Good. Indexes are supposed to be slow-moving, precisely due to their entry requirement of sustained profitability that skews towards mature companies.
All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk.
SpaceX and OAI stock will be available through Robinhood, Questrade and all the other retail investor markets. Individuals can make an informed choice to trade it there, rather than have it automatically added to their index fund without having any say.
>All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk.
Carvana is the poster child for this. It's astonishing that a company with a history of shady practices, and that has yet to offer a convincing explanation for why it is not a scam, is part of the S&P 500.
And the relative values of those stocks will shift requiring rebalancing. You might be able to do that with new dollars for a while but hopefully, eventually, the swings are much more than new dollars and then what? Pay capital gains tax on sales to rebalance? Convince yourself the new random allocation is fine?
I thought the point of index funds weighting by market cap is that they don't require rebalancing, because the weight of stocks in the index exactly tracks price movements. You just keep holding the exact same number of shares, and more valuable stocks automatically take up more of your portfolio.
If you pick stocks with the correct weight to track the index, you're effectively running an index fund. And so you don't have to rebalance to keep tracking the index.
What are you talking about? Those index fund are constantly rebalancing. This is why you buy an index fund, so you don’t have to constantly rebalance your portfolio.
Herbalife has decades of profits from selling wannabe Herbalife distributors a dream of financial independence they'll never achieve though, which might be unethical but is a bit less likely to lose your pension fund money than a company accused of getting 73% of its earnings from a deal with a convicted fraudster...
Whenever someone says nowadays, they're highlighting recency bias. The goals of holding a broad market ETF are diversification leading to sleeping well over the long term (at least to me).
Also worth noting that other index providers are less principled.
> Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days
It’s important to note that index funds will eventually get in, so it’s not like 401k will never be holding these stocks. It would be silly to assume that the stock is going to tank that much on day 1, on the asumption that there are not enough investors to buy the big three IPOs that are coming out this year. There is plenty of money in the market, and everyone knows index funds will buy these stocks when the companies get in, so everyone will be able to dump them if needed in a year or so.
Btw I don’t really know how index funds work, but if they need to track the index as closely as possible, they will all have to buy those stocks on a certain day, no? There will be a crazy price hike when they do so. Or maybe they have terms that let them smoothen their trading around entry and exit?
To a first approximation, yes, the index funds all need to buy the stock on the same day.
An unexpected surge of buying like this should lead to a big price hike. But everyone knows it's happening, so you'd expect every hedge fund and proprietary firm in the world to buy the day before the index funds buy, and sell into the price hike. So in fact the price hike will be a day earlier than expected. But wait, anyone smart enough to see that should buy the previous day...
In this way the "smoothing" of the trading at entry and exit gets passed on to intermediaries: other market participants who are expert at this.
This all costs the index funds, because every dollar of profit for the other firms is a dollar out of the pocket of the end investor. And huge index events like this are a particular bonanza for these traders. But it probably costs less than you think. Ultimately it's a highly competitive market: the slippage from this approaches the extent to which the prop traders have a higher cost of capital, plus a small risk premium. And remember that they don't have to find "extra" money to fund this trade. When they buy SpaceX they will sell 499 other stocks, doing the same trade there in reverse. Here's a study that approximates the effect at 0.86%[0]. By comparison, the banks underwriting the IPO typically take around 6% [1]. Though this will be smaller for a huge IPO like SpaceX, while the index arb trade will be bigger.
0.8% of drag is a lot when you can do basically the same thing by not strictly following the index.
There are funds from Dimensional and Avantis that are basically just index funds but with a bit more leeway to avoid these obvious pitfalls, and from what I saw they do perform approximately 0.5% better per year.
0.8% is substantial indeed, but if i understand correctly, it’s 0.8% on that one stock, so much less on the index itself.
Those funds that perform better probably take a higher management fee that might cancel out the gain. May be worth it to have a smoother return though.
>This all costs the index funds, because every dollar of profit for the other firms is a dollar out of the pocket of the end investor.
This is so wrong I'm not sure you understand common sense economics and by economics I don't mean anything you can find in a text book. If I invest nothing, the other investors or traders can still make a profit without costing me anything.
Opportunity costs are never real costs. If I have $10, and the traders do weird things with the prices and I don't spend the $10 on anything, I still have $10. The traders failed to cost me.
You're also ignoring the underlying issue which is that the valuation of SpaceX on the open market is different than the valuation it could get from forcing index funds to buy in early. If the stock is worthless then short sellers will make money, but short selling only works if the short sellers don't get squeezed. If the passive funds buy two weeks in, then early traders know that they can sell to a greater fool at inflated prices. Any short seller who is trying to discover the true price will stay back and short directly after the indexes have bought. That's the perfect moment for them. They want the post IPO hype and bull market, only for the stock to collapse within a year.
There's a real desire out there to tell a narrative where SpaceX is a massively fraudulent piece of financial engineering, a pump and dump scam where the stock will "collapse within a year" and retail investors will be left holding the bag.
There's definitely some financial engineering at the margins, but as I see it the facts are:
- Musk is still going to own 40% of the company. If he's selling 4% of it, his incentives are aligned with keeping the rest of it high
- the index funds ultimately are fast tracking the big IPOs because their customers, in aggregate, want that. And the market structure really has changed since the days when the index inclusion rules were first written and companies went public smaller.
- People have been banging the same drum about short sellers with Tesla since at least 2017 - AFAIK it's still one of the most shorted stocks - and it's up 20x since then.
- Institutional investors with more sophisticated strategies than "buy the index" or "pump and dump lol sell to the index funds" will be participating in the IPO and in fact will be the main drivers of price. Everything I've seen suggests that if this is a "retail heavy" IPO, that means 20 or 30% of the shares ending up with retail instead of a more typical 10. These other institutions could be wrong, but they're not mechanical price takers.
I've shown above how one of the effects people make the most noise about - the index balancing arbitrage - is likely an effect of order of magnitude 1%. It's on the noisemakers to show how any of the other effects you mention can be massively more impactful.
Their float will be very small so yes, the value of their shares that anyone could buy at even the most optimistic valuations would be tiny compared to most public megacaps.
> Btw I don’t really know how index funds work, but if they need to track the index as closely as possible, they will all have to buy those stocks on a certain day, no?
S&P wouldn't include them until they became profitable and even if they did they wouldn't even be in the top 20.
No, indexes are meant to track something. The Russel 2000 index has very different criteria for the S&P 500 index. The Dow Jones is yet another one.
The criteria for none of the above is “slow moving”, far from it. Those are all expected to be high growth vehicles for retirement. Safe stuff is bond blended.
Plenty of people at shit in the GFC being invested in “slow moving” S&P 500 companies like Lehman Brothers, WaMu, AIG, GM, etc.
“Was profitable for a while” != “safe” nor is it necessarily good to park money there. You need explosive growth companies that invest rather than profit (like Amazon) being in the S&P 500 are a critical part of its performance.
If retirements only tracked stable mature companies that would be utilities and other stuff that doesn’t actually get you to retirement.
>All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk.
The purpose of an index is to provide a benchmark of the market, not to build funds that follow the index.
> The purpose of an index is to provide a benchmark of the market
Usually a subset of the market based on specific criteria. Total market indexes and funds exist, maybe there is a reason S&P 500 despite its "strict" inclusion criteria is more popular than them?
On a fundamental level, the S&P 500 index is meant to be a benchmark of the market. Journalists, policymakers, investment managers, politicians, regular investors, everyone I know all use the S&P 500 as the benchmark of the US stock market.
If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark.
S&P500 is not a total market index. It tracks a specific kind of large firm, with certain filters.
Fast tracking means that the market likely wont have enough time to find the settled price (especially with the knowledge that passive funds are about to buy), and including a mispriced thing does not necessarily make the benchmark more accurate.
Those filters for S&P 500 inclusion criteria have changed many times. They are not sacred nor set in stone. The question is, do those filters, which were designed for GAAP profitable traditional companies & discriminate against fast growing cash-flow-reinvesting startups that prioritize growth over profit, unnecessarily exclude major players in the U.S. stock market? The S&P inclusion criteria reward companies that prioritize profit over growth.
SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI are all giga-caps preparing to IPO, and none of them will be eligible for S&P inclusion because of the 12-month profitability requirement. At current valuations, all are part of the top 20 largest companies in the US. These companies may be excluded from the S&P500 for potentially years, until they reach 12 months of profitability.
And you are vastly overstating the effect of S&P500 fast track inclusion, the plan was to reduce it from 12 months to 6 months; which is more than enough time for the market to find a price.
> which is more than enough time for the market to find a price
The price markets find would still inevitably be influence by the knowledge that the demand would increase massively in a few months.
> inclusion criteria reward companies that prioritize profit over growth
Or stable and sustainable growth. Whatever else SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic valuations are price in extremely optimistic growth. But yeah, I do see a point that including adequately priced growth stocks could be a net benefit but of course accouting for the actual valuation would turn index funds into managed ones.
Thankfully its not an issue at all since there is Nasdaq 100.
> Under current rules, these fast-growing companies would be excluded from the S&P500 for potentially years, until they reach 12 months of profitability.
> And you are vastly overstating the effect of S&P500 fast tracking, the plan was to reduce it from 12 months to 6 months; which is more than enough time for the market to find a price.
They might never reach 6 months of profitability, let alone 12 months.
> If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark.
So what's the reason for fast entry specifically? If it's a significant portion of the market and will remain so, it doesn't need an accelerated entry. A benchmark should be conservative about new entrants so that it doesn't turn from a market benchmark to a trend/fad benchmark.
If time validates the valuations the entry will come in time, just like for previous entries.
Because the index needs accuracy. If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap and not included in the index, then the index is wrong right now. The longer this company is not in the index, the longer this error compounds.
In the coming few months, multiple giga-cap companies (SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic) are all planning to IPO. These companies will likely never meet S&P profitability inclusion criteria for the next 5 years. These are not bad companies, but because the S&P inclusion criteria were written for old GAAP profitable companies, and not high-growth companies that invest their cashflow into company growth over profits. Excluding some of the most civilization changing companies from the benchmark means the benchmark is doing a terrible job.
"Because the index needs accuracy.", and I would argue that include price accuracy not just inclusion accuracy. The S&P is a benchmark that is designed to reflect a subset of the market, and giving only some companies early access to the benchmark changes the benchmark. So if you want a benchmark that's designed to include all the big stocks regardless of age, profitability, etc then go make a new benchmark. The only thing you need to do is convince others to use your benchmark.
"go make a new benchmark" completely ignores how this works in practice. Benchmarks are only useful because everyone uses the same one, you can't swap it out. The S&P 500 benchmark is used as a comparison for trillions of dollars of mutual funds, index funds, and institutional mandates. The further the S&P 500 strays from reflecting the actual market, the more useless it becomes.
Also the S&P criteria have been revised multiple times, it's not some sacred unchangeable document.
The purpose of the S&P 500 is to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". That's direct from their website. I never dispute this.
I dispute the fact they claim to be the best benchmark of large-cap U.S. equities, yet have rules that (currently) exclude large-cap equities like SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic.
Sure, but then it comes down to your opinion vs the S&P board's opinion. I suspect (given that there's only been a few days of this getting into the public eye) that more people support the S&P's position vs their critics. But the trade flows will show if people get out of SPX (or SPY/VOO) in the coming days.
My issue is that so many people have forgotten the purpose of the S&P 500 index (i.e. it's a benchmark to reflect the large-cap U.S. equity market), and instead treat it as a list of approved companies they should blindly invest their 401ks into. These people do not want to invest their retirement funds into the upcoming IPOs of the overpriced & unprofitable (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI), and then are arguing the benchmark index should not include these companies.
But at a fundamental level, the S&P500 index exists to track the market. It was created decades before passive even existed. These companies are all large enough to qualify as major members of the index. If S&P started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find uninvestable, then that's compromising the integrity of the index, and defeats the purpose of the index entirely.
Reading this thread, there is so much confusion happening.
There are indexes which explicitly try to capture the entire market- the Russell 3000 is most prominent, but the Wiltshire 5000 is another one, and Vanguard's Total Market Funds and ETF follow the CRSP US Total Market Index. I believe all of them plan to include SpaceX/OpenAI etc. within a few weeks of its listing, which is what I'd expect from their goal of tracking the total market. Other indexes follow just a few stocks- most famously, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (built during an era of when it had to be calculated by hand every night) looks at just 30 stocks in a weird way(1).
The S&P 500 isn't either of those. It has a list of criteria for inclusion, one of which is profitability. They are sticking with that criteria. If you don't like it, sell your VOO and buy VTI instead.
1: It is essentially impossible to build an index that tracks the DJIA because, since it was done on pencil and paper, it isn't actually market-cap weighted, but is share price weighted, with a correction factor for each stock to account for splits, one stock replacing another, etc. Because of that nature, the weights of the DJIA change minute by minute, so someone attempting to track it would be subject to enormous error.
So you are saying that S&P 500 should be merged with Russell 2000 or rather just become a fully market index to be more "accurate". You do know that's something that exists already, having different indexes makes perfect sense and consumers can pick the ones they want based on their risk profile and preferences.
> most civilization changing companies from the benchmark
It took Google 2 years to get into S&P 500. For Microslop it was 8 years (!). So what's new?
I am saying none of those things. S&P claims their S&P500 index is the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". That's taken directly from their website.
I dispute this claim, because the (current) rules for S&P500 inclusion exclude companies like SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI. All of these companies are planning to IPO this year, and even if these companies maintain their present valuation for a year, none are eligible for S&P 500. Due to profitability requirements.
Yet these are all U.S. large-cap companies, among the top 20 largest in the U.S., and by S&P's description of the index, should be included. Not including these companies makes the index inaccurate.
> [Google and Microsoft took years go get into the index], so what's new?
Because SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI are $1T+ companies. Google and Microsoft were much smaller relative to the size of the index when they joined.
> If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap and not included in the index, then the index is wrong right now.
To be clear, S&P 500 relies on float, not total US Market Cap, and Space X will have a tiny float.
Even if it was included, SpaceX would not account for 1-2% of the S&P 500 (more like 0.1%), so even if we reason on the basis of a benchmark, it's not a meaningful difference.
What is the S&P 500 meant for then? It was created in 1957 as a benchmark of US equity performance. That's S&P Global's own stated purpose. If it's systematically excluding companies that represent significant chunks of total US market cap, the index isn't doing its job.
Maybe you know this already, but this reads like exactly the kind of reasoning that people looking back at irrational market euphorias point to as a sign things were about to go awry.
The purpose of a benchmark is to reflect the market. If the US economy is pumping out high-growth but overpriced & unprofitable companies via IPOs, at unreasonable valuations, the benchmark should reflect that.
On the contrary. There are many benchmarks, some small subset of which are intended to reflect the whole market.
There are indices for every little thematic and niche corner or strategy or idea, there are broad-as-possible indices, and there are indices with requirements like listed age and profitability.
I'm not debating any of that. This discussion is about the S&P500 as a benchmark, which has an expressly stated purpose of tracking large-cap US equities.
