3 ms·

Why would this be different with private share owners who don't work for the company? In the end, all investors want to make profit, no?

Kranar 5y ago
Because you can choose who you sell shares to as a private company and even more, you can restrict those people from selling shares to others that you do not approve of.
croutonwagon 5y ago
Generally you can then pick and choose who holds shares and ensure they are of like mind, or possibly even stipulate it as a condition. SpaceX and a lot of space industry, kinda like IT, seems to capitalize on the like mindedness/idealization and enthusiasm of many that want to work in aerospace. And I have heard the churn and burnout is real as a result. I personally have avoided startups and other types of jobs that would require more....time investment and dedication. I know thats not how everone sees it, but for me, my job is a means to an end and that end is family and fun/recreation, not colonizing mars or being a part of the next great innovation, tech or otherwise. As a result its clear I'm not cut out for a place like Spacex or even Amazon (and thats assuming I am even quick enough to hold such a gig). I like my nights and weekends and work/like separation too much.
- grvdrm 5y ago
  Numerous high fives to you. Too few people willing to say that they aren’t interested in riding rockets and changing the world and instead just want to make money to support their families and enjoy life.
  - aikinai 5y ago
    There are plenty of people like that; most of the world actually. You’re just hanging out on a site basically target at people that want to ride rockets.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  People who want to go into "passion" careers are easily exploited. They'll put up with more shit because of their idealism/passion and there's usually more of them than there are jobs, so when they burn out they can be easily replaced. I have no first hand knowledge of this, but my understanding is video game development is a good example of this: the pay and working conditions are far worse than similar software engineering roles in other industries, because so many video game enthusiasts want to grow up to make games.
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    Game development, pilots, and non-profits. The majority of people who enter those industries are self-selected and are passionate enough about their jobs that they will put up with a lot of abuse.
    - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
      Unless you are an executive on a nonprofit, then it is of paramount importance that you are paid handsomely because otherwise your irreplaceable leadership skills won't be retained.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        Executives at non-profits tend to be pretty underpaid compared to similar executives at similarly sized for-profits. It just sounds outrageous because executive pay is just that high.
  - panick21 5y ago
    Is it exploitation when those people choice themselves where to go AND the same people know they had other options. Its not like SpaceX couldn't get job anywhere else.
tw04 5y ago
The "private shares" don't have anywhere near the voting rights that people would typically expect from an IPO. >Elon Musk’s trust holds 54% of the outstanding shares of SpaceX and has 78% voting control of the outstanding stock. https://www.rankred.com/buy-spacex-stock-worth/ https://www.rankred.com/buy-spacex-stock-worth/ And the reality is: what does he have to gain by going public? He's found no shortage of private investment. I see a ton of negatives to being public and almost no downside.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > The "private shares" don't have anywhere near the voting rights that people would typically expect from an IPO. I mean, no one can outvote Zuck in FB, or Page/Brin in Google, Setting up public shares with (effectively) no voting power (unless Brin and Page disagree) turns out to be trivial
rsj_hn 5y ago
It is not enough to "just" earn some positive return, since all that says is that the shares have a non-zero price. The value of the shares is the capitalization of all the future profits. The estimation of all of that goes into the stock price -- if investors think the profit will be higher, the share price is bid up in expectations of those future profits, so that for the next investor, they will not get any more risk adjusted profit than if they bought any other stock. Similarly if the expectation of profits declines, then the shares are repriced lower as well so that the for the next investor they are indifferent between SpaceX and any other stock. This means there is big money to be had by unlocking value -- e.g. buying up the shares, changing the focus of the company to something even more profitable, and then selling the shares at the higher level. This is essentially the price of going public. Yes, on the one hand you can convert future profits into present cash and make the investors absorb all the risk. But on the other hand, you just sold your company to the market and so have to cede control. Shareholders can elect a new board, replace you, make changes to the corporate bylaws, etc. Shareholders now own the company. Musk could have issued just a small number of shares and kept the rest himself, to maintain control, but still you are opening the door to a lot of public scrutiny, the need to have shareholder agreements and to not intentionally take steps that would mislead shareholders or violate the agreement, lest you face shareholder lawsuits. Bottom line, if you want to sell your future profits to the market, you can do that, but then you lose control. If keeping control is more important, then it's better to stay private.

