来自“Doonberg”）将这个故事引入为一个关于“公平性”的故事，暗示SpaceX的IPO由于投票权不平等而“不公平”。它意味着投资者买到的不是“平等的投票权”。 * **发言者的反驳：** 发言者坚决不同意，称SpaceX的IPO对散户投资者而言是“迄今为止最公平的IPO”。 * **新闻：** SpaceX将整个发行量的30%分配给了散户投资者。 * **新闻：** 价格预先定在每股135美元，而且“几乎所有提出认购请求的投资者都获得了部分份额”。 * 发言者强调了这一前所未有的举动，它让散户投资者能在已知价格下参与，避免了首日“可能出现的疯狂抢购”。 2. **埃隆·马斯克的控制权与双层股权结构：** * **纪录片的说法：** IPO“巩固了埃隆·马斯克非同寻常的控制权”，使他拥有“比所有其他股东总和更多的投票权”，并将其锁定为董事长兼首席执行官。纪录片指出，“一家上市公司对SpaceX的投资，就是对埃隆·马斯克及其个人崇拜的投资。” * **新闻：** 尽管马斯克持有公司“略高于40%的股权，却控制着超过80%的总投票权”，这被描述为一种“异常极端的双层股权结构”。 * **发言者对双层股权结构的看法：** 发言者倡导成功公司的创始人应拥有不成比例的投票控制权。他认为“能力超群的人”（创始人）不应该被“平庸之辈”（普通投资者）所束缚。他用“让创始人、领导者放手施展，别去碍手碍脚”来表达。 * **新闻：** 他提到苹果公司（一股一票），但也指出谷歌母公司Alphabet和Meta也使用双层股权结构。 * **新闻：** 他指出，尽管存在这种“不公平的结构”，SpaceX、Alphabet和Meta仍位列全球市值最高的十大公司之列。 * **新闻：** 2004年谷歌IPO时投资的投资者，20年来其回报率“大约是150倍”。 3. **激进投资者的角色：** * **新闻（IPO顾问Lise Beyer）：** 她表示，双层股权结构有助于“在股价下跌时，将激进投资者拒之门外。” * **发言者的定义：** 发言者将“激进投资者”定义为“一群巨大的、爱找茬的蠢货”，他们试图通过“荒谬的投资者提案”来摧毁公司。 * **新闻（讽刺性例子）：** 他夸张地描述了激进投资者的要求，例如：对候选人进行种族歧视，满足各种肤色的配额，或要求新员工勾选“患有严重精神疾病”、“截肢者”、“病态肥胖者”、“兽迷”、“喜欢与同性发生性关系”、“被定罪的罪犯”或“投票支持卡玛拉·哈里斯”等条件。 4. **对SpaceX治理的批评：** * **新闻（哈佛法学院公司治理项目主任Lucien Bebchik）：** * 他担心马斯克的控制权“远远超出了仅仅让他决定商业战略的范畴”。 * 他担忧马斯克将如何在公众投资者和他自己之间“分配利润”。 * 他提出了关于长期领导力的问题：“埃隆·马斯克可能在三四十年后不在那里或不再是现在的他”，而且治理结构是“无限期的”，这意味着他的继承人或信托管理人将保留控制权。 * 他提到，鉴于马斯克先生在他另一家企业特斯拉“之前存在的问题”，如何确保这位超级明星CEO能够“全身心投入”。 * **发言者对Bebchik的反驳：** * 他驳斥了对“分配利润”的担忧，指出马斯克个人并非受财务结果驱动（生活简朴，工作努力，没有游艇）。 * 他同意，如果领导层变动或投资者失去信心，他们可以出售股票。 * 他纠正了关于特斯拉的说法，指出特斯拉在分心问题上“从未出现过问题”，并列举了其成功（Cybercab生产、FSD、盈利能力、全球最畅销车型）。 * 他强调，领导者“因成果而获得报酬”，而不是根据“工作时间”来衡量。 5. **Academiker养老金与“规避风险的终极BOSS”：** * **新闻（Academiker养老金首席信息官Anders Schelder）：** * 他的养老基金最近将SpaceX列入“投资排除名单”，理由是其“灾难性的治理”。 * **新闻：** Schelder指出，“埃隆·马斯克品牌在美国非常强大，但在丹麦却没那么强大”，他提到“许多特斯拉车主可能对此感到有点尴尬”。 * **新闻：** 他因将SpaceX排除在外而获得“比他九年任期内任何其他投资决策都多的正面评价”。 * **新闻：** Academiker养老金的治理原则包括：“一股一票”、“CEO与董事长权力分离”以及“独立董事会”。 * **新闻：** Schelder表达了“担忧”，认为SpaceX的模式“可能会激励其他公司效仿”，导致“权力进一步集中”。 * **发言者的评价：** 发言者将Schelder称为“规避风险的终极BOSS”，因为他的身份是：欧洲人、机构投资者、养老基金经理，特别是针对学者。 * **新闻（Grok AI咨询）：** 发言者就这些群体规避风险的情况咨询了Grok AI： * **欧洲人：** “是的，有强烈而反复的文献记载”，超过70%的人不愿承担财务风险。 * **机构投资者：** “有一定程度/情况复杂”，由于信托责任而倾向于规避风险。 * **养老基金：** “是的，非常如此。经典且众所周知。” * **学者：** “是的。特别是在职业和研究背景下”，激励机制奖励“安全、渐进的工作”。 * **Grok的幽默确认：** “一家位于欧洲的学者养老基金基本上就是规避风险的终极BOSS。” 6. **投资理念与回报：** * **纪录片的结论：** “投资者确实拥有一个非常重要的工具。如果他们不喜欢现状，就可以卖掉股票。”它认为“市场通过股票的估值发出最响亮的声音。”Bebchik建议投资者应因治理缺陷而“大幅折让”其价值。 * **发言者的理念：** 他完全同意投资者可以出售股票。他持与Bebchik“相反的观点”，认为马斯克过高的控制权是一个“巨大的优势”，因为“没有哪个蠢货激进投资者能搞破坏”。 * **新闻（Academiker养老金业绩对比）：** 发言者将Academiker养老金的回报与标普500指数进行了比较： * **20年：** 养老基金：年化6.6%，而标普：12%（几乎是两倍）。 * **10年：** 养老基金：5.8%，而标普：12%。 * **2021年：** 养老基金：10.9%，而标普：近30%。 * **2023年：** 养老基金：8.8%，而标普：26.29%。 * 他总结道：“如果你像个懦夫一样投资，你就必须预期你会获得懦夫般的投资回报。” * **最终论点：** 规避风险的人不会创立或建设伟大的公司。“懦夫不应该有权力去阉割那些有胆识、敢于行动的人。”公司应该保护那些“有胆识的创始人和领导者”，使他们免受那些试图“阉割他们”的人的侵害。

The provided text is a highly opinionated reaction to a documentary about SpaceX's IPO and its governance structure. The speaker, engaging with the documentary, counters its implied criticism of SpaceX's "fairness" towards investors, particularly concerning Elon Musk's outsized voting control. Here's a summary of the key points and "news" from the transcript: 1. **SpaceX IPO and Fairness (Documentary vs. Speaker):** * **Documentary's Premise:** The documentary, seemingly from "Doonberg," introduces the story as one about "fairness," suggesting SpaceX's IPO was unfair due to unequal voting rights. It implies