This discussion is about if S&P500 actually achieves this benchmark, when it has (antiquated) rules that exclude large-cap US companies of the likes of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI.
Matt Levine, who probably knows more about finance than anyone on this site, has said the same thing. He’s also talked about all the hate mail he gets. Large market etfs like VTI or VOO are supposed to track the market. It would be weird if they ignored trillion+ market cap companies. If the market decides to dump these companies then they’ll fall out of the index.
Index criteria have also changed many times over the years, and they are changing again to deal with later stage companies coming to the market with already huge valuations.
I completely agree. People have parroted the benefits of passive investing and blindly following the benchmark index for decades, yet the instant some overpriced turds (Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX) are considered being adding to the benchmark, they backtrack and fight tooth and nail against including them.
All three companies are large enough by market cap ($1T+) to qualify for the S&P 500 benchmark, which claims to track the top 500 largest U.S. large-cap equities.
They have a point (not wanting to invest in overpriced equities), but if you don't like the companies that surface through passive investing then don't be a passive investor. It sounds like these people want active investing instead. If that's your position, just buy actively invested funds, not ruin the benchmark for everyone.
S&P is caught in a bind, because if they add these companies to the index, it would aggravate millions of passive investors.
If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark.
If you change a benchmark whenever you think it'll be 'wrong', then it becomes a measure of the heuristics you use to predict what'll impact the benchmark rather than a benchmark in its own right.
S&P claims their S&P 500 product is the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". For this benchmark to be accurate, at a fundamental level, this benchmark has to follow the market and reflect current market conditions.
The market decides what the large-cap U.S. equities are, not S&P. If S&P excludes some of the largest U.S. companies, which based on their current rules, will exclude all of Anthropic, SpaceX, and OpenAI; then they do a poor job reflecting the benchmark they claim to follow.
It's not S&P's fault that market conditions have changed.
this benchmark has to follow the market and reflect current market conditions
Sure, but right now they don't know how the market will react, so changing the index rules before there's any data would be a measure of their heuristics (e.g. what they believe the market will do), not a measure of what the market is actually doing.
The core issue is that S&P requires companies to be profitable for 12-months to get included in the index. Yet all of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic are highly unprofitable, because they are prioritizing investing all free-cash-flow into growth instead of returning money to shareholders. These companies likely will not be profitable for years, and without a rule change it's unlikely they will be included in the index anytime soon.
Given these large-cap companies currently represent ~5% of the U.S. stock market capitalization, it's difficult to justify why these companies are excluded from a large-cap index.
It may be used as a benchmark, but that’s not actually the purpose of it. The purpose is to serve as a way for people to invest in a representative sample of the market. It can still be a representative sample with safeguards. If you want a benchmark without safeguards, you can calculate one without risking millions of people’s life savings.
You have your history backwards. The S&P 500 was created in 1957 as a benchmark. The first investable index fund tracking it (Vanguard's) wasn't created created until 1976. Vanguard created their fund to track the benchmark, not the other way around.
And if you need a second, different index to function as the true market benchmark because the S&P 500 no longer reflects the actual market, then you just agreed the S&P 500 is no longer an adequate benchmark. You just agreed with my point.
Because it's selective, the S&P by definition does not reflect the actual market. It reflects a subset of it.
If you're comfortable with this notion of what the S&P does, then you ought to be comfortable with S&P applying the same methodology they've always used. There are other indexes you can reference if this particular sampling of the market isn't to your personal liking.
The S&P's historical inclusion criteria were designed to filter out unstable, illiquid questionable companies to get a view of large-cap US equities. That logic worked when every major American company was public and profitable.
That's not true any more. Today we have multiple giga-caps (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI) vying to IPO, all of which potentially in the top 20 largest companies in the US market, all ineligible for S&P 500 inclusion because of the 12-month profitability rule.
You claim S&P can "apply the same methodology they've always used" but this is just factually wrong. The inclusion criteria are not sacred rules set in stone and S&P has rewrote them multiple times. For example, they banned dual-class share structures in 2017 to stop SNAP from joining the index, but reversed it in 2023 because they excluded too many companies. The rules get rewritten when the market changes, and it's clear the current market environment has changed.
Meanwhile, Nasdaq changed their rules to handle this situation. And S&P changed the inclusion criteria for the S&P Total Market Index so SpaceX would be included.
So Space X, OpenAI, Anthropic? Those are perfect examples.
It's unlikely their valuations could survive the IPO if their float wasn't extremely low.
> top 20 largest companies in the US market
You do know that S&P weights are based on the free float and not the market cap. So based on that SpaceX etc. will not be in the top 20. The total value of shares of Johnson & Johnson available on the public market will be much higher than that of SpaceX/etc. based on their current valuations.
> the S&P 500 no longer reflects the actual market
Well it was never intended to reflect the full "actual market".
> no longer an adequate benchmark
According to your definition it never was. However there were and are plenty of other index benchmarks which serve different purpose. Its just that S&P 500 managed to become the most popular one, why did it happen if it was always inherently flawed?
Like they didn't even add Microslop for 8 years...
It’s a benchmark of the market under certain rules, like having multiple quarters of earnings for the market to value them at.
These companies want special exceptions. If you are an exception why should you be included in a benchmark? At best they should have an asterisk against their name like Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire if they are not following the same rules.
Your baseball cheating analogy makes no sense here. Rules against corked bats / steroids exist so people don't cheat at a sport and all players can compete equally. S&P rules are supposed to make the index reflect the market. Totally different.
The profitability requirement is something made up by the S&P committee. If that rule ends up excluding trillions in market cap, the rule has defeated its own purpose. The 12 months of profitability requirement punishes high-growth companies that invest their FCF into growing the business vs taking profits.
It excludes companies like Amazon, which when ran by Bezos, was famously unprofitable and invested all free cash flow into growing the business and never turned a significant profit until >20 years after its founding.
The S&P 500 brochure describes itself as "the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities". That language implies they act as a benchmark, which I find questionable, given that based on their current eligibility requirements, it would exclude all three of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI.
All three companies are in the top 10 largest companies in the US by market cap, based on their current valuations. If these companies maintain their valuations over the next year, they'd still be ineligible under current rules. Because none of them are GAAP, they're all heavily reinvesting cash-flow into growth. These companies may be excluded from the S&P500 for potentially years, until they reach 12 months of profitability.
A benchmark of the U.S. stock market that excludes multiple of the 10 largest U.S. companies cannot be taken seriously.
S&P 500 weights are based the value of shares available on the public market not the market cap. Based on that SpaceX will be nowhere near the top 10.
Do you think their valuations wouldn't fall dramatically if they were willing to float a significant proportion of their shares on the market anytime soon.
Based on previous IPOs, SpaceX will grow to ~40% float by 12 months, thus if it keeps its current valuation unchanged, will remain near the top 10 spot.
> Rules against corked bats / steroids exist so people don't cheat at a sport and all players can compete equally.
> The profitability requirement is something made up by the S&P committee.
Those are both equally made up. In this case the rules are being changed for new entrants into the market such as SpaceX for the Nasdaq and other benchmarks that are allowing it for that none of the previous companies in said index were allowed to get in under.
And since it’s 15 days and I know most companies have lockout terms on the order of months for various levels of stock, I’m hesitant to believe this won’t modify the benchmarks beyond what has happened with previous inclusions.
`JumpCrisscross’s reply to one of my other comments on this thread in regards to the S&P being a committee based decision actually has had me pause to think, but your argument that the rules are arbitrary so it can’t be cheating like my baseball analogy fails to land.
Baseball rules exist to prevent cheating. The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market. When S&P rules end up excluding a significant part of the market with trillions in real market cap, that means the rules are badly designed and broken by its own standard. You're trying to compare updating badly written S&P 500 rules to cheating, which makes no sense at all. They are completely different.
And calling out how the rules are being changed for new entrants into the market such as SpaceX on Nasdaq proves my point. Index providers are already quietly admitting their criteria are too rigid.
Even S&P adjusted their rules to allow SpaceX into the index, although only for the total market index.
"The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market", the rules exist to reflect a subset of the market, and the committee chooses that subset. It's their subset so they get to set the rules, you don't have to use it if you don't want to. If you don't like that subset then create your own index. Then you just need to convince others to use it.
Per the S&P 500 website, the claimed subset of the market is "U.S. large-cap equities". S&P claims their index is "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". But, it's clear that given the current iteration of the rules, none of the major upcoming IPOs of Spacex, Anthropic, or OpenAI are eligible for S&P500 inclusion, and they likely will not be for years.
Claiming to have the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities", yet having rules that exclude three of the top 20 largest U.S large-cap equities which make up ~5% of the total market cap of the U.S. stock market, means your benchmark is inaccurate by my book.
> accurately reflect the market. When S&P rules end up excluding a significant part of the market with trillions
Define what that means? The weights are based on the value of shares available publicly, not market cap. So even if included SpaceX wouldn't even be in the top 20 and have a lower weight than Johson & Johson.
A lot of what people are saying here seems to be based on a misconception of what S&P 500 is supposed to be. Maybe it became the most popular index because of those rigid rules?
> The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market.
I personally believe that accurately reflecting a market involves not allowing cheating. I personally believe that getting to change the rules so that your IPO gets included before the general market can discern your value because of your connections to the benchmarks is cheating.
If you want to disagree with me on these points then please do so, but understand why I am claiming that this behavior is cheating.
> getting to change the rules so that your IPO gets included before the general market can discern your value because of your connections to the benchmarks is cheating.
I disagree with you because you are vastly exaggerating the scope and effects of the proposed rule change. S&P was going to decrease their minimum index inclusion time from 12 months to 6 months. 6 months is far more than enough time for the market to decide a fair price of an equity. The rule change never ended up happening, hence this post.
There is zero "cheating", I don't understand why you keep harping on that.
The decision means companies like SpaceX would not be eligible for inclusion in the S&P 500 until at least one year after its listing and would also need to satisfy the index’s existing requirements for profitability and public float.
Sudden outbreak of common sense.
SpaceX is going "public" with only 4% of the stock being sold to outsiders. The S&P 500 requires a 50% public float. That may disqualify SpaceX for a long time.
Although GOOG and META are listed, despite control being held by insider shares of a different class. There was a time when the NYSE did not permit companies with more than one class of stock to be listed on that exchange. (Except F, FORD, which predates the NYSE). That was lost some time around 1990 or so.
Matt Levine wrote that flouting the rules could be fine if there were market alternatives (he said otherwise it would be a market failure). I am pretty sure there would be market alternatives appearing, at least in the ETF tracking space, and that would erode the brand.
It would be a bad show to have SP500 (cheating rules) underperfoming SP500(proven rules). It would also be a bad show with many financiers and even influencers calling out the corruption.
I for one would be advising newer investments in the proven rules ETF trackers. I also think there might be lawsuits from people who had contracts tied to the old rules. After all if you need to sell to transfer to another vehicle there might be tax consequences.
PS: It is a shame that multiple classes of, non floating, controlling stock do not cause penalties in terms of market cap weight. I will research the issue.
I know an ETF is not an index, but the relationship is tight enough for practical reasons.
This seems a sensible thing to do. If you change the rules on how things end up on your index, you force everyone using that index to reevaluate it. Your index is now perceived as more volatile (and probably is), and all the finance people need to reevaluate the risk of their index funds and decide if it is now 'growth', 'high growth' or whatever bucket it belongs in based on the new risk profile. And then all the portfolios need to be rebalanced. Which all takes time, more time than was being proposed. The sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules.
> sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules
It depends. Indices aren’t funds. They aren’t meant to balance investor interests. They’re meant to communicate some metric about the market.
The S&P tells you how big companies are doing in an index optimized to balance representation against trading cost. So in 2005, float was taken into account for weighting (versus just market cap). This made sense. Also, since the start, the S&P 500 has been a committee-based index. Not rule based. This has made it successful; if you want stable and unchanging, you never went for the S&P 500.
The S&P 500 may not be a fund itself, but Standard & Poor's is a business whose ability to sell services is correlated with the continued relevance of the S&P 500. It absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis.
It seems entirely reasonable to say: "if we make a certain decision, we correlate both our reputation and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy with the whims of one of the most volatile personalities in industry, and we should likely pay attention to this trial balloon that shows such anticipatory fear of the decision that we might lose our reputation as an index altogether."
> absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis
As a business, sure. As a committee, it’s still a deeply technical process. I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.
> and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy
This vastly overstates the amount of assets tied to the S&P 500. It’s a lot. But it’s a strong minority of equity exposures.
I know folks who have been on these. They don’t have tenure. But they’re basically emeritus. If S&P wanted to do something that would cause chaos, it would be fucking with those folks because they made a decision that looks bad.
It’s a public benchmark fund that has much of its value based on its decisions being publicly stable and publicly consistent.
Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided? If your statement is accurate it sounds like moving out of such a fund would be prudent. I feel like it’s not accurate since they are sticking to their guns and not changing the rules to benefit oligarchs like Musk such as Nasdaq is doing.
> Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided?
There are lots of rules-based funds. S&P is transparently committee based. It’s why dual-class new entrants are banned, but Google and Berkshire are grandfathered in.
There is a genuine debate on rules versus committees in the index world. But S&P has stuck to its guns as a bastion of the latter. And it works. Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.
> Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.
I'm fairly confident most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default. And that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation.
> most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default
A lot of retail goes into S&P lookalikes. And at the end of the day, they've consistently picked one over the other.
> that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation
Unlikely. Nobody has dropped NASDAQ 100-tracking funds. If anything, these guys will see long-term net inflows due to this move. S&P probably would have if they’d changed rules—this was an econometric, not business, decision.
There's overlap between strong minority and nontrivial, so not sure how it can be vastly overstated. Do you have numbers you can add to this, or any explanation of equity exposure etc?
Once you have an index, you can offer all sorts of products around it.
-You can offer a return swap to an investor so he can "invest" in the index. You can alternatively build a whole list of derivatives and products around it and offer them to investors instead (think Itraxx,Vix,etc)
-A fund manager can use it as his benchmark and you get to see if he is good or not.
-If its a factor index you can now use it for risk management and return attribution.
The key thing today is that creating a new index that isn't a fad is very hard. There has also been a lot of consolidation of indices into few players (SP, MSCI, Bloomberg) as it's obviously an economies of scale business.
> let's not pretend that inclusion in the index doesn't mean real money is at stake
Straw man. Nobody claims this. The point is (a) the state of decisionmaking was misrepresented for clicks and (b) the effects of a decision one way or the other way way overblown.
Hating on Musk sells subs. That's fair and, frankly, deserved. It doesn't mean we need to get misled chasing that high.
The market cap of the S&P 500 according to Google is ~$65T. Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia. That's a big deal.
The rules around index inclusion exist for a reason. Too much control in one person's hands (which SpaceX has), too small a float (so you don't get price discovery), lack of a history of financial performance and minimal trading days just don't give investors confidence and, like it or not, investment decisions are made based on the index. If you want to argue against passive investment, well, good luck with that.
I think a lot of people have this weird idea that what we need is some theoretically unfettered market for "true" price discovery when it's actually regulations like this that create markets. It's like a libertarian brain worm.