Kranar 5y ago

Because you can choose who you sell shares to as a private company and even more, you can restrict those people from selling shares to others that you do not approve of.

croutonwagon 5y ago

Generally you can then pick and choose who holds shares and ensure they are of like mind, or possibly even stipulate it as a condition. SpaceX and a lot of space industry, kinda like IT, seems to capitalize on the like mindedness/idealization and enthusiasm of many that want to work in aerospace. And I have heard the churn and burnout is real as a result. I personally have avoided startups and other types of jobs that would require more....time investment and dedication. I know thats not how everone sees it, but for me, my job is a means to an end and that end is family and fun/recreation, not colonizing mars or being a part of the next great innovation, tech or otherwise. As a result its clear I'm not cut out for a place like Spacex or even Amazon (and thats assuming I am even quick enough to hold such a gig). I like my nights and weekends and work/like separation too much.

grvdrm 5y ago
Numerous high fives to you. Too few people willing to say that they aren’t interested in riding rockets and changing the world and instead just want to make money to support their families and enjoy life.
- aikinai 5y ago
  There are plenty of people like that; most of the world actually. You’re just hanging out on a site basically target at people that want to ride rockets.
tablespoon 5y ago
People who want to go into "passion" careers are easily exploited. They'll put up with more shit because of their idealism/passion and there's usually more of them than there are jobs, so when they burn out they can be easily replaced. I have no first hand knowledge of this, but my understanding is video game development is a good example of this: the pay and working conditions are far worse than similar software engineering roles in other industries, because so many video game enthusiasts want to grow up to make games.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  Game development, pilots, and non-profits. The majority of people who enter those industries are self-selected and are passionate enough about their jobs that they will put up with a lot of abuse.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    Unless you are an executive on a nonprofit, then it is of paramount importance that you are paid handsomely because otherwise your irreplaceable leadership skills won't be retained.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Executives at non-profits tend to be pretty underpaid compared to similar executives at similarly sized for-profits. It just sounds outrageous because executive pay is just that high.
- panick21 5y ago
  Is it exploitation when those people choice themselves where to go AND the same people know they had other options. Its not like SpaceX couldn't get job anywhere else.

tw04 5y ago

The "private shares" don't have anywhere near the voting rights that people would typically expect from an IPO. >Elon Musk’s trust holds 54% of the outstanding shares of SpaceX and has 78% voting control of the outstanding stock. https://www.rankred.com/buy-spacex-stock-worth/ https://www.rankred.com/buy-spacex-stock-worth/ And the reality is: what does he have to gain by going public? He's found no shortage of private investment. I see a ton of negatives to being public and almost no downside.

HWR_14 5y ago
> The "private shares" don't have anywhere near the voting rights that people would typically expect from an IPO. I mean, no one can outvote Zuck in FB, or Page/Brin in Google, Setting up public shares with (effectively) no voting power (unless Brin and Page disagree) turns out to be trivial

rsj_hn 5y ago

It is not enough to "just" earn some positive return, since all that says is that the shares have a non-zero price. The value of the shares is the capitalization of all the future profits. The estimation of all of that goes into the stock price -- if investors think the profit will be higher, the share price is bid up in expectations of those future profits, so that for the next investor, they will not get any more risk adjusted profit than if they bought any other stock. Similarly if the expectation of profits declines, then the shares are repriced lower as well so that the for the next investor they are indifferent between SpaceX and any other stock. This means there is big money to be had by unlocking value -- e.g. buying up the shares, changing the focus of the company to something even more profitable, and then selling the shares at the higher level. This is essentially the price of going public. Yes, on the one hand you can convert future profits into present cash and make the investors absorb all the risk. But on the other hand, you just sold your company to the market and so have to cede control. Shareholders can elect a new board, replace you, make changes to the corporate bylaws, etc. Shareholders now own the company. Musk could have issued just a small number of shares and kept the rest himself, to maintain control, but still you are opening the door to a lot of public scrutiny, the need to have shareholder agreements and to not intentionally take steps that would mislead shareholders or violate the agreement, lest you face shareholder lawsuits. Bottom line, if you want to sell your future profits to the market, you can do that, but then you lose control. If keeping control is more important, then it's better to stay private.