> Last thing you want is funds having their say on how to run the company. And who exactly do you think owns 58% of SpaceX that Mr. Musk does not own? [1] It's

> Last thing you want is funds having their say on how to run the company. And who exactly do you think owns 58% of SpaceX that Mr. Musk does not own? [1] It's not like being private means the company is not owned by funds or they have no say on how to run it. What does mean they have no say on how to run it, though, is that although Mr. Musk owns only 42% of SpaceX, he controls 78% of voting rights [again, 1]. Given that he already has a complex scheme to have full control over public Tesla [2], I doubt if SpaceX goes public, Mr. Musk will lose his control over the company. > How can it be a good idea to have such an important company to national security public? It doesn't really matter who "owns" the company, it matters more who is on the board and who have most voting rights. Anyway, if national security is of any concern, better ask why Lockheed Martin or Raytheon are public. 1. https://archive.is/7jbAd https://archive.is/7jbAd 2. https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-controls-tesla-with-only-a-minority-stake-14564491 https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/how-elon-musk-con...