I don't think anybody wants these mega-companies out of the index, specifically. They just don't see why rules that exist for a reason should be suspended when the net effect of that is that investors have less information and there is a lot of forced purchasing. If you have confidence in your IPO, let the market decide what it's worth without trying to fix the price because what they seem to want is for insider lock-ups to end about the time we'd otherwise be getting normal price discovery. Kinda weird.
Investor confidence needfs to be managed by creating a stable, regulated market.
> Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia.
This is a common misconception. The S&P 500 weights allocation by float-adjusted market cap, not by total market cap. In the case of SpaceX, they are planning to float ~4% of shares at IPO. Even if SpaceX was added to the index, its index weight would be based on that tiny float, and at a $1.75T valuation it would be treated as roughly a $70 billion company.
SpaceX weight would be ~0.125% of the index, not ~2.5% as you imply.
Before the changes, the Nasdaq-100 index was total market cap-weighted not float-weighted. Once a company crossed 10% floated shares, the company was added to the index at full weight.
Nasdaq's new system is a hybrid of float-weighted and cap-weighted. If a company has below 33.3% float, its weighting is 3x float. Above that, it's cap weighted. This allows a gradual fade-in of the company into the index.
It's a better system than the previous one, and in Nasdaq's own words, more conservative.
For the Nasdaq-100, SpaceX at 4% float gets 3 x 4% = 12% of its market cap counted, which is $210B not $1.75T. Still <1% of the index.
Also, the multiplier is 3x, not 5x. Nasdaq proposed 5x, but after feedback, this was reduced to 3x. The new thresholds are 3x and 33%, not 5x and 20%.
Price discovery isn’t “making up” a number it’s discovering a number that meets a specific criteria.
Critically it’s not simply averaging a bunch of made up numbers. I may think gold is worth 1,000$/kg but if nobody is willing to sell me gold at that price then my “made up” number has zero effect on the market price.
The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation. It's not made up from the ether based on nothing. You can disagree with their reasoning and come to a different number, but you need to show your work if you want anyone to give a shit about your made up number. How many satellites have you launched this year? What's the going rate for a kilogram to LEO? Who are the competitors and what do they charge? Things like that which aren't magic made up numbers.
That’s total addressable market. It’s claiming that AI products they could build could be that amount. It assumes they gain 100% of the market which techbros are basically claiming is most current human effort. It’s stupid, but not what’s actually driving the price.
They are making more revenue off satellites than nearly every current AI subscription today put together. The launch capacity and growth in space based applications are the real company, everything else is to line Musks pockets and have markets subsidize his dumber projects.
It’s a shell game. I believe in their Space based products, but I’m not touching those investments until the market levels out.
> The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation
That's tangential. The valuation is based on supply and demand, nothing else.
Amongst other things the supply part of the equation will be low because all these companies are only to make a very small proportion of their shares available on the public markets.
They have to be rebalanced every quarter regardless. And I'm not sure how many people would actually sell due to the inclusion of a single company. They're very loud about it, but no evidence that this is causing a significant amount of selling.
At a fundamental level, an index is supposed to reflect the market. If the current market is IPO-ing unprofitable companies at absurd multipliers, the index should reflect that. Because that is the market.
The longer major indexes exclude these companies, the further the index strays from representing the market, and the worse they do their core job of tracking it.
It's not the index's fault that market is pushing out overpriced and unprofitable companies.
Indices are supposed to reflect a part of the market. That's why you have all of S&P500, the Dow, NYSE Composite, and Nasdaq Composite (and several others) in the US — They each reflect different attributes of the market as a whole.
As it stands, it's clear that the users of S&P500 are not interested in the performance of the parts of the market made up of overpriced (and potentially highly volatile) IPOs.
The problem with your framing of "users of S&P500 are not interested overpriced IPOs" is that it conflates two fundamentally different things: what an index describes vs what investors prefer. The moment you start filtering out parts of the market based on investor appetite vs market reality, you stop building an index and instead start creating an actively managed product. That's active investing. It's no longer an index.
The S&P 500 is used as the benchmark of the market by practically everyone. Journalists, policymakers, investment managers, politicians, regular investors, everyone I know. If the benchmark that everyone uses as a market proxy is systematically excluding a substantial part of the market, then the gap betweeen "the index" and "the market" has real consequences.
You can't have it both ways: Either the S&P 500 is a market proxy, in which excluding parts of the market is a problem; or it's a curated slice, in which everyone needs to stop it as the default benchmarket for the market.
It doesn't conflate anything. The inclusion rules weren't given to us by God, they were created by humans because they thought, rightfully, that people will be interested in that as a product ("prefer"). As the market changes, the product can be adjusted.
Lastly, there's no such a thing as a real "market proxy", except the whole market. If you scope any subset of it, you're making some inclusion and exclusion rules.
The S&P 500 is primarily a benchmark index, not a list of approved stocks to invest your 401k into. The GP is conflating the two. GP is claiming there's a subset of stocks that people don't want to invest in, and these should not be included in the S&P 500. Sure. But, per the S&P website, the S&P500 was created as a benchmark of U.S. large-cap equities. On their website, S&P advertises it as "the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities".
The S&P 500 index was created in 1957. It was created decades before the first index fund (by Vanguard), which copied the index in 1976.
The index is intended to follow the all of the largest large-cap U.S. equities, not pick and choose which ones to invest in. GP is arguing that many passive investors, who blindly follow the S&P500 index, don't want to invest in these upcoming unprofitable mega-caps. That's not how the index investing works, that's picking and choosing approved sectors of the market, which is active investing. If you want active investing, buy an active investing product, don't buy a fund that copies the benchmark index.
An index is an index. It works fine as an index if it excludes one or two stocks. People seem to forget as well that this is a question of waiting a single year before it including the stock. It is literally just long enough to make sure the price settles, it's not some catastrophic thing.
It's more than that. None of SpaceX, OpenAI, nor Anthropic will meet the criteria, and they will make up a significant part of the US stock market. Each of these companies is heavily investing their cashflow into growing the company and are unlikely to be profitable many years.
The inclusion criteria prioritizes companies that extract their cashflow into profit, and excludes companies that invest their cashflow into growing the company. For example, when Jeff Bezos ran Amazon he described his company as "famously unprofitable, And that is a conscious strategy and an investment decision." Amazon only joined the index in 2005, nearly 8 years after IPO, even though it was a significant member of the stock market at the time.
"The inclusion criteria prioritizes companies that extract their cashflow into profit", in almost all cases, yes. But if you want to buy into these newer stocks there are various high growth indices you can buy, no one is stopping you. If you want to buy into only one or two of those stocks then you can. It's a free market for stocks and it's a free market for indices. There's no regulation that says the S&P has to include certain stocks.
The issue is a contradiction with what S&P 500 claims to do vs what they actually do.
S&P 500 claims to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". But if they exclude high-growth no-profit large-cap equities such as (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX) from their index, then S&P is doing a poor job at what they claim to benchmark.
It's not not an insignificant oversight. The valuations of (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX) total to ~5% of the total US stock market.
> what an index describes vs what investors prefer
What makes you think S&P 500 did not become the most popular index (instead of full market ones) because of the rigid entry criteria and and rules for weights.
Amongst other things the weighting is not even based on the market cap.
I feel like a lot of people discussing here have no clue what they're talking about, they just have an opinion - which, combining both, most likely means it's an opinion they did not form themselves.
The rules for index inclusion absolutely make sense in many ways.
This does seem sensible and I’m glad most of my holdings are in s&p funds.
Just to play devils advocate though, what are the downsides of not having 3 of the biggest 10 in the world not in your fund, if you hold to track broad market performance? Wouldn’t that have a massive blind spot on AI related growth?
Whether or not I personally think ai is over hyped or not, the whole point of these ETFs is to make sure I don’t get a say in the matter, since I’m a terrible stock picker
What a pleasant surprise. I was positive S&P would get strongarmed into the bamboozle like Nasdaq but it seems they have a bit more integrity. Good for them.
I think key difference here is that Nasdaq is also the market. Where as S&P is external. From this view them manipulating their own market which they profit in various ways actually is somewhat more questionable...
Incentives are entirely different. And really now I am starting to think that Nasdaq maybe should not have index it runs in the first place...
Didn't Nasdaq change its rules specifically in order to get SpaceX to list on Nasdaq? Not really sure why other funds would follow them since SpaceX can't list on all of them.
Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days.
Although it’s good they stood by their rules, elsewhere Reuters points out
> S&P Global said it would modify entry rules for its broader S&P Total Market Index and Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, creating a pathway for SpaceX to join those less widely followed indexes.
The market is more unpredictable than it’s been in a long, long time so I hesitate to make a firm prediction but to me the odds that SpaceX will be a successful IPO over a 3-6 month window are significantly lower now. S&P inclusion basically requires funds to hold a position by default, and per their own estimates $20tn of assets are indexed/benchmarked to the S&P.
Not OP but I will weigh in. The numbers for SpaceX were not looking great, they are burning cash faster than Starship crashing into the Indian ocean. The idea was that with a fast indexing, this would be mostly irrelevant as retirement funds would automatically buy into the IPO after 15 days thus bolstering the company before any sanity would prevail on the markets.
Now that they have to wait a year for that point, that cash burn is going to work against them fairly heavily. There is also something like $20 billion of debt they have to pay back in the next 12 months that might not be covered over so easily now.
That said, SpaceX and a lot of Elons companies have had figures that look terrible for ages, and yet they keep manage to pull rabbits out of the hat. So who knows. Maybe they sell a bunch of assets, they have more than enough to cover the gap.
> retirement funds would automatically buy into the IPO after 15 days
This is a misrepresentation of the rule change. The proposed S&P500 rule change was to decrease S&P inclusion time from 12 months to 6 months, not to 15 days.
The real issue is that existing shareholders will all be eyeing each other wanting to exit at the highest price it'll ever be. That's a lot of selling pressure.
I can't imagine many people seriously believe SpaceX is a business worth 1.75T.
Depends what you mean by successful. If you mean "the IPO goes ahead" then I don't think this makes a difference (unless Elon cracks the shits at this decision and pulls out, which I'm not sure is an option).
If "successful" equates to number-go-up, then my understanding is that Fast Index Entry would have resulted in, effectively, forced purchase of shares by various funds.
When Fast Index Entry (FIE) was a chance of being introduced, the odds of number go up were higher. Now that FIE has been ruled out, there's a lower chance of number go up because there's no "forced blind purchase" group.
Nothing that you are saying here has any commitment to what to expect, is all heresay. It's 100% ad hominem, to the person. That's a fault whether the direction is complimentary or derogatory. I personally really don't want to see vacuous empty comments like this.
I personally really don't care that you dislike podcasts, or don't have the time to click the link and spend five seconds reading the summary, or are lashing out because you had a bad day—can you do that somewhere else?
No, I'm saying they are hyping up some random podcast while saying sweet nothings. I really don't like empty hype. I want some actual content to posts that actually says something, not just links breathlessly encouraging me to go spend an hour listening.
The middle one is the ad-hominem puffery. The rest isn't quite exactly 100% 'of the person's, but still doesn't give me any actual leads into what the content is: its just empty puffery.
Those mega IPOs are the latest grift to unload overpriced shares before the whole AI tulip bubble explodes in everyone's face.
The insiders know it, which is precisely why those IPOs are happening right now. Employees and VCs don't want to be holding the bag. small-time investors will be.
Also, SpaceX is going to unlock more and more on their float at around the same time most indexes will have to buy it. It has been engineered to socialize the losses.
I'm happy SP didn't agree to fast track any of those, unlike VTI and Nasdaq100.
I spent the weekend to rebalance all my retirement accounts to make sure none of them are going to fast track those grifty IPOs. Unfortunately, I cannot do that for my taxable accounts as it would generate a tax-event.
Think it does also need to be said because there's a LOT of amateur investors here: If you're a person sitting there thinking you'll drop even just a few thousand dollars into SpaceX, OpenAI, etc when they list - you probably shouldn't. You'll very likely be losing it and you're the one about to make someone else rich.
They are happening now because the entire space narrative is dependent on SDI, sorry Golden Dome, as a massive heist of taxpayer money for the militarization of space (nobody believes in economic civilian space compute). Like SDI it’s bullshit but like SDI it works at robbing everyone blind.
I wasn't familiar with the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP). Apparently they were acquired by Morningstar in February 2026. I also found this press release from Vanguard announcing they will be updating fund names (including VTI) to reflect the acquisition
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/c... but nothing on the fund composition or rule changes.
Think of it like security backed bonds, if you bundle a lot of dud businesses into a single business that is doing ok then as an aggregate it looks fine. So bundling Twitter and xAi into SpaceX covers up that. This is why I suspect they will eventually merge Tesla into SpaceX as it is on the decline now.
The problem is that with the current cash on hand and large loans coming due, they only have a 6 month runway. Thus the IPO to get other peoples money to hopefully fund themselves until solvent.
All IPO's are essentially that, people invest in your business, the business uses their money to achieve more, and if it all works out then future profits can eventually be paid back to investors.
> people invest in your business, the business uses their money to achieve more
that was what normally would happen. However, in the last few decades of IPO, it's become common to have two classes of shares - one being the controlling shares that founders hold on to (with 10x the voting rights), and a 2nd class of ordinary (common!) shares with 1x vote per share.
This means the founders (and early investors perhaps) don't give up any controlling stake of a company at all when the IPO while only selling common shares. Doing this means they get to control the company's operations and financial moves, without shareholder oversight, but obtain all of the shareholder investment cash.
You could argue this can lead to better management, as the founders are more likely to care about the company than professional managers that typically would be hired to manage a public company. I say that is only an argument of luck of the draw, rather than a good argument against the above share and voting right splitting.
Look at facebook/meta - would that company be as invested in things like the metaverse, etc, if zuckerberg weren't in a controlling position?
That already happened with the merger of X with XAI and then the merger of Xai and SpaceX.
But the reason is because SpaceX is trying to tool up for orbital datacenters. They're building a bunch of solar cell manufacturing plants and Starship launch pads.
Orbital datacenters is just an excuse of a reason to merge the two companies when there’s nothing else tying them together. They won’t actually happen.
It didn't already happen. As you pointed out, people who funded the purchase of Twitter hold SpaceX shares, and this IPO is how they get their money back.
The amount of misinformation around this topic was absolutely nuts over the past few days. Good rule of thumb: if a YouTuber or other influencer was pitching doom and relaying this rule change by S&P as a fait accompli, stop following them.
Contrarily, you can interpret the doom pitches as a necessary political backlash whose degree of panic and whose quantity prevented the change from ending up as a fait accompli.
Public decisionmakers do this sort of thing all the time. They "float an idea", "test the waters", "put up a trial balloon". They see what they can get away with. When the decisionmaker has a strong desire for the change, it may only get rolled back if powerful and widespread public dissent makes itself known, as it did in this case. When they don't really care about the issue, they might cancel it at the first sign that anyone has an issue. We can't know their degree of insistence just based on outcomes in these cases.