investors weren't "buying equal voting rights." * **Speaker's Rebuttal:** The speaker vehemently disagrees, stating SpaceX's IPO was "far and away the fairest IPO in history" for retail investors. * **News:** SpaceX allocated 30% of the entire float to retail investors. * **News:** The price was predetermined at $135 per share, with "just about everybody who asked for some, got some." * The speaker highlights this unprecedented move, allowing retail investors access at a known price without a "massive potential feeding frenzy" on day one. 2. **Elon Musk's Control & Dual-Class Shares:** * **Documentary's Claim:** The IPO "cemented Elon Musk's extraordinary control," giving him "more voting power than all other shareholders combined," and locking him in as chairman and CEO. It states, "SpaceX as a public company is an investment in Elon Musk and the cult of Elon." * **News:** While Musk holds "just over 40% of the company's equity, he controls over 80% of the total voting power," described as an "unusually extreme dual-share structure." * **Speaker's View on Dual-Class:** The speaker advocates for founders of successful companies to have disproportionate voting control. He argues "people with extraordinary ability" (founders) shouldn't be stifled by "midwits" (average investors). He uses the phrase "let the founder, the leader cook. Get out of their fucking way." * **News:** He cites Apple (one share, one vote), but notes Alphabet and Meta also use dual-class structures. * **News:** He points out that despite this "unfair structure," SpaceX, Alphabet, and Meta are all among the world's top 10 most valuable companies by market cap. * **News:** An investor in Google (which has a dual-class structure) from its 2004 IPO would have seen a "roughly 150 times" return over 20 years. 3. **Role of Activist Investors:** * **News:** Lise Beyer (IPO advisor, Class 5 Group) states a dual-class structure helps "keeping activists away when the stock falls." * **Speaker's Definition:** The speaker defines "activist" as "massive fucking gigacarren" who attempt to destroy companies with "insane investor proposals." * **News (Satirical Examples):** He hyperbolically describes activist demands such as racially discriminating against candidates, meeting quotas for various skin tones, or requiring new hires to tick boxes like having a "severe mental illness," being an "amputee," "morbidly obese," a "furry," "likes to have sex with people of the same sex," a "convicted criminal," or having "voted for Kamala Harris." 4. **Criticisms of SpaceX Governance:** * **News (Lucien Bebchik, Director of Corporate Governance Program at Harvard Law School):** * Expresses concern that Musk's control "goes much beyond just letting Musk determine the business strategy." * Worries about how Musk will "allocate the pie" (profits) between public investors and himself. * Raises questions about long-term leadership: "Elon Musk may not be there or be the same Elon Musk 30, 40 years down the road," and the governance structure is "indefinite," meaning his heirs or trust managers would retain control. * Mentions "how to ensure that a superstar CEO remains fully committed" given "issues before for Mr. Musk at his other venture, Tesla." * **Speaker's Rebuttal to Bebchik:** * Dismisses the "allocate the pie" concern, noting Musk is not driven by financial results personally (lives simply, works hard, no yachts). * Agrees investors can sell if leadership changes or they lose faith. * Corrects the record on Tesla, stating "never was an issue at Tesla" regarding distraction, citing its success (Cybercab production, FSD, profitability, world's best-selling vehicle). * Emphasizes that leaders are "paid to produce results," not based on time spent "working." 