Futurism describes itself as a leading source of cutting-edge science and technology news. That may not position the Florida-based journal as the most reliable place for financial and investment news, but it produced an article in 2025 about Elon Musk that should be examined before any of us move our pennies to buy shares available after the SpaceX public offering.

The share of this record-setting financial deal taken by participating financial institutions was C$700 million. Those rewards were incentives to compromise their impartiality. Investment dealers generate vast sums from lead-managing public offerings, and with such high stakes, they paint offerings in the most optimistic light. Failure to do so may exclude them from participation.

Investment dealers are not independent evaluators during a public offering, because their compensation is directly tied to the success and size of the transaction. Ethical institutions avoid offerings that have long-term problematic indicators.

“It’s simply too, too risky for the type of longevity we want to see in a company,” Marcela Pinilla, director of sustainable investing at Zevin Asset Management LLC, said in an interview ahead of the SpaceX initial public offering.

Zevin is among a group of investors—some niche, some big—publicly voicing their concerns about the norm-breaking governance structure shareholders of SpaceX will face. The company is set to give Musk roughly 80% of the voting rights, while also making him chief executive and chief technical officer, as well as chair of the board.

“This is a company that cannot be sued, cannot be sold, cannot be contested,” Pinilla said. “As shareholders, you’d have to own $52 billion in shares of a company—that is about 3%—to raise any issues with the board,” because of the rules that apply in Texas, where SpaceX is incorporated, she said.

SpaceX Treated As ‘Simply Too Risky’ For Funds With Governance Mandates

.

.