> the doom pitches as a necessary political backlash
It was totally misinformed, came well after the public-comment period had ended and had zero net effect other than maybe generating some commissions and management fees for rando managers.
There is bona fide hatred for these companies and their managers. Influencers twisted the facts to channel that for views.
If you’re buying into a tech-marketed fund like the NASDAQ 100 and it doesn’t include a large chunk of the tech market, you’re no longer passively investing in tech. You’re investing in an actively-managed fund.
Historically, companies like SpaceX would have gone public earlier and grown into the index. Recognizing that has changed with multiple $1+ trillion IPO contenders makes sense; as it turns out, I think both NASDAQ and S&P decided correctly.
Actually irrelevant to an index calculation. If your index manufacturer is taking this into account at any level, they're actively managing. S&P predates the modern active-versus-passive dichotomy, but it functions within it in practice, and despite being a leader of committee-based indexing philosophy, they've broadly found success by also being champions of passive management. And part of doing that is rejecting judgement over how the market is weighing this or that.
If someone is trying to bend the rules of my passively managed index fund to their will, are they trying to actively manage my passively managed index ETF ?
Historically a $1T market cap with a PE of 20.0 would be achievable with a $50B/yr profit. That seems easily achievable eventually for SpaceX, as it has actual hardware and services and IP.
> Historically a $1T market cap with a PE of 20.0 would be achievable with a $50B/yr profit. That seems easily achievable eventually for SpaceX, as it has actual hardware and services and IP.
It seems crazy to me to make a comparison between a company being valued on it's current profit and then to say it's reasonable for another company to have the same market cap because it could eventually have the same profit.
It does have real hardware, but it’s not in wild growth areas. They’re making their most consistent money from Starlink, which is a solid product but has growth limited by competitors from conventional ISPs with far-superior fiber networks, and the space launch business is similarly not the kind of thing where you get Google/Facebook-level growth curves. That’s not a slight, it’s just different industries: advertising companies can grow rapidly because scaling customers is so much easier than launching cargo into orbit.
The wildcard there is AI, and that seems especially dangerous to project long-term revenue from their current performance: xAI is barely in the market except renting capacity to Anthropic, so you’re gambling that they’ll continue to pay $1¼B/month for what is largely a commodity offering. Even if you’re bullish on Anthropic, that doesn’t mean xAI gets part of their profits, and given the way they blindsided the local authorities there’s a substantially greater than zero chance that they’ll get a major setback if the neighbors win their lawsuits. That doesn’t mean they’re doomed, but anyone estimating their future performance has to factor in some real risks.
Yet, I, a relative peasant financially has been hit by 3 different brokers that I'm eligible to participate in the offering. I would hazard a guess they are not getting the uptake in institutional money they were hoping for.
Yes, they did. In the wake of Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, for which the 2nd order effect was that companies take years and years longer to IPO. 10-17 years on average since 2010 (it used to be lower). (There are other reasons, it's not purely due to SOX.
The existing investors don't have liquidity. I can't buy a house or pay my bills with shares I'm not allowed to sell. A better exit later is worthless if I starve to death before the exit.
Nitpick: It’s still a passive fund, just that the index constituents are decided actively by a committee rather than by a simple criterion. As you no doubt already know, S&P500 isn’t just taking U.S. companies publicly traded on an exchange, sorting them by market cap, and then truncating the list to the first 500.
Yeah, the rules have kind of made the passive investment active. I don't understand OPs point at all. I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things, and OP has provided 0 justification for that.
Because the rules are clearly going to result in lots of buying pressure from passive indexes on a large stock with little time for price discovery.
Come on, let's be adults here. Is there a prior example of this on a comparable scale?
It's already well known that passive indexes bleed ~0.5% performance solely to front running and exploitation from the market. This is that writ large.
That the rule change was a done deal. The pitch was some shadowy financial cabal forcing everyone’s retirement savings into SpaceX (which would not have been true even if S&P voted to include, but that’s a separate topic).
The top comment and most of its subthreads are run-of-the-mill alarmism.
Most assets don’t follow those funds. And NASDAQ 100 is explicitly tech focused, I support them making the change.
The doomsaying was around most retirement assets. Which don’t follow any single index. But to the extent they do, follow the S&P 500.
The market wasn’t pricing in any rebalancing. Commenters were screaming bloody murder about it. In the middle, I’m sure some numpties generated trading and management fees by switching target funds.
As they should have. The rules were in flight with a layover time measured in days on assets that are managed on the timescale of years. There was a legitimate reason to act urgently. It's easy to make claims in hindsight but the information on hand it was 100% the right call to protect your investments.
This is not misinformation. Misinformation is saying the proposed rule change and their proximity to trillion dollar IPOs introduced no risk. Please do not spread such misinformation.
It seems to me like there's a fair amount to be concerned about, I wouldn't consider myself an expert on finance by any means so if you have some explanation of why it's not that bad I'd love to hear it.
Two other indices changed their rules to allow these companies specifically. Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth. Often the people whose money is being invested don't even have control over its allocation into these funds.
Coupled with the precarious state of the economy due to all the money already flowing through AI, changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster. It reminds me of subprime mortgages.
> Two other indices changed their rules to allow these companies specifically
One of which is the NASDAQ 100, marketed for decades as a tech-focused index.
> Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth
Pensions build their own benchmarks. About 10 to 20% of retirement assets follow these indices directly for a variety of purposes. The S&P 500 aims for continuous large-cap growth, but that isn’t true for most indices, which seek to replicate something random.
> changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster
The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows due to this decision. And most retirement assets don’t blindly follow any index, let alone any single one. I opposed the rule changes at S&P. But the catastrophising was made for clicks and views. Not to inform anyone.
Like, anyone who actually acted on that brouhaha changed out of an index that isn’t going include SpaceX, incurring transaction fees and potentially tax hits (for non-retirement accounts) in the process, and probably cycling into a higher-fee fund.
So why change? You're not building a case for why this change is needed. Is there even another Nasdaq 100 company like SpaceX? Probably not because it would be an obvious point of discussion. So now we need to add a new 'thing' to our definition of tech, then change our funds to adopt our new definition. To what end, with this haste?
> The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows
Is it a fund or just an index? If an index, what are you monitoring when you cite 'no outflows'?
So you are happy with this outcome, but also so upset at the people that evangelized your preferred policy position that you think HN readers should cut them from the information diet?
Seems most likely that the public outcry actually influenced this outcome, so I don't see why the nuances of alarmism about it (imminent decision vs fait accomplit) should nix an entire information source.
> you are happy with this outcome, but also so upset at the people that evangelized your preferred policy position that you think HN readers should cut them from the information diet?
I'm fine with this outcome. I genuinely don't care about HN readers' opinions on this. I posted the original consultation to HN to crickets [1]. It's abundantly clear that people want to use this as a useless vector for griping.
> most likely that the public outcry actually influenced this outcome
Nope. Lots of reasons to show how and why that is the case. From personal connections to the timeline of the decision making. But I'm sure that's how the same YouTube commentors who misled the first time will spin it to great effect...
> I don't see why the nuances of alarmism about it (imminent decision vs fait accomplit) should nix an entire information source
Because they're bad information sources. They're terrific entertainment. And if you recognise that, keep subscribing. But this is in line with the numpties who listen to All In like it's the gospel.
I mean S&P had actually drawn up a lot of the changes, regulations, and paperwork for entrants, so it wasn't a done deal, but they absolutely were considering it, and it was a very real "risk".
Do you think that all the alarm had any effect on the blocking of the rule change? Is the right time to complain about a possible change is after it has been decided?
> S&P wasn't fait accompli, but the NASDAQ 100 was
Sure. Nobody was properly making this distinction in social media, including on HN. Particularly with respect to the differences in scale and purpose between the NASDAQ 100 and S&P 500.
The fact that a fast track was even considered is controversial IMHO. People flipping out, especially if their retirement is tied up with those indices, is to be expected. No one wants to be a bag holder for billionaire insiders.
Every rule change is controversial. This one was less so than almost any prior one I can remember–the dual-class one in 2017 (later reversed) generated far more real press. This one was mostly an influencer thing.
SpaceX is not worth $1 trillion, when most of that valuation is based on xAI being worth far more then their already dominant position in the space launch business.
sure it's not a given, but I certainly am not confident enough that it won't happen to bet my money in it, which I would automatically be doing if it was admitted to the SP500
I would't be surprised if the freak-out reaction to SpaceX being on the nasdaq100 and even being considered for the s&p500 was a strong factor in S&P saying no; if so than the histrionics were worth it.
> would't be surprised if the freak-out reaction to SpaceX being on the nasdaq100 and even being considered for the s&p500 was a strong factor in S&P saying no
I would. I know some of the people. And NASDAQ 100-tracking funds have seen inflows, not outflows, as a result of the flip.
S&P management wanted the flip. The econometricians said no, because they're that sort of folk. The influencers get to entertain and drive some fraction of listeners to churn, which I guess keeps the ecosystem fed through commissions and management fees.
I could kind of agree with the argument that "well these companies stay private longer so they are more mature" but the float exemption with the seemingly arbitrary calculation to figure out weights completely belies that argument.
It wasn't. It's dumb. But that's different from shady. At the end of the day, the market never priced in the S&P making this decision because the default understanding was a public consultation by S&P goes nowhere. Influencers ran with a consultation being a fait accompli and now anyone saying otherwise is licking billionaire balls.
Yes, I think given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P, everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming about providing exit liquidity.
My prediction is that this will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs. Only time will tell.
Exactly. There is this undercurrent of The End Times everywhere, that this is it. This is the end of ... everything that was. When in fact it is not the end times, and the people at those indexes want to exist longer than SpaceX.
That blog post is garbage and fails to accurately convey the paper it is based on.
>I rely on the Center for Research in Securities Prices (CRSP) monthly stock return
database, which contains all common stocks listed on the NYSE, Amex, and NASDAQ
exchanges. Of all monthly common stock returns contained in the CRSP database from 1926 to
2016, only 47.8% are larger than the one-month Treasury rate in the same month. In fact, less
than half of monthly CRSP common stock returns are positive. When focusing on stocks’ full
lifetimes (from the beginning of the sample in 1926 or first appearance in CRSP through the
2016 end of the sample or delisting from CRSP), just 42.6% of common stocks, slightly less than
three out of seven, have a buy-and-hold return (inclusive of reinvested dividends) that exceeds
the return to holding one-month Treasury Bills over the matched horizon. More than half of
CRSP common stocks deliver negative lifetime returns. The single most frequent outcome
(when returns are rounded to the nearest 5%) observed for individual common stocks over their
full lifetimes is a loss of 100%.
>Individual common stocks tend to have rather short lives. The median time that a stock is
listed on the CRSP database between 1926 and 2016 is seven and a half years. To assess
whether individual stocks generate positive returns over the full ninety years of available CRSP
data, I conduct bootstrap simulations. In particular, I assess the likelihood that a strategy that
holds one stock selected at random during each month from 1926 to 2016 would have generated
an accumulated 90-year return (ignoring any transaction costs) that exceeds various benchmarks.
In light of the well-documented small-firm effect (whereby smaller firms earn higher average
returns than large, as originally documented by Banz, 1980) it might have been anticipated that
individual stocks would tend to outperform the value-weighted market. In fact, repeating the
random selection process many times, I find that the single stock strategy underperformed the
value-weighted market over the full ninety years in ninety six percent of the simulations. The
single-stock strategy underperformed the one-month Treasury bill over the 1926 to 2016 period
in seventy three percent of the simulations.
>The fact that the overall stock market generates long term returns sufficiently large to be
referred to as a puzzle, while the majority of individual stocks fail to even match Treasury bills,
can be attributed to the fact that the distribution of stock returns is positively skewed. Simply
put, large positive returns to a few stocks offset the modest or negative returns to more typical
stocks.
>The implication is devastating for index fund orthodoxy: When you own a broad market index, you’re mathematically forcing yourself to hold the 96.6% of stocks that create no value while simultaneously diluting your exposure to the 3.4% that generate all returns.
The professor just told you that investing in any individual stock is a terrible decision and that investing in more stocks means having greater exposure to the stocks that do net a return, creating a puzzle, where diversification doesn't reduce yields, in fact it did the opposite: it increases the yields.
There's also a general fallacy that any index (directly referred to as index orthodoxy) has to be a "broad market index", when in reality there are many competing indices. If someone came up with an index that would follow any investment strategy the blog post suggests and it turns out to work reliably, then people would switch part of their portfolio to that index. "Index othrodoxy" would prevail, because people just need a better index rather than abandoning the idea of an index altogether.
It's also difficult to reconcile with the fact that after fees, most active funds have failed to net higher returns to their investors. This random blog post is basically delivering an active investment strategy on a silver platter that will make fund managers and the people investing into it rich, is this believable? Consider that it's written in a "shocking" AI style, trying to sell you something.
Funnily enough, the ad in the middle of the blog post "The U.S. Treasury collapse is HERE!" is incompatible with the premise of the article, that 96% of stocks are worse than treasuries.
>But even if we use the more moderate 80/20 framing, the strategic implication is identical: If 80% of market returns come from 20% of stocks, why would you construct a portfolio that treats all five hundred stocks in the S&P 500 equally?
The thing is, you don't have to do that, like at all. There are indices like the S&P 500 Pure Value and S&P 500 Enhanced Value that are known to outperform the regular S&P 500. The problem is that they have done so over the long term and long term really means long term. There have been decades where they underperform.
Also, the article is three times as long as it needs to be, it's clearly AI generated.
> given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P
The misinformation was almost certainly not taken into account, and it shouldn’t have been.
> everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming
Influencers will scream regardless. It’s what they’re paid to do. The NASDAQ 100 made these changes and is doing just fine.
> will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs
There are lots of indices. S&P largely targets those built around mature companies. If you want a total-market index, those exist and tend to rapidly incorporate IPOs.
Good. Indexes are supposed to be slow-moving, precisely due to their entry requirement of sustained profitability that skews towards mature companies.
All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk.
SpaceX and OAI stock will be available through Robinhood, Questrade and all the other retail investor markets. Individuals can make an informed choice to trade it there, rather than have it automatically added to their index fund without having any say.
>All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk.
Carvana is the poster child for this. It's astonishing that a company with a history of shady practices, and that has yet to offer a convincing explanation for why it is not a scam, is part of the S&P 500.
Ah, so you'd like the passive broad market index which contains the 500 biggest good companies?
Do tell us if you find one I guess.
That's what "value funds" do.
You can just pick stocks - if you pick a fairly low number of large stocks in broad categories with correct weight, you will track the index.
And the relative values of those stocks will shift requiring rebalancing. You might be able to do that with new dollars for a while but hopefully, eventually, the swings are much more than new dollars and then what? Pay capital gains tax on sales to rebalance? Convince yourself the new random allocation is fine?
I thought the point of index funds weighting by market cap is that they don't require rebalancing, because the weight of stocks in the index exactly tracks price movements. You just keep holding the exact same number of shares, and more valuable stocks automatically take up more of your portfolio.
Yes, but parent poster was not talking about an index fund. Read grandparent post again.
