←back to thread

NASA freezes Starliner missions

(gizmodo.com)
269 points rntn | 3 comments | 17 Oct 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.775s | source
Show context
renegade-otter ◴[19 Oct 24 14:37 UTC] No.41888004[source]▶
But the shareholders have been taken care of, right? Is the sacred shareholder OKAY?

Never mind that a famed company has been dismantled to pump the stock for a few years (and how long it took is a testament to its former excellence).

https://www.amazon.com/Flying-Blind-Tragedy-Fall-Boeing/dp/0...

replies(3): >>41888008 #>>41888175 #>>41888881 #
throw4950sh06 ◴[19 Oct 24 14:38 UTC] No.41888008[source]▶
What do shareholders have to do with it? Why are they so different from shareholders of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook...? Do you really think they are happy now? No-damn-body would trade enormous future profits from one of the biggest opportunities of the future for some measly one-time millions today, in today's dollars. Space industry is going to produce many trillionaires.
replies(2): >>41888028 #>>41888124 #
tjpnz ◴[19 Oct 24 14:41 UTC] No.41888028[source]▶
This is the company which famously asked its engineers to put the shareholders at top of mind when making all of their decisions.
replies(2): >>41888038 #>>41888276 #
throw4950sh06 ◴[19 Oct 24 14:42 UTC] No.41888038[source]▶
So what? That doesn't mean anything. The shareholders didn't say this, the management of the company did.
replies(1): >>41888063 #
mensetmanusman ◴[19 Oct 24 14:46 UTC] No.41888063[source]▶
The shareholders are supposed to fire management when they are being stupid.
replies(2): >>41888069 #>>41888148 #
renegade-otter ◴[19 Oct 24 14:58 UTC] No.41888148[source]▶
I think the problem is that the shareholders do not care about long-term profits either. They keep the management because the management prioritizes the shareholders and not the company or its customers.

We live in the stupid times. After watching others get rich off of Bitcoin, GameStop, and companies with fantastical valuations, everyone wants it to go the Moon ASAP.

replies(2): >>41888318 #>>41888610 #
1. Dalewyn ◴[19 Oct 24 15:20 UTC] No.41888318[source]▶
Thinking about shareholders in one broad stroke isn't useful.

There are shareholders who care explicitly about long-term (at least 20~30+ years) profits. These are investors who are investing for retirement. The problem here is most of them hold index funds or have the money managed by a third-party, so they are indirect shareholders who may or may not have voting rights themselves and may not care to vote in the first place. Bogleheading is explicitly about not giving a damn, after all.

The shareholders who hold stocks directly may or may not care about long-term profits. Investors holding for retirement do, though whether they would vote is anyone's guess. Traders don't care who or what the stock is, all they care about is whether they turn a profit in the next second. Investors holding for income today (read: dividends) care about short-term profits, though again whether they vote is anyone's guess. Shareholders who hold for biased reasons ("I love <company>!") will probably vote, but whether they care about profits at all is anyone's guess.

Anecdata: I hold Boeing stock (BA) through SWPPX which is an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Most of my interest is returns in about 20 to 30 years' time when I reach retirement age. I do not have voting rights as far as I am aware, and frankly I can't be arsed to care about voting.

replies(1): >>41890455 #
2. throw4950sh06 ◴[19 Oct 24 20:18 UTC] No.41890455[source]▶
Retail is very insignificant holder of this kind of stock. Less than 10-30% total in most cases of S&P stocks. It's mostly the pension funds, and big investors.
replies(1): >>41891216 #
3. Dalewyn ◴[19 Oct 24 22:17 UTC] No.41891216[source]▶
If we're talking institutional investors, logic suggests most of their votes would favour intermediate-term policies overall since their various interests encompass the whole breadth of short-, mid-, and long-term.