5. **Academiker Pension & "The Final Boss of Risk Aversion":** * **News (Anders Schelder, CIO of Academiker Pension):** * His pension fund recently placed SpaceX on an "exclusion list for investments" due to "catastrophic governance." * **News:** Schelder notes "the Elon Musk brand is very strong in the US, but it's not so strong in Denmark," mentioning "many people driving a Tesla is maybe a little bit embarrassed about it." * **News:** He received "more positive comments from a single investment decision" for excluding SpaceX than any other decision in his nine years as CIO. * **News:** Academiker Pension's governance principles include: "one share, one vote," "separation of power between CEO and chairman," and "independent board." * **News:** Schelder expresses "fear" that SpaceX's model "might inspire other to go in the same direction," leading to "further concentration of power." * **Speaker's Characterization:** The speaker identifies Schelder as the "final boss of risk aversion" due to his profile: European, institutional investor, pension fund manager, specifically for academics. * **News (Grok AI Consultation):** The speaker queries Grok AI about risk aversion in these groups: * **Europeans:** "Yes, strongly and repeatedly documented," with over 70% unwilling to take financial risks. * **Institutional investors:** "Somewhat/mixed," tend to be risk-averse due to fiduciary duties. * **Pension funds:** "Yes, very much so. Classically and strongly known for it." * **Academics:** "Yes. Particularly in career and research contexts," with incentives rewarding "safe, incremental work." * **Grok's humorous confirmation:** A "Europe-based pension fund for academics would basically be the final boss of risk aversion." 6. **Investment Philosophy and Returns:** * **Documentary's Conclusion:** "Investors do have one really important tool at their disposal. If they don't like what's going on, they can sell the stock." It concludes that "markets speak most loudly through the value put on the stock." Bebchik suggests investors should "discount significantly" the value due to governance flaws. * **Speaker's Philosophy:** He wholeheartedly agrees investors can sell. He takes the "opposite view" from Bebchik, seeing Musk's outsized control as a "massive positive" because "no fuckwit activist can destroy things." * **News (Academiker Pension Performance Comparison):** The speaker compares Academiker Pension's returns to the S&P 500: * **20-year:** Pension fund: 6.6% per annum vs. S&P: 12% (nearly double). * **10-year:** Pension fund: 5.8% vs. S&P: 12%. * **2021:** Pension fund: 10.9% vs. S&P: nearly 30%. * **2023:** Pension fund: 8.8% vs. S&P: 26.29%. * He concludes: "If you invest like a pussy, you must expect that you will produce the investment returns of a pussy." * **Final Argument:** Risk-averse people do not start or build great companies. "Pussies should not have the power to castrate people who have balls and use them." Companies should protect their "ball-having founders and leaders" from those who wish to "castrate them."