If you pick stocks with the correct weight to track the index, you're effectively running an index fund. And so you don't have to rebalance to keep tracking the index.
If you never rebalance, you're never adding new stocks to the index, nor removing stocks that do not belong to it anymore.
Indexes rebalance frequently. The "correct weight" today, won't be the correct weight in a year.
What are you talking about? Those index fund are constantly rebalancing. This is why you buy an index fund, so you don’t have to constantly rebalance your portfolio.
what's the argument for it being a scam?
shady debt offloading onto its sibling financing entity, which is run by Carvana CEO's father, a man convicted of fraud
> a man convicted of fraud
Most practitioners in the field see that as a very strong signal of future fraud.
why go that far? herbalife moto is probably "we're a pyramid scheme scam" and they are 45% vs sp500 25% for last 12mo.
you'd better of investing scam500 than sp500 nowadays.
Herbalife has decades of profits from selling wannabe Herbalife distributors a dream of financial independence they'll never achieve though, which might be unethical but is a bit less likely to lose your pension fund money than a company accused of getting 73% of its earnings from a deal with a convicted fraudster...
Whenever someone says nowadays, they're highlighting recency bias. The goals of holding a broad market ETF are diversification leading to sleeping well over the long term (at least to me).
Crime pays. But when you go that far, why stop at investing in scams? Surely you can make money faster by robbing old ladies at knifepoint?
How well do SCAM500 stocks do over a time period that includes two recessions, compared to SP500 ones?
I've no doubt that the short-term gains during a bull market on all sorts of garbage are significant.
Also worth noting that other index providers are less principled.
> Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days
It’s important to note that index funds will eventually get in, so it’s not like 401k will never be holding these stocks. It would be silly to assume that the stock is going to tank that much on day 1, on the asumption that there are not enough investors to buy the big three IPOs that are coming out this year. There is plenty of money in the market, and everyone knows index funds will buy these stocks when the companies get in, so everyone will be able to dump them if needed in a year or so.
Btw I don’t really know how index funds work, but if they need to track the index as closely as possible, they will all have to buy those stocks on a certain day, no? There will be a crazy price hike when they do so. Or maybe they have terms that let them smoothen their trading around entry and exit?
To a first approximation, yes, the index funds all need to buy the stock on the same day.
An unexpected surge of buying like this should lead to a big price hike. But everyone knows it's happening, so you'd expect every hedge fund and proprietary firm in the world to buy the day before the index funds buy, and sell into the price hike. So in fact the price hike will be a day earlier than expected. But wait, anyone smart enough to see that should buy the previous day...
In this way the "smoothing" of the trading at entry and exit gets passed on to intermediaries: other market participants who are expert at this.
This all costs the index funds, because every dollar of profit for the other firms is a dollar out of the pocket of the end investor. And huge index events like this are a particular bonanza for these traders. But it probably costs less than you think. Ultimately it's a highly competitive market: the slippage from this approaches the extent to which the prop traders have a higher cost of capital, plus a small risk premium. And remember that they don't have to find "extra" money to fund this trade. When they buy SpaceX they will sell 499 other stocks, doing the same trade there in reverse. Here's a study that approximates the effect at 0.86%[0]. By comparison, the banks underwriting the IPO typically take around 6% [1]. Though this will be smaller for a huge IPO like SpaceX, while the index arb trade will be bigger.
[0] https://www.eastspring.com/hk/insights/deep-dives/navigating...
[1] https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/deals/library/...
0.8% of drag is a lot when you can do basically the same thing by not strictly following the index.
There are funds from Dimensional and Avantis that are basically just index funds but with a bit more leeway to avoid these obvious pitfalls, and from what I saw they do perform approximately 0.5% better per year.
0.8% is substantial indeed, but if i understand correctly, it’s 0.8% on that one stock, so much less on the index itself.
Those funds that perform better probably take a higher management fee that might cancel out the gain. May be worth it to have a smoother return though.
>This all costs the index funds, because every dollar of profit for the other firms is a dollar out of the pocket of the end investor.
This is so wrong I'm not sure you understand common sense economics and by economics I don't mean anything you can find in a text book. If I invest nothing, the other investors or traders can still make a profit without costing me anything.
Opportunity costs are never real costs. If I have $10, and the traders do weird things with the prices and I don't spend the $10 on anything, I still have $10. The traders failed to cost me.
You're also ignoring the underlying issue which is that the valuation of SpaceX on the open market is different than the valuation it could get from forcing index funds to buy in early. If the stock is worthless then short sellers will make money, but short selling only works if the short sellers don't get squeezed. If the passive funds buy two weeks in, then early traders know that they can sell to a greater fool at inflated prices. Any short seller who is trying to discover the true price will stay back and short directly after the indexes have bought. That's the perfect moment for them. They want the post IPO hype and bull market, only for the stock to collapse within a year.
There's a real desire out there to tell a narrative where SpaceX is a massively fraudulent piece of financial engineering, a pump and dump scam where the stock will "collapse within a year" and retail investors will be left holding the bag.
There's definitely some financial engineering at the margins, but as I see it the facts are:
- Musk is still going to own 40% of the company. If he's selling 4% of it, his incentives are aligned with keeping the rest of it high
- the index funds ultimately are fast tracking the big IPOs because their customers, in aggregate, want that. And the market structure really has changed since the days when the index inclusion rules were first written and companies went public smaller.
- People have been banging the same drum about short sellers with Tesla since at least 2017 - AFAIK it's still one of the most shorted stocks - and it's up 20x since then.
- Institutional investors with more sophisticated strategies than "buy the index" or "pump and dump lol sell to the index funds" will be participating in the IPO and in fact will be the main drivers of price. Everything I've seen suggests that if this is a "retail heavy" IPO, that means 20 or 30% of the shares ending up with retail instead of a more typical 10. These other institutions could be wrong, but they're not mechanical price takers.
I've shown above how one of the effects people make the most noise about - the index balancing arbitrage - is likely an effect of order of magnitude 1%. It's on the noisemakers to show how any of the other effects you mention can be massively more impactful.
> There is plenty of money in the market
Their float will be very small so yes, the value of their shares that anyone could buy at even the most optimistic valuations would be tiny compared to most public megacaps.
> Btw I don’t really know how index funds work, but if they need to track the index as closely as possible, they will all have to buy those stocks on a certain day, no?
S&P wouldn't include them until they became profitable and even if they did they wouldn't even be in the top 20.
No, indexes are meant to track something. The Russel 2000 index has very different criteria for the S&P 500 index. The Dow Jones is yet another one.
The criteria for none of the above is “slow moving”, far from it. Those are all expected to be high growth vehicles for retirement. Safe stuff is bond blended.
Plenty of people at shit in the GFC being invested in “slow moving” S&P 500 companies like Lehman Brothers, WaMu, AIG, GM, etc.
“Was profitable for a while” != “safe” nor is it necessarily good to park money there. You need explosive growth companies that invest rather than profit (like Amazon) being in the S&P 500 are a critical part of its performance.
If retirements only tracked stable mature companies that would be utilities and other stuff that doesn’t actually get you to retirement.
>All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk.
The purpose of an index is to provide a benchmark of the market, not to build funds that follow the index.
> The purpose of an index is to provide a benchmark of the market
Usually a subset of the market based on specific criteria. Total market indexes and funds exist, maybe there is a reason S&P 500 despite its "strict" inclusion criteria is more popular than them?
On a fundamental level, the S&P 500 index is meant to be a benchmark of the market. Journalists, policymakers, investment managers, politicians, regular investors, everyone I know all use the S&P 500 as the benchmark of the US stock market.
If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark.
S&P500 is not a total market index. It tracks a specific kind of large firm, with certain filters.
Fast tracking means that the market likely wont have enough time to find the settled price (especially with the knowledge that passive funds are about to buy), and including a mispriced thing does not necessarily make the benchmark more accurate.
Those filters for S&P 500 inclusion criteria have changed many times. They are not sacred nor set in stone. The question is, do those filters, which were designed for GAAP profitable traditional companies & discriminate against fast growing cash-flow-reinvesting startups that prioritize growth over profit, unnecessarily exclude major players in the U.S. stock market? The S&P inclusion criteria reward companies that prioritize profit over growth.
SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI are all giga-caps preparing to IPO, and none of them will be eligible for S&P inclusion because of the 12-month profitability requirement. At current valuations, all are part of the top 20 largest companies in the US. These companies may be excluded from the S&P500 for potentially years, until they reach 12 months of profitability.
And you are vastly overstating the effect of S&P500 fast track inclusion, the plan was to reduce it from 12 months to 6 months; which is more than enough time for the market to find a price.
> which is more than enough time for the market to find a price
The price markets find would still inevitably be influence by the knowledge that the demand would increase massively in a few months.
> inclusion criteria reward companies that prioritize profit over growth
Or stable and sustainable growth. Whatever else SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic valuations are price in extremely optimistic growth. But yeah, I do see a point that including adequately priced growth stocks could be a net benefit but of course accouting for the actual valuation would turn index funds into managed ones.
Thankfully its not an issue at all since there is Nasdaq 100.
> Under current rules, these fast-growing companies would be excluded from the S&P500 for potentially years, until they reach 12 months of profitability.
> And you are vastly overstating the effect of S&P500 fast tracking, the plan was to reduce it from 12 months to 6 months; which is more than enough time for the market to find a price.
They might never reach 6 months of profitability, let alone 12 months.
My mistake: it was Nasdaq that is being reduced to days, not S&P. Thanks.
> If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark.
So what's the reason for fast entry specifically? If it's a significant portion of the market and will remain so, it doesn't need an accelerated entry. A benchmark should be conservative about new entrants so that it doesn't turn from a market benchmark to a trend/fad benchmark.
If time validates the valuations the entry will come in time, just like for previous entries.
Because the index needs accuracy. If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap and not included in the index, then the index is wrong right now. The longer this company is not in the index, the longer this error compounds.
In the coming few months, multiple giga-cap companies (SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic) are all planning to IPO. These companies will likely never meet S&P profitability inclusion criteria for the next 5 years. These are not bad companies, but because the S&P inclusion criteria were written for old GAAP profitable companies, and not high-growth companies that invest their cashflow into company growth over profits. Excluding some of the most civilization changing companies from the benchmark means the benchmark is doing a terrible job.
"Because the index needs accuracy.", and I would argue that include price accuracy not just inclusion accuracy. The S&P is a benchmark that is designed to reflect a subset of the market, and giving only some companies early access to the benchmark changes the benchmark. So if you want a benchmark that's designed to include all the big stocks regardless of age, profitability, etc then go make a new benchmark. The only thing you need to do is convince others to use your benchmark.
"go make a new benchmark" completely ignores how this works in practice. Benchmarks are only useful because everyone uses the same one, you can't swap it out. The S&P 500 benchmark is used as a comparison for trillions of dollars of mutual funds, index funds, and institutional mandates. The further the S&P 500 strays from reflecting the actual market, the more useless it becomes.
Also the S&P criteria have been revised multiple times, it's not some sacred unchangeable document.
You want to turn S&P 500 to a total market index. Why? That was never its purpose.
No? Where did I say that?
The purpose of the S&P 500 is to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". That's direct from their website. I never dispute this.
I dispute the fact they claim to be the best benchmark of large-cap U.S. equities, yet have rules that (currently) exclude large-cap equities like SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic.
Sure, but then it comes down to your opinion vs the S&P board's opinion. I suspect (given that there's only been a few days of this getting into the public eye) that more people support the S&P's position vs their critics. But the trade flows will show if people get out of SPX (or SPY/VOO) in the coming days.
My issue is that so many people have forgotten the purpose of the S&P 500 index (i.e. it's a benchmark to reflect the large-cap U.S. equity market), and instead treat it as a list of approved companies they should blindly invest their 401ks into. These people do not want to invest their retirement funds into the upcoming IPOs of the overpriced & unprofitable (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI), and then are arguing the benchmark index should not include these companies.
But at a fundamental level, the S&P500 index exists to track the market. It was created decades before passive even existed. These companies are all large enough to qualify as major members of the index. If S&P started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find uninvestable, then that's compromising the integrity of the index, and defeats the purpose of the index entirely.
Reading this thread, there is so much confusion happening.
There are indexes which explicitly try to capture the entire market- the Russell 3000 is most prominent, but the Wiltshire 5000 is another one, and Vanguard's Total Market Funds and ETF follow the CRSP US Total Market Index. I believe all of them plan to include SpaceX/OpenAI etc. within a few weeks of its listing, which is what I'd expect from their goal of tracking the total market. Other indexes follow just a few stocks- most famously, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (built during an era of when it had to be calculated by hand every night) looks at just 30 stocks in a weird way(1).
The S&P 500 isn't either of those. It has a list of criteria for inclusion, one of which is profitability. They are sticking with that criteria. If you don't like it, sell your VOO and buy VTI instead.
1: It is essentially impossible to build an index that tracks the DJIA because, since it was done on pencil and paper, it isn't actually market-cap weighted, but is share price weighted, with a correction factor for each stock to account for splits, one stock replacing another, etc. Because of that nature, the weights of the DJIA change minute by minute, so someone attempting to track it would be subject to enormous error.
> Because the index needs accuracy
So you are saying that S&P 500 should be merged with Russell 2000 or rather just become a fully market index to be more "accurate". You do know that's something that exists already, having different indexes makes perfect sense and consumers can pick the ones they want based on their risk profile and preferences.
> most civilization changing companies from the benchmark
It took Google 2 years to get into S&P 500. For Microslop it was 8 years (!). So what's new?
I am saying none of those things. S&P claims their S&P500 index is the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". That's taken directly from their website.
I dispute this claim, because the (current) rules for S&P500 inclusion exclude companies like SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI. All of these companies are planning to IPO this year, and even if these companies maintain their present valuation for a year, none are eligible for S&P 500. Due to profitability requirements.
Yet these are all U.S. large-cap companies, among the top 20 largest in the U.S., and by S&P's description of the index, should be included. Not including these companies makes the index inaccurate.
> [Google and Microsoft took years go get into the index], so what's new?
Because SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI are $1T+ companies. Google and Microsoft were much smaller relative to the size of the index when they joined.
But it is not 1-2% of the total US market cap, is it?
It aspires to be that way. The market decides, and it hasn’t decided yet.
Am I missing something?
> If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap and not included in the index, then the index is wrong right now.
To be clear, S&P 500 relies on float, not total US Market Cap, and Space X will have a tiny float.
Even if it was included, SpaceX would not account for 1-2% of the S&P 500 (more like 0.1%), so even if we reason on the basis of a benchmark, it's not a meaningful difference.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48407542
> Because the index needs accuracy.
No, it doesn't. At least, not the way you are probably defining it.
This sounds to me like you may be trying to use the index for something it's not really meant to be used for.
What is the S&P 500 meant for then? It was created in 1957 as a benchmark of US equity performance. That's S&P Global's own stated purpose. If it's systematically excluding companies that represent significant chunks of total US market cap, the index isn't doing its job.
> If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap
Over what time horizon should that number be computed? Every day? Every second? Every month/quarter?
It is not as simple as it seems.
