5 ms·

While he is probably not doing it for the money, he has to answer to investors and they are definitely in it to make a profit. Also he has repeatedly said (lack

by elteto 14y ago

While he is probably not doing it for the money, he has to answer to investors and they are definitely in it to make a profit. Also he has repeatedly said (lacking source, can't remember) that SpaceX has to be, first and foremost, a profitable company focused on developing their business. If SpaceX is not around for the long haul, how is he going to execute all of his ideas?

maxerickson 14y ago
Wikipedia links this Forbes article that states that he owns 2/3s of SpaceX: http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/03/12/how-elon-musk-became-a-billionaire-twice-over/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/03/12/how-elon-m... That isn't a very long list of investors to answer to.
- maaku 14y ago
  Minority shareholders have rights, and Elon has a fiduciary duty to act in their interests.
  - xyzzy123 14y ago
    I would like to promote the "shareholder value myth" as a meme. I would love it if one day people will reply with "shareholder value myth" as reflexively as they reply with "broken window economics!" or "correlation != causation!". Minority shareholders do have rights, but the board of SpaceX can, within reason, damn well do what they please. Please see e.g: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-sharehol...
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Fiduciary duty is not a myth. Other than that, i have no concerns.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      The duty of a publicly held company (which SpaceX is not, yet) is to do what its shareholders desire. Which may be to maximize "shareholder value" but may not be. We tend to think of corporations as money engines, money goes in and more money comes out. But that's an oversimplification. Look at kickstarter as an example of how investment need not always be about strict financial return but also about creation and other goals.
    - maaku 14y ago
      > Minority shareholders do have rights, but the board of SpaceX can, within reason, damn well do what they please. But not without repercussions, unless they don't care about lawsuits which, if entirely ignored, would result in default judgements that would forcibly liquidate the company in the extreme case. What was your point, exactly?

by elteto 14y ago

maxerickson 14y ago

Wikipedia links this Forbes article that states that he owns 2/3s of SpaceX: http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/03/12/how-elon-musk-became-a-billionaire-twice-over/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebmelby/2012/03/12/how-elon-m... That isn't a very long list of investors to answer to.

maaku 14y ago
Minority shareholders have rights, and Elon has a fiduciary duty to act in their interests.
- xyzzy123 14y ago
  I would like to promote the "shareholder value myth" as a meme. I would love it if one day people will reply with "shareholder value myth" as reflexively as they reply with "broken window economics!" or "correlation != causation!". Minority shareholders do have rights, but the board of SpaceX can, within reason, damn well do what they please. Please see e.g: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-value-myth/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-sharehol...
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Fiduciary duty is not a myth. Other than that, i have no concerns.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    The duty of a publicly held company (which SpaceX is not, yet) is to do what its shareholders desire. Which may be to maximize "shareholder value" but may not be. We tend to think of corporations as money engines, money goes in and more money comes out. But that's an oversimplification. Look at kickstarter as an example of how investment need not always be about strict financial return but also about creation and other goals.
  - maaku 14y ago
    > Minority shareholders do have rights, but the board of SpaceX can, within reason, damn well do what they please. But not without repercussions, unless they don't care about lawsuits which, if entirely ignored, would result in default judgements that would forcibly liquidate the company in the extreme case. What was your point, exactly?