On May 16, 2026, multiple media outlets simultaneously cited the same source information on Telegram: on one hand, SpaceX is reported to be planning to introduce "one of the most radical corporate governance systems in U.S. history," aiming to ensure that Elon Musk cannot be ousted under undisclosed specific terms, accompanied by a trillion-dollar-level compensation plan that ties management incentives to extremely long-term development; on the other hand, Bridgewater Associates and Berkshire Hathaway's Q1 2026 13F holdings, presented by the same source, show distinct directions—Bridgewater established 214 new positions, increased holdings in 292, sold out of 261, and reduced holdings in 487, significantly increasing exposure to chip stocks like Nvidia, Broadcom, and Micron while completely exiting software and cloud service companies like Salesforce and ServiceNow; Berkshire, in the same quarter, increased its stake in Alphabet by over 36 million shares, raising its proportion from 2.04% to 5.93%, while selling out of Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and UnitedHealth, and reducing its stake in Chevron while increasing its investment in The New York Times. These changes in holdings come from a single interpretative channel of the 13F and have not been independently confirmed by multiple sources. Almost on the same timeline, Musk publicly emphasized that SpaceX must focus on the long-term mission of "making humanity a multi-planet species and extending consciousness to the stars," rather than quarterly earnings reports, while the most traditional and radical types of capital on Wall Street simultaneously increased their stakes in top tech assets like Alphabet, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Micron. This resonance and tension between the founder's extreme long-termism narrative and Wall Street's concentrated capital reallocating to tech giants are redefining the core question of "who pays for the future of technology."

SpaceX's Radical "Protection Against Removal": Long-Term Dreams Override Shareholder Anxiety

In the latest round of reporting, some media have directly defined SpaceX's proposed governance arrangements as "one of the most radical corporate governance systems in U.S. history," with the core aim described as ensuring that Elon Musk cannot be removed, alongside a trillion-dollar-level compensation design to bind with the company's long-term development goals. The existing public information comes from a single source and has been reiterated by multiple media on channels like Telegram; there have been no disclosures regarding voting rights structures, board responsibilities, or detailed terms, meaning the outside world can currently only interpret the direction of the proposal in broad strokes of "protection against removal + enormous long-term incentives," and cannot assess whether specific checks and balances have been partially or greatly weakened.

If the reports are true, this "protection against removal" governance idea clearly conflicts with the standard expectations of traditional public company governance: within the conventional framework, the board is viewed as the core entity representing shareholders to oversee management, where shareholders can, in extreme cases, replace the CEO through voting rights to constrain strategic deviations or performance issues; SpaceX's design, however, inversely reinforces the irreducibility of the founder, embedding "cannot remove Musk" into the company's system, locked in with trillion-dollar compensation tying the founder's benefits to the company's extremely long-term goals. Musk's public response emphasizes that SpaceX's mission is to make humanity a multi-planet species and extend consciousness to the stars, and the company should act around this long-term goal, rather than comply with quarterly earnings pressure. This is equivalent to using a "civilization-level" long-termism to justify locking in the founder's power, pushing future investors towards a more binary choice: either fully accept a governance structure constrained by multi-planetary dreams, or distance themselves from this extreme long-termism experiment that leaves almost no exit for traditional shareholder anxiety.

Bridgewater's Major Shift: Retreating from Software to Heavily Investing in Chips

In response to SpaceX's leveraging governance structure for "long-termism," Bridgewater Associates has provided another extreme version of repricing at the asset allocation level. According to a single source's organization of its Q1 2026 13F, Bridgewater established 214 new positions, increased positions in 292, sold out of 261, and reduced holdings in 487, essentially flipping the entire portfolio, suggesting a proactive cyclical rebalancing rather than passive adjustments. It should be emphasized that this series of holding data has not yet been cross-validated through other channels.

In terms of direction, the movement's "vector" is very concentrated: information from the same source indicates that Bridgewater significantly increased holdings in Nvidia, Broadcom, Micron, and other chip-related stocks in Q1 2026, while choosing to completely exit software and cloud service companies like Salesforce and ServiceNow, effectively completing a structural migration from software to hardware and semiconductors in terms of asset exposure. Interpreting the signals through data means that Bridgewater is expressing a possible judgment with real funds: in the near term, the profit engine of the tech sector is more likely to come from underlying computing power and devices rather than overvalued enterprise software subscription models; amidst governance discourse still emphasizing the "long-term story," this type of bottom-up position migration is the key note for capital's repricing of the tech cycle.

Berkshire Bets on Alphabet: Saying Goodbye to Payment Giants and Amazon

Following Bridgewater's "top-down race change," Berkshire Hathaway's Q1 2026 13F disclosure offered another version of tech repricing: using concentrated positions to bet on a single platform. Data from a single source shows that Berkshire increased its stake in Alphabet by over 36 million shares during this quarter, raising Alphabet's proportion in its overall holdings from 2.04% to 5.93%, with its weight almost achieving a leap in elevation. In Berkshire's portfolio, known for its risk diversification, such an increase in power effectively pushes Alphabet from "marginal allocation" to the level of "core chips" with real funds.

Accompanying this is a whole series of proactive "creating room" reductions and clearouts: the same source states that Berkshire completely exited Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, UnitedHealth, and other stocks in Q1 2026, and further reduced its stake in energy giant Chevron, resulting in a systematic contraction of exposure to traditional sectors such as consumer, payment, and energy. Additionally, Berkshire increased its holdings in The New York Times stock, indicating that it was not merely "technologizing" its positions, but rather making a fine balance between tech platforms and certain traditional assets. Looking at this set of actions together reveals two main logical lines: first, traditional value investing institutions are reassessing the long-term profitability and moat of a few large tech platforms, willing to allocate nearly three times the previous weight in their portfolios; second, against a backdrop of uncertainty in interest rates and regulatory environments, certain stocks seen as mature blue-chip and easier to price fundamentally in payment, healthcare, and energy are being actively reduced in weight to allocate risk budget for "high-certainty large tech platforms + a small selection of non-tech assets." As of May 16, 2026, these changes in Berkshire's holdings are still based entirely on single-source interpretations of its Q1 2026 13F report, indicating that they have not yet been independently verified through other channels, but in market discussions, they have been regarded as a clear example of traditional value funds leaning towards tech long-termism.

Founder Power and Large Capital: A New Understanding in the Tech Cycle

The governance arrangements that SpaceX is reportedly planning to implement have been described as "one of the most radical corporate governance systems in U.S. history," aimed at ensuring Musk is not removed, while binding the company's long-term development path through trillion-dollar-level compensation plans; in the face of controversy, Musk's core response is not about valuation or profit but rather the long-term mission of "making humanity a multi-planet species and extending consciousness to the stars." Meanwhile, in Q1 2026, Bridgewater allegedly significantly increased holdings in chip hardware leaders like Nvidia, Broadcom, and Micron, while Berkshire raised its stake weight in Alphabet from 2.04% to 5.93% while exiting stocks like Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and UnitedHealth that were old "consensus targets." Although these holding data still come from a single source interpretation of the 13F document and have not been independently verified, on May 16, 2026, when multiple media outlets concentrated on its interpretation on channels like Telegram, the market had already placed them alongside the governance controversies of SpaceX, viewed as a synchronous strengthening of the "long-term tech narrative" across both corporate governance and capital flow dimensions.

As top global funds further concentrate their disclosures on a few tech platforms and hardware leaders, the market tends to show a higher tolerance for highly concentrated founder power: as long as the narrative is grand enough and the time scale is long enough, investors are more willing to accept the structural combination of "locking in founders with governance + betting on a few winners with capital." But this understanding itself is also accumulating governance risks—founders are almost irremovable, and the deep binding of compensation with long-term goals means that if there is a misjudgment in direction or a mismatch of interests, the checks and balances available to external shareholders will be significantly reduced. For investors, in assessing the risk-return of this round of tech assets, it is essential to include governance arrangements alongside the concentrated flows of institutions like Bridgewater and Berkshire into the analytical framework rather than solely focusing on short-term performance fluctuations or individual valuation indicators.

From SpaceX to Wall Street: How Far Can Tech Long-Termism Go?

When placing SpaceX's radical governance design alongside Bridgewater's and Berkshire’s Q1 2026 reallocation of holdings in top tech assets like Alphabet, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Micron at the same temporal cross-section, the picture presented as of May 16 is quite clear: whether locking in visions with "founder irreproachability + trillion-dollar-level compensation" or rewriting asset allocation curves through concentrated increases at the 13F level, the long-term tech story has become one of the main narratives of the current capital system. The question lies in this long-termism narrative itself is creating new tensions with shareholders' rights and concentration of holdings: once SpaceX binds control and mission to the extreme, the systemic costs of a few individuals' decision-making errors will be magnified; while the Bridgewater and Berkshire-style concentrated bets imply that portfolio dependency on a few tech assets is on the rise, which serves as both a source of future excess returns and a risk amplifier during liquidity and valuation volatility. It is also crucial to emphasize that the analysis relies on reports of SpaceX’s governance and interpretations of Bridgewater and Berkshire's Q1 2026 13F holdings, all currently drawn from a single news and data source, without verification against regulatory documents point by point or cross-validation through multiple channels. If there are further disclosures regarding specific governance terms of SpaceX and subsequent quarterly holdings, the market's judgment on the balance point between "tech long-termism" and governance risks is likely to be repriced, and the trajectory of these variables will directly determine whether this round of tech bets is indeed a sustainable structural opportunity or a cyclical trade that needs to be exited quickly once inflated by narrative.

Join our community, let's discuss, and get stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。