Maybe you know this already, but this reads like exactly the kind of reasoning that people looking back at irrational market euphorias point to as a sign things were about to go awry.
The purpose of a benchmark is to reflect the market. If the US economy is pumping out high-growth but overpriced & unprofitable companies via IPOs, at unreasonable valuations, the benchmark should reflect that.
It's not S&P's fault this is happening.
On the contrary. There are many benchmarks, some small subset of which are intended to reflect the whole market.
There are indices for every little thematic and niche corner or strategy or idea, there are broad-as-possible indices, and there are indices with requirements like listed age and profitability.
I'm not debating any of that. This discussion is about the S&P500 as a benchmark, which has an expressly stated purpose of tracking large-cap US equities.
This discussion is about if S&P500 actually achieves this benchmark, when it has (antiquated) rules that exclude large-cap US companies of the likes of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI.
Matt Levine, who probably knows more about finance than anyone on this site, has said the same thing. He’s also talked about all the hate mail he gets. Large market etfs like VTI or VOO are supposed to track the market. It would be weird if they ignored trillion+ market cap companies. If the market decides to dump these companies then they’ll fall out of the index.
Index criteria have also changed many times over the years, and they are changing again to deal with later stage companies coming to the market with already huge valuations.
I completely agree. People have parroted the benefits of passive investing and blindly following the benchmark index for decades, yet the instant some overpriced turds (Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX) are considered being adding to the benchmark, they backtrack and fight tooth and nail against including them.
All three companies are large enough by market cap ($1T+) to qualify for the S&P 500 benchmark, which claims to track the top 500 largest U.S. large-cap equities.
They have a point (not wanting to invest in overpriced equities), but if you don't like the companies that surface through passive investing then don't be a passive investor. It sounds like these people want active investing instead. If that's your position, just buy actively invested funds, not ruin the benchmark for everyone.
S&P is caught in a bind, because if they add these companies to the index, it would aggravate millions of passive investors.
Yes, Matt Levine said that, but he also argued the other side's point of view, as he regularly does.
If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark.
If you change a benchmark whenever you think it'll be 'wrong', then it becomes a measure of the heuristics you use to predict what'll impact the benchmark rather than a benchmark in its own right.
S&P claims their S&P 500 product is the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". For this benchmark to be accurate, at a fundamental level, this benchmark has to follow the market and reflect current market conditions.
The market decides what the large-cap U.S. equities are, not S&P. If S&P excludes some of the largest U.S. companies, which based on their current rules, will exclude all of Anthropic, SpaceX, and OpenAI; then they do a poor job reflecting the benchmark they claim to follow.
It's not S&P's fault that market conditions have changed.
this benchmark has to follow the market and reflect current market conditions
Sure, but right now they don't know how the market will react, so changing the index rules before there's any data would be a measure of their heuristics (e.g. what they believe the market will do), not a measure of what the market is actually doing.
The core issue is that S&P requires companies to be profitable for 12-months to get included in the index. Yet all of SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic are highly unprofitable, because they are prioritizing investing all free-cash-flow into growth instead of returning money to shareholders. These companies likely will not be profitable for years, and without a rule change it's unlikely they will be included in the index anytime soon.
Given these large-cap companies currently represent ~5% of the U.S. stock market capitalization, it's difficult to justify why these companies are excluded from a large-cap index.
It may be used as a benchmark, but that’s not actually the purpose of it. The purpose is to serve as a way for people to invest in a representative sample of the market. It can still be a representative sample with safeguards. If you want a benchmark without safeguards, you can calculate one without risking millions of people’s life savings.
You have your history backwards. The S&P 500 was created in 1957 as a benchmark. The first investable index fund tracking it (Vanguard's) wasn't created created until 1976. Vanguard created their fund to track the benchmark, not the other way around.
And if you need a second, different index to function as the true market benchmark because the S&P 500 no longer reflects the actual market, then you just agreed the S&P 500 is no longer an adequate benchmark. You just agreed with my point.
Because it's selective, the S&P by definition does not reflect the actual market. It reflects a subset of it.
If you're comfortable with this notion of what the S&P does, then you ought to be comfortable with S&P applying the same methodology they've always used. There are other indexes you can reference if this particular sampling of the market isn't to your personal liking.
The S&P's historical inclusion criteria were designed to filter out unstable, illiquid questionable companies to get a view of large-cap US equities. That logic worked when every major American company was public and profitable.
That's not true any more. Today we have multiple giga-caps (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI) vying to IPO, all of which potentially in the top 20 largest companies in the US market, all ineligible for S&P 500 inclusion because of the 12-month profitability rule.
You claim S&P can "apply the same methodology they've always used" but this is just factually wrong. The inclusion criteria are not sacred rules set in stone and S&P has rewrote them multiple times. For example, they banned dual-class share structures in 2017 to stop SNAP from joining the index, but reversed it in 2023 because they excluded too many companies. The rules get rewritten when the market changes, and it's clear the current market environment has changed.
Meanwhile, Nasdaq changed their rules to handle this situation. And S&P changed the inclusion criteria for the S&P Total Market Index so SpaceX would be included.
It's clear these inclusion rules are changing.
> out unstable, illiquid questionable
So Space X, OpenAI, Anthropic? Those are perfect examples.
It's unlikely their valuations could survive the IPO if their float wasn't extremely low.
> top 20 largest companies in the US market
You do know that S&P weights are based on the free float and not the market cap. So based on that SpaceX etc. will not be in the top 20. The total value of shares of Johnson & Johnson available on the public market will be much higher than that of SpaceX/etc. based on their current valuations.
> the S&P 500 no longer reflects the actual market
Well it was never intended to reflect the full "actual market".
> no longer an adequate benchmark
According to your definition it never was. However there were and are plenty of other index benchmarks which serve different purpose. Its just that S&P 500 managed to become the most popular one, why did it happen if it was always inherently flawed?
Like they didn't even add Microslop for 8 years...
It’s a benchmark of the market under certain rules, like having multiple quarters of earnings for the market to value them at.
These companies want special exceptions. If you are an exception why should you be included in a benchmark? At best they should have an asterisk against their name like Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire if they are not following the same rules.
Your baseball cheating analogy makes no sense here. Rules against corked bats / steroids exist so people don't cheat at a sport and all players can compete equally. S&P rules are supposed to make the index reflect the market. Totally different.
The profitability requirement is something made up by the S&P committee. If that rule ends up excluding trillions in market cap, the rule has defeated its own purpose. The 12 months of profitability requirement punishes high-growth companies that invest their FCF into growing the business vs taking profits.
It excludes companies like Amazon, which when ran by Bezos, was famously unprofitable and invested all free cash flow into growing the business and never turned a significant profit until >20 years after its founding.
> S&P rules are supposed to make the index reflect the market.
Where did you find that? Link?
I ask because common understanding is that the index is a stable tracker of the market, specifically to exclude volatility.
IOW, it reflects a smoothed market, not a point-in-time-with-daily-granularity market. I would really like to know where you read what you read.
The S&P 500 brochure describes itself as "the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities". That language implies they act as a benchmark, which I find questionable, given that based on their current eligibility requirements, it would exclude all three of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI.
All three companies are in the top 10 largest companies in the US by market cap, based on their current valuations. If these companies maintain their valuations over the next year, they'd still be ineligible under current rules. Because none of them are GAAP, they're all heavily reinvesting cash-flow into growth. These companies may be excluded from the S&P500 for potentially years, until they reach 12 months of profitability.
A benchmark of the U.S. stock market that excludes multiple of the 10 largest U.S. companies cannot be taken seriously.
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/brochure/article/sp-500-br...
S&P 500 weights are based the value of shares available on the public market not the market cap. Based on that SpaceX will be nowhere near the top 10.
Do you think their valuations wouldn't fall dramatically if they were willing to float a significant proportion of their shares on the market anytime soon.
I addressed that exact point here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48407542
Based on previous IPOs, SpaceX will grow to ~40% float by 12 months, thus if it keeps its current valuation unchanged, will remain near the top 10 spot.
What is it a benchmark for? All investable public stocks or the economy writ large?
Neither? What makes you think it was supposed to be a benchmark for either.
Amongst other thing weights are based on the value of shares that are traded publicly, not market cap.
[dead]
> Rules against corked bats / steroids exist so people don't cheat at a sport and all players can compete equally.
> The profitability requirement is something made up by the S&P committee.
Those are both equally made up. In this case the rules are being changed for new entrants into the market such as SpaceX for the Nasdaq and other benchmarks that are allowing it for that none of the previous companies in said index were allowed to get in under.
And since it’s 15 days and I know most companies have lockout terms on the order of months for various levels of stock, I’m hesitant to believe this won’t modify the benchmarks beyond what has happened with previous inclusions.
`JumpCrisscross’s reply to one of my other comments on this thread in regards to the S&P being a committee based decision actually has had me pause to think, but your argument that the rules are arbitrary so it can’t be cheating like my baseball analogy fails to land.
Baseball rules exist to prevent cheating. The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market. When S&P rules end up excluding a significant part of the market with trillions in real market cap, that means the rules are badly designed and broken by its own standard. You're trying to compare updating badly written S&P 500 rules to cheating, which makes no sense at all. They are completely different.
And calling out how the rules are being changed for new entrants into the market such as SpaceX on Nasdaq proves my point. Index providers are already quietly admitting their criteria are too rigid.
Even S&P adjusted their rules to allow SpaceX into the index, although only for the total market index.
https://press.spglobal.com/2026-06-04-S-P-Dow-Jones-Indices-...
"The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market", the rules exist to reflect a subset of the market, and the committee chooses that subset. It's their subset so they get to set the rules, you don't have to use it if you don't want to. If you don't like that subset then create your own index. Then you just need to convince others to use it.
Per the S&P 500 website, the claimed subset of the market is "U.S. large-cap equities". S&P claims their index is "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". But, it's clear that given the current iteration of the rules, none of the major upcoming IPOs of Spacex, Anthropic, or OpenAI are eligible for S&P500 inclusion, and they likely will not be for years.
Claiming to have the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities", yet having rules that exclude three of the top 20 largest U.S large-cap equities which make up ~5% of the total market cap of the U.S. stock market, means your benchmark is inaccurate by my book.
> accurately reflect the market. When S&P rules end up excluding a significant part of the market with trillions
Define what that means? The weights are based on the value of shares available publicly, not market cap. So even if included SpaceX wouldn't even be in the top 20 and have a lower weight than Johson & Johson.
A lot of what people are saying here seems to be based on a misconception of what S&P 500 is supposed to be. Maybe it became the most popular index because of those rigid rules?
> Baseball rules exist to prevent cheating.
> The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market.
I personally believe that accurately reflecting a market involves not allowing cheating. I personally believe that getting to change the rules so that your IPO gets included before the general market can discern your value because of your connections to the benchmarks is cheating.
If you want to disagree with me on these points then please do so, but understand why I am claiming that this behavior is cheating.
> getting to change the rules so that your IPO gets included before the general market can discern your value because of your connections to the benchmarks is cheating.
I disagree with you because you are vastly exaggerating the scope and effects of the proposed rule change. S&P was going to decrease their minimum index inclusion time from 12 months to 6 months. 6 months is far more than enough time for the market to decide a fair price of an equity. The rule change never ended up happening, hence this post.
There is zero "cheating", I don't understand why you keep harping on that.
The decision means companies like SpaceX would not be eligible for inclusion in the S&P 500 until at least one year after its listing and would also need to satisfy the index’s existing requirements for profitability and public float.
Sudden outbreak of common sense.
SpaceX is going "public" with only 4% of the stock being sold to outsiders. The S&P 500 requires a 50% public float. That may disqualify SpaceX for a long time.
Although GOOG and META are listed, despite control being held by insider shares of a different class. There was a time when the NYSE did not permit companies with more than one class of stock to be listed on that exchange. (Except F, FORD, which predates the NYSE). That was lost some time around 1990 or so.
It'll be at 50% within 6 months, then 100% within a year.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/06/01/c...
Matt Levine wrote that flouting the rules could be fine if there were market alternatives (he said otherwise it would be a market failure). I am pretty sure there would be market alternatives appearing, at least in the ETF tracking space, and that would erode the brand.
It would be a bad show to have SP500 (cheating rules) underperfoming SP500(proven rules). It would also be a bad show with many financiers and even influencers calling out the corruption.
I for one would be advising newer investments in the proven rules ETF trackers. I also think there might be lawsuits from people who had contracts tied to the old rules. After all if you need to sell to transfer to another vehicle there might be tax consequences.
PS: It is a shame that multiple classes of, non floating, controlling stock do not cause penalties in terms of market cap weight. I will research the issue. I know an ETF is not an index, but the relationship is tight enough for practical reasons.
This seems a sensible thing to do. If you change the rules on how things end up on your index, you force everyone using that index to reevaluate it. Your index is now perceived as more volatile (and probably is), and all the finance people need to reevaluate the risk of their index funds and decide if it is now 'growth', 'high growth' or whatever bucket it belongs in based on the new risk profile. And then all the portfolios need to be rebalanced. Which all takes time, more time than was being proposed. The sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules.
> sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules
It depends. Indices aren’t funds. They aren’t meant to balance investor interests. They’re meant to communicate some metric about the market.
The S&P tells you how big companies are doing in an index optimized to balance representation against trading cost. So in 2005, float was taken into account for weighting (versus just market cap). This made sense. Also, since the start, the S&P 500 has been a committee-based index. Not rule based. This has made it successful; if you want stable and unchanging, you never went for the S&P 500.
The S&P 500 may not be a fund itself, but Standard & Poor's is a business whose ability to sell services is correlated with the continued relevance of the S&P 500. It absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis.
It seems entirely reasonable to say: "if we make a certain decision, we correlate both our reputation and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy with the whims of one of the most volatile personalities in industry, and we should likely pay attention to this trial balloon that shows such anticipatory fear of the decision that we might lose our reputation as an index altogether."
> absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis
As a business, sure. As a committee, it’s still a deeply technical process. I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.
> and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy
This vastly overstates the amount of assets tied to the S&P 500. It’s a lot. But it’s a strong minority of equity exposures.
> I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.
How can you possibly know that? Do the people on that committee have a cast-iron tenure guarantee?
> How can you possibly know that?
I know folks who have been on these. They don’t have tenure. But they’re basically emeritus. If S&P wanted to do something that would cause chaos, it would be fucking with those folks because they made a decision that looks bad.
It’s a public benchmark fund that has much of its value based on its decisions being publicly stable and publicly consistent.
Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided? If your statement is accurate it sounds like moving out of such a fund would be prudent. I feel like it’s not accurate since they are sticking to their guns and not changing the rules to benefit oligarchs like Musk such as Nasdaq is doing.
> Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided?
There are lots of rules-based funds. S&P is transparently committee based. It’s why dual-class new entrants are banned, but Google and Berkshire are grandfathered in.
There is a genuine debate on rules versus committees in the index world. But S&P has stuck to its guns as a bastion of the latter. And it works. Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.
> Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.
I'm fairly confident most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default. And that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation.
> most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default
A lot of retail goes into S&P lookalikes. And at the end of the day, they've consistently picked one over the other.
> that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation
Unlikely. Nobody has dropped NASDAQ 100-tracking funds. If anything, these guys will see long-term net inflows due to this move. S&P probably would have if they’d changed rules—this was an econometric, not business, decision.
Just a FYI, S&P rolled back the dual-class rule. It was in place from 2017 to 2023.
There's overlap between strong minority and nontrivial, so not sure how it can be vastly overstated. Do you have numbers you can add to this, or any explanation of equity exposure etc?
> They’re meant to communicate some metric about the market.
Is that why people spend time, money and effort creating and maintaining them? They're just broadcasters? That seems dubious.
Once you have an index, you can offer all sorts of products around it.
-You can offer a return swap to an investor so he can "invest" in the index. You can alternatively build a whole list of derivatives and products around it and offer them to investors instead (think Itraxx,Vix,etc)
-A fund manager can use it as his benchmark and you get to see if he is good or not.
-If its a factor index you can now use it for risk management and return attribution.
The key thing today is that creating a new index that isn't a fad is very hard. There has also been a lot of consolidation of indices into few players (SP, MSCI, Bloomberg) as it's obviously an economies of scale business.
> Is that why people spend time, money and effort creating and maintaining them? They're just broadcasters?
Yes. There are more indices than there are stocks. Publishing an index is, business wise, a game of getting funds to license them.
I mean, they get paid for it, sometimes quite a lot, for this "broadcasting". $100mm of AUM gets you like $200k profit/yr. (Like $500k minus fees)
an etf that tracks the S&P 500 is what then?
This is a big win for many S&P 500 etf holders
Exactly. The S&P 500 isn't a fund, but let's not pretend that inclusion in the index doesn't mean real money is at stake.
> let's not pretend that inclusion in the index doesn't mean real money is at stake
Straw man. Nobody claims this. The point is (a) the state of decisionmaking was misrepresented for clicks and (b) the effects of a decision one way or the other way way overblown.
Hating on Musk sells subs. That's fair and, frankly, deserved. It doesn't mean we need to get misled chasing that high.
The market cap of the S&P 500 according to Google is ~$65T. Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia. That's a big deal.
The rules around index inclusion exist for a reason. Too much control in one person's hands (which SpaceX has), too small a float (so you don't get price discovery), lack of a history of financial performance and minimal trading days just don't give investors confidence and, like it or not, investment decisions are made based on the index. If you want to argue against passive investment, well, good luck with that.
I think a lot of people have this weird idea that what we need is some theoretically unfettered market for "true" price discovery when it's actually regulations like this that create markets. It's like a libertarian brain worm.
I don't think anybody wants these mega-companies out of the index, specifically. They just don't see why rules that exist for a reason should be suspended when the net effect of that is that investors have less information and there is a lot of forced purchasing. If you have confidence in your IPO, let the market decide what it's worth without trying to fix the price because what they seem to want is for insider lock-ups to end about the time we'd otherwise be getting normal price discovery. Kinda weird.
Investor confidence needfs to be managed by creating a stable, regulated market.
> Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia.
This is a common misconception. The S&P 500 weights allocation by float-adjusted market cap, not by total market cap. In the case of SpaceX, they are planning to float ~4% of shares at IPO. Even if SpaceX was added to the index, its index weight would be based on that tiny float, and at a $1.75T valuation it would be treated as roughly a $70 billion company.
SpaceX weight would be ~0.125% of the index, not ~2.5% as you imply.
SoaceX plans to continually unlock float for the first six months of being listed. So the percentage of the index would continue to rise.
Nasdaq "solved" that problem by including a 5x float multiplier for stocks with less than 20% of shares available to the public...
That's misleading.
Before the changes, the Nasdaq-100 index was total market cap-weighted not float-weighted. Once a company crossed 10% floated shares, the company was added to the index at full weight.
Nasdaq's new system is a hybrid of float-weighted and cap-weighted. If a company has below 33.3% float, its weighting is 3x float. Above that, it's cap weighted. This allows a gradual fade-in of the company into the index.
It's a better system than the previous one, and in Nasdaq's own words, more conservative.
For the Nasdaq-100, SpaceX at 4% float gets 3 x 4% = 12% of its market cap counted, which is $210B not $1.75T. Still <1% of the index.
Also, the multiplier is 3x, not 5x. Nasdaq proposed 5x, but after feedback, this was reduced to 3x. The new thresholds are 3x and 33%, not 5x and 20%.
https://www.nasdaq.com/newsroom/nasdaq100-index-methodology-...
I stand corrected, I was not aware of the full mechanism, and I was still stuck at the proposed multiplier and not the actual one.
except $4T is a made up number, a complete fantasy not rooted in any reality. it us more like $750bn (this is also made up number) :)
All valuations are “made up” numbers.
Some are more made up than others though!
Price discovery isn’t “making up” a number it’s discovering a number that meets a specific criteria.
Critically it’s not simply averaging a bunch of made up numbers. I may think gold is worth 1,000$/kg but if nobody is willing to sell me gold at that price then my “made up” number has zero effect on the market price.
The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation. It's not made up from the ether based on nothing. You can disagree with their reasoning and come to a different number, but you need to show your work if you want anyone to give a shit about your made up number. How many satellites have you launched this year? What's the going rate for a kilogram to LEO? Who are the competitors and what do they charge? Things like that which aren't magic made up numbers.
The valuation is actually mostly about AI. Satellites, like electric cars, don’t have quite the growth story (and I do mean “story”).
https://bsky.app/profile/patigallardo.bsky.social/post/3mnhc...
That’s total addressable market. It’s claiming that AI products they could build could be that amount. It assumes they gain 100% of the market which techbros are basically claiming is most current human effort. It’s stupid, but not what’s actually driving the price.
They are making more revenue off satellites than nearly every current AI subscription today put together. The launch capacity and growth in space based applications are the real company, everything else is to line Musks pockets and have markets subsidize his dumber projects.
It’s a shell game. I believe in their Space based products, but I’m not touching those investments until the market levels out.
> The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation
That's tangential. The valuation is based on supply and demand, nothing else.
Amongst other things the supply part of the equation will be low because all these companies are only to make a very small proportion of their shares available on the public markets.
409As are absolutely made-up numbers. Management writes a number on a sheet and a 409A consultant signs it.
You do realize SpaceX valuation is completely detached from the space business at this point?
Their S1 cites (by memory) a 370B addressable market for space stuff and a 27 trillion for AI.
And for AI they counted all Twitter accounts as grok users.
The Spaces eXploration company was a cool company, but it's not what's being sold to the market now.
Closer to 1.7 trillion for space. You’re quoting launch but discounting satellites and broadband.
The AI stuff is dumb and just subsidize Elons prior dumber investments.
Oh come on. They absolutely have to target a valuation that's profitable for previous rounds, any reasoning is subservient to that imperative.
Sp500 is not passive. Keeps updating the rules every few years. https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1tvuhgy/sp500_100_y...
See top relevant changes in 100 years
They have to be rebalanced every quarter regardless. And I'm not sure how many people would actually sell due to the inclusion of a single company. They're very loud about it, but no evidence that this is causing a significant amount of selling.
Because it hasn't happened yet, and now, won't.
So by that metric the very loud people succeeded: these new IPOs will enter the index under the established rules and time-frames.
At a fundamental level, an index is supposed to reflect the market. If the current market is IPO-ing unprofitable companies at absurd multipliers, the index should reflect that. Because that is the market.
The longer major indexes exclude these companies, the further the index strays from representing the market, and the worse they do their core job of tracking it.
It's not the index's fault that market is pushing out overpriced and unprofitable companies.
Indices are supposed to reflect a part of the market. That's why you have all of S&P500, the Dow, NYSE Composite, and Nasdaq Composite (and several others) in the US — They each reflect different attributes of the market as a whole.
As it stands, it's clear that the users of S&P500 are not interested in the performance of the parts of the market made up of overpriced (and potentially highly volatile) IPOs.
The problem with your framing of "users of S&P500 are not interested overpriced IPOs" is that it conflates two fundamentally different things: what an index describes vs what investors prefer. The moment you start filtering out parts of the market based on investor appetite vs market reality, you stop building an index and instead start creating an actively managed product. That's active investing. It's no longer an index.
The S&P 500 is used as the benchmark of the market by practically everyone. Journalists, policymakers, investment managers, politicians, regular investors, everyone I know. If the benchmark that everyone uses as a market proxy is systematically excluding a substantial part of the market, then the gap betweeen "the index" and "the market" has real consequences.
You can't have it both ways: Either the S&P 500 is a market proxy, in which excluding parts of the market is a problem; or it's a curated slice, in which everyone needs to stop it as the default benchmarket for the market.
It doesn't conflate anything. The inclusion rules weren't given to us by God, they were created by humans because they thought, rightfully, that people will be interested in that as a product ("prefer"). As the market changes, the product can be adjusted.
Lastly, there's no such a thing as a real "market proxy", except the whole market. If you scope any subset of it, you're making some inclusion and exclusion rules.
The S&P 500 is primarily a benchmark index, not a list of approved stocks to invest your 401k into. The GP is conflating the two. GP is claiming there's a subset of stocks that people don't want to invest in, and these should not be included in the S&P 500. Sure. But, per the S&P website, the S&P500 was created as a benchmark of U.S. large-cap equities. On their website, S&P advertises it as "the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities".
The S&P 500 index was created in 1957. It was created decades before the first index fund (by Vanguard), which copied the index in 1976.
The index is intended to follow the all of the largest large-cap U.S. equities, not pick and choose which ones to invest in. GP is arguing that many passive investors, who blindly follow the S&P500 index, don't want to invest in these upcoming unprofitable mega-caps. That's not how the index investing works, that's picking and choosing approved sectors of the market, which is active investing. If you want active investing, buy an active investing product, don't buy a fund that copies the benchmark index.
An index is an index. It works fine as an index if it excludes one or two stocks. People seem to forget as well that this is a question of waiting a single year before it including the stock. It is literally just long enough to make sure the price settles, it's not some catastrophic thing.
> it excludes one or two stocks.
It's more than that. None of SpaceX, OpenAI, nor Anthropic will meet the criteria, and they will make up a significant part of the US stock market. Each of these companies is heavily investing their cashflow into growing the company and are unlikely to be profitable many years.
The inclusion criteria prioritizes companies that extract their cashflow into profit, and excludes companies that invest their cashflow into growing the company. For example, when Jeff Bezos ran Amazon he described his company as "famously unprofitable, And that is a conscious strategy and an investment decision." Amazon only joined the index in 2005, nearly 8 years after IPO, even though it was a significant member of the stock market at the time.
"The inclusion criteria prioritizes companies that extract their cashflow into profit", in almost all cases, yes. But if you want to buy into these newer stocks there are various high growth indices you can buy, no one is stopping you. If you want to buy into only one or two of those stocks then you can. It's a free market for stocks and it's a free market for indices. There's no regulation that says the S&P has to include certain stocks.
The issue is a contradiction with what S&P 500 claims to do vs what they actually do. S&P 500 claims to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". But if they exclude high-growth no-profit large-cap equities such as (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX) from their index, then S&P is doing a poor job at what they claim to benchmark.
It's not not an insignificant oversight. The valuations of (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX) total to ~5% of the total US stock market.
And that approach famously hurt investors, the economy, and/or Amazon in what specific ways, exactly?
It meant that during this time, the S&P 500 index less accurately tracked the large-cap U.S. market.
> what an index describes vs what investors prefer
What makes you think S&P 500 did not become the most popular index (instead of full market ones) because of the rigid entry criteria and and rules for weights.
Amongst other things the weighting is not even based on the market cap.
Why do index inclusion rules exist in the first place….?
Go do a google search
I feel like a lot of people discussing here have no clue what they're talking about, they just have an opinion - which, combining both, most likely means it's an opinion they did not form themselves.
The rules for index inclusion absolutely make sense in many ways.
This does seem sensible and I’m glad most of my holdings are in s&p funds.
Just to play devils advocate though, what are the downsides of not having 3 of the biggest 10 in the world not in your fund, if you hold to track broad market performance? Wouldn’t that have a massive blind spot on AI related growth?
Whether or not I personally think ai is over hyped or not, the whole point of these ETFs is to make sure I don’t get a say in the matter, since I’m a terrible stock picker
What a pleasant surprise. I was positive S&P would get strongarmed into the bamboozle like Nasdaq but it seems they have a bit more integrity. Good for them.
I think key difference here is that Nasdaq is also the market. Where as S&P is external. From this view them manipulating their own market which they profit in various ways actually is somewhat more questionable...
Incentives are entirely different. And really now I am starting to think that Nasdaq maybe should not have index it runs in the first place...
Didn't Nasdaq change its rules specifically in order to get SpaceX to list on Nasdaq? Not really sure why other funds would follow them since SpaceX can't list on all of them.
Important to note:
Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days.
Although it’s good they stood by their rules, elsewhere Reuters points out
> S&P Global said it would modify entry rules for its broader S&P Total Market Index and Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, creating a pathway for SpaceX to join those less widely followed indexes.
So not really as principled as it seems
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/sp-global-keeps-fas...
The market is more unpredictable than it’s been in a long, long time so I hesitate to make a firm prediction but to me the odds that SpaceX will be a successful IPO over a 3-6 month window are significantly lower now. S&P inclusion basically requires funds to hold a position by default, and per their own estimates $20tn of assets are indexed/benchmarked to the S&P.
They'll still be included in total market indexes (FTSE, MSCI, CRSP).
As I understand it, VTI will be a major thing.
Still, they're float adjusted (for the most part?).
Not to say I have an opinion one way or another, but why do you think that SpaceX odds to have a successful IPO is lower now?
Not OP but I will weigh in. The numbers for SpaceX were not looking great, they are burning cash faster than Starship crashing into the Indian ocean. The idea was that with a fast indexing, this would be mostly irrelevant as retirement funds would automatically buy into the IPO after 15 days thus bolstering the company before any sanity would prevail on the markets.
Now that they have to wait a year for that point, that cash burn is going to work against them fairly heavily. There is also something like $20 billion of debt they have to pay back in the next 12 months that might not be covered over so easily now.
That said, SpaceX and a lot of Elons companies have had figures that look terrible for ages, and yet they keep manage to pull rabbits out of the hat. So who knows. Maybe they sell a bunch of assets, they have more than enough to cover the gap.
> retirement funds would automatically buy into the IPO after 15 days
This is a misrepresentation of the rule change. The proposed S&P500 rule change was to decrease S&P inclusion time from 12 months to 6 months, not to 15 days.
The real issue is that existing shareholders will all be eyeing each other wanting to exit at the highest price it'll ever be. That's a lot of selling pressure.
I can't imagine many people seriously believe SpaceX is a business worth 1.75T.
Not to whom you're replying...
Depends what you mean by successful. If you mean "the IPO goes ahead" then I don't think this makes a difference (unless Elon cracks the shits at this decision and pulls out, which I'm not sure is an option).
If "successful" equates to number-go-up, then my understanding is that Fast Index Entry would have resulted in, effectively, forced purchase of shares by various funds.
