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?
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.
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.
> 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.