When Fast Index Entry (FIE) was a chance of being introduced, the odds of number go up were higher. Now that FIE has been ruled out, there's a lower chance of number go up because there's no "forced blind purchase" group.
Glad there are some grown ups in US leadership
They’ll be gone by Monday and replaced by a fitness coach or something.
[flagged]
Good thing they're not dropping the profitability requirements. Ed Zitron would be proud.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-rational-reminder-...
Long listen but a very thorough and nuanced discussion by a bunch of smart investment / finance guys in Canada. No click-bait-sky-is-falling content.
Nothing that you are saying here has any commitment to what to expect, is all heresay. It's 100% ad hominem, to the person. That's a fault whether the direction is complimentary or derogatory. I personally really don't want to see vacuous empty comments like this.
I personally really don't care that you dislike podcasts, or don't have the time to click the link and spend five seconds reading the summary, or are lashing out because you had a bad day—can you do that somewhere else?
were you trying to reply to someone else?
No, I'm saying they are hyping up some random podcast while saying sweet nothings. I really don't like empty hype. I want some actual content to posts that actually says something, not just links breathlessly encouraging me to go spend an hour listening.
And where did the ad hominem part arise?
https://human.libretexts.org/Under_Construction/Clean_Up_(Pr...
Search for "positive ad hominem".
It's all empty words.
> a very thorough and nuanced discussion
> bunch of smart investment / finance guys
> No click-bait-sky-is-falling content.
The middle one is the ad-hominem puffery. The rest isn't quite exactly 100% 'of the person's, but still doesn't give me any actual leads into what the content is: its just empty puffery.
> vacuous empty comments > saying sweet nothings > empty puffery
By definition the only ad-hominem comments to be seen anywhere above.
[flagged]
So relieved to see this!
Excellent. I was getting ready to reposition due to the risk.
Thank goodness. I was v concerned about the implications of this.
Those mega IPOs are the latest grift to unload overpriced shares before the whole AI tulip bubble explodes in everyone's face.
The insiders know it, which is precisely why those IPOs are happening right now. Employees and VCs don't want to be holding the bag. small-time investors will be.
Also, SpaceX is going to unlock more and more on their float at around the same time most indexes will have to buy it. It has been engineered to socialize the losses.
I'm happy SP didn't agree to fast track any of those, unlike VTI and Nasdaq100. I spent the weekend to rebalance all my retirement accounts to make sure none of them are going to fast track those grifty IPOs. Unfortunately, I cannot do that for my taxable accounts as it would generate a tax-event.
Think it does also need to be said because there's a LOT of amateur investors here: If you're a person sitting there thinking you'll drop even just a few thousand dollars into SpaceX, OpenAI, etc when they list - you probably shouldn't. You'll very likely be losing it and you're the one about to make someone else rich.
They are happening now because the entire space narrative is dependent on SDI, sorry Golden Dome, as a massive heist of taxpayer money for the militarization of space (nobody believes in economic civilian space compute). Like SDI it’s bullshit but like SDI it works at robbing everyone blind.
That relies on Trump in power.
No?
No one believes the Golden Dome will get built. No one is valuing space on that basis either.
Even SpaceX's IPO isn't valued based on space launch and that's the problem.
* https://archive.is/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...
* https://archive.is/15pOn
For me, that only shows the first two paragraphs.
This lets you read the whole article: https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-oth...
See also S&P press release, "S&P Dow Jones Indices Consultation on Treatment of MegaCap Companies - Results":
* https://press.spglobal.com/2026-06-04-S-P-Dow-Jones-Indices-...
So they did tweak the rule for total market indexes, just not the "curated" ones.
Two words - Thank Goodness.
Before the flood of money from the index funds arrive, I'd love to see what's the right valuation for them.
Note that Nasdaq and Russel did put in place fast entry rules. S&P is the only one that didn’t.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/new-fast-tracks-account-olde...
CRSP is changing the index VTI tracks
I wasn't familiar with the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP). Apparently they were acquired by Morningstar in February 2026. I also found this press release from Vanguard announcing they will be updating fund names (including VTI) to reflect the acquisition https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/c... but nothing on the fund composition or rule changes.
CRSP has had fast track rules for quite a while.
They changed their minimum float rule for these mega IPOs with low float.
Sorry so CRSP will be fast-tracking SpaceX? I just checked and my Vanguard has 50% in that so would like to understand how exposed...
I feel like you need at least one of the two rules (time, float)
Yea, this is great but I'm not sure how much this helps since it's just 1/3 keeping their wits about them.
Nasdaq clearly did it for the big bucks and getting the listing, why did Russell bend the knee?
Russell tries to represent what investors are actually buying and selling, a larger swath of the economy than S&P Dow and Nasdaq do
so they get a little bit of a pass for me, but Nasdaq doesn't
As far as I know, will still be included in the NASDAQ 100 (since NASDAQ changed their rules already and SpaceX will be listed on that exchange).
This feels like massive news that general public won’t ever hear.
Basically nothing happened though. SpaceX asked them to change rules and they said no.
Everyone was certain they would. Multiple people I know were rebalancing their portfolios way from the big index funds
Looks like US society and its systems are well and alive despite the usual doom and gloom.
It’s a single index… that doesn’t say anything about the country and its systems
Not just any index, it's the most important index.
> SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P
Good. Looks like there's still a bit of sanity left in this world.
What is prompting SpaceX to IPO all of the sudden?
I'm personally convinced that this is Musk trying to get out of debt from his Twitter purchase.
That is a part of it.
Think of it like security backed bonds, if you bundle a lot of dud businesses into a single business that is doing ok then as an aggregate it looks fine. So bundling Twitter and xAi into SpaceX covers up that. This is why I suspect they will eventually merge Tesla into SpaceX as it is on the decline now.
The problem is that with the current cash on hand and large loans coming due, they only have a 6 month runway. Thus the IPO to get other peoples money to hopefully fund themselves until solvent.
All IPO's are essentially that, people invest in your business, the business uses their money to achieve more, and if it all works out then future profits can eventually be paid back to investors.
> people invest in your business, the business uses their money to achieve more
that was what normally would happen. However, in the last few decades of IPO, it's become common to have two classes of shares - one being the controlling shares that founders hold on to (with 10x the voting rights), and a 2nd class of ordinary (common!) shares with 1x vote per share.
This means the founders (and early investors perhaps) don't give up any controlling stake of a company at all when the IPO while only selling common shares. Doing this means they get to control the company's operations and financial moves, without shareholder oversight, but obtain all of the shareholder investment cash.
You could argue this can lead to better management, as the founders are more likely to care about the company than professional managers that typically would be hired to manage a public company. I say that is only an argument of luck of the draw, rather than a good argument against the above share and voting right splitting.
Look at facebook/meta - would that company be as invested in things like the metaverse, etc, if zuckerberg weren't in a controlling position?
These two classes of shares were only introduced in the 1990s.
That already happened with the merger of X with XAI and then the merger of Xai and SpaceX.
But the reason is because SpaceX is trying to tool up for orbital datacenters. They're building a bunch of solar cell manufacturing plants and Starship launch pads.
Or at least they are selling the idea of orbital data centers since the technology for orbital data centers does not exist yet or in the short term.
Orbital datacenters is just an excuse of a reason to merge the two companies when there’s nothing else tying them together. They won’t actually happen.
It didn't already happen. As you pointed out, people who funded the purchase of Twitter hold SpaceX shares, and this IPO is how they get their money back.
Baffling number of total-paywall links on the front page here these days.
Good. I'm surprised, though, that the usual fanboys/stans aren't converging on this to protest how unfair the S&P is.
They are.
Huge relief. Thank God!
Thank fucking g-d.
Paywalled.
[dead]
Good.
The amount of misinformation around this topic was absolutely nuts over the past few days. Good rule of thumb: if a YouTuber or other influencer was pitching doom and relaying this rule change by S&P as a fait accompli, stop following them.
(It was a common misconception on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364055.)
Contrarily, you can interpret the doom pitches as a necessary political backlash whose degree of panic and whose quantity prevented the change from ending up as a fait accompli.
Public decisionmakers do this sort of thing all the time. They "float an idea", "test the waters", "put up a trial balloon". They see what they can get away with. When the decisionmaker has a strong desire for the change, it may only get rolled back if powerful and widespread public dissent makes itself known, as it did in this case. When they don't really care about the issue, they might cancel it at the first sign that anyone has an issue. We can't know their degree of insistence just based on outcomes in these cases.
> the doom pitches as a necessary political backlash
It was totally misinformed, came well after the public-comment period had ended and had zero net effect other than maybe generating some commissions and management fees for rando managers.
There is bona fide hatred for these companies and their managers. Influencers twisted the facts to channel that for views.
What's the urgency to bend the rules? It is not like SpaceX is banned for good. It will be included as soon as it meets the requirements.
> What's the urgency to bend the rules?
If you’re buying into a tech-marketed fund like the NASDAQ 100 and it doesn’t include a large chunk of the tech market, you’re no longer passively investing in tech. You’re investing in an actively-managed fund.
Historically, companies like SpaceX would have gone public earlier and grown into the index. Recognizing that has changed with multiple $1+ trillion IPO contenders makes sense; as it turns out, I think both NASDAQ and S&P decided correctly.
Yeah, but is SpaceX actually worth $1T or does Elon just think that because of how Tesla investors value Tesla?
> is SpaceX actually worth $1T
Actually irrelevant to an index calculation. If your index manufacturer is taking this into account at any level, they're actively managing. S&P predates the modern active-versus-passive dichotomy, but it functions within it in practice, and despite being a leader of committee-based indexing philosophy, they've broadly found success by also being champions of passive management. And part of doing that is rejecting judgement over how the market is weighing this or that.
If someone is trying to bend the rules of my passively managed index fund to their will, are they trying to actively manage my passively managed index ETF ?
Historically a $1T market cap with a PE of 20.0 would be achievable with a $50B/yr profit. That seems easily achievable eventually for SpaceX, as it has actual hardware and services and IP.
> Historically a $1T market cap with a PE of 20.0 would be achievable with a $50B/yr profit. That seems easily achievable eventually for SpaceX, as it has actual hardware and services and IP.
It seems crazy to me to make a comparison between a company being valued on it's current profit and then to say it's reasonable for another company to have the same market cap because it could eventually have the same profit.
It's years away from $50B/year profit, if it ever gets there. The IPO valuation is insane.
Plus they now also have to compensate for the giant money fire called xai and the nazi cuddle huddle X/Twitter.
The valuation is insane and the very low float plus short timeframe for actual price discovery just seems built to extract money from index investors.
They can follow the same rules as everyone else.
It does have real hardware, but it’s not in wild growth areas. They’re making their most consistent money from Starlink, which is a solid product but has growth limited by competitors from conventional ISPs with far-superior fiber networks, and the space launch business is similarly not the kind of thing where you get Google/Facebook-level growth curves. That’s not a slight, it’s just different industries: advertising companies can grow rapidly because scaling customers is so much easier than launching cargo into orbit.
The wildcard there is AI, and that seems especially dangerous to project long-term revenue from their current performance: xAI is barely in the market except renting capacity to Anthropic, so you’re gambling that they’ll continue to pay $1¼B/month for what is largely a commodity offering. Even if you’re bullish on Anthropic, that doesn’t mean xAI gets part of their profits, and given the way they blindsided the local authorities there’s a substantially greater than zero chance that they’ll get a major setback if the neighbors win their lawsuits. That doesn’t mean they’re doomed, but anyone estimating their future performance has to factor in some real risks.
Yet, I, a relative peasant financially has been hit by 3 different brokers that I'm eligible to participate in the offering. I would hazard a guess they are not getting the uptake in institutional money they were hoping for.
“ Historically, companies like SpaceX would have gone public earlier”
Could woulda shoulda. Mate they didn’t. Moreover if they had, the existing investors would’ve got a shittier exit.
Yes, they did. In the wake of Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, for which the 2nd order effect was that companies take years and years longer to IPO. 10-17 years on average since 2010 (it used to be lower). (There are other reasons, it's not purely due to SOX.
The existing investors don't have liquidity. I can't buy a house or pay my bills with shares I'm not allowed to sell. A better exit later is worthless if I starve to death before the exit.
“ The existing investors don't have liquidity.”
Did mom and pop invest..? No they did not. The investors who did knew the long time horizon they were committing to.
They could’ve gone public earlier - they chose not to and venture capitalists were happy to keep supplying the funding.
Also lol @ using that act to explain why people take longer to ipo. Lest we forget how deep venture capital has become. Hahahha
> You’re investing in an actively-managed fund.
Nitpick: It’s still a passive fund, just that the index constituents are decided actively by a committee rather than by a simple criterion. As you no doubt already know, S&P500 isn’t just taking U.S. companies publicly traded on an exchange, sorting them by market cap, and then truncating the list to the first 500.
Not really. The underlying rules for Nasdaq has changed.
The preexisting ruleset was used by investors to gauge their portfolio balance.
Now investors have to revaluate their portfolio based on the new ruleset as their fundamental risks have changed.
Yeah, the rules have kind of made the passive investment active. I don't understand OPs point at all. I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things, and OP has provided 0 justification for that.
>I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things
Because this is how the rulemaking processes for these indices have always worked?
Why are you suddenly making this argument now, and weren't complaining about previous rule changes?
Because the rules are clearly going to result in lots of buying pressure from passive indexes on a large stock with little time for price discovery.
Come on, let's be adults here. Is there a prior example of this on a comparable scale?
It's already well known that passive indexes bleed ~0.5% performance solely to front running and exploitation from the market. This is that writ large.
> You’re investing in an actively-managed fund.
I see others are listening to the Money Stuff podcast ;)
What was the common misconception?
> What was the common misconception?
That the rule change was a done deal. The pitch was some shadowy financial cabal forcing everyone’s retirement savings into SpaceX (which would not have been true even if S&P voted to include, but that’s a separate topic).
The top comment and most of its subthreads are run-of-the-mill alarmism.
> The top comment and most of its subthreads are run-of-the-mill alarmism.
Worth considering:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_paradox
And the rules for the NASDAQ 100 were changed, as were MSCI and CRSP:
* https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/some-indexes-accelerate-e...
Most assets don’t follow those funds. And NASDAQ 100 is explicitly tech focused, I support them making the change.
The doomsaying was around most retirement assets. Which don’t follow any single index. But to the extent they do, follow the S&P 500.
The market wasn’t pricing in any rebalancing. Commenters were screaming bloody murder about it. In the middle, I’m sure some numpties generated trading and management fees by switching target funds.
As they should have. The rules were in flight with a layover time measured in days on assets that are managed on the timescale of years. There was a legitimate reason to act urgently. It's easy to make claims in hindsight but the information on hand it was 100% the right call to protect your investments.
This is not misinformation. Misinformation is saying the proposed rule change and their proximity to trillion dollar IPOs introduced no risk. Please do not spread such misinformation.
VTI uses crsp and is very large
It seems to me like there's a fair amount to be concerned about, I wouldn't consider myself an expert on finance by any means so if you have some explanation of why it's not that bad I'd love to hear it.
Two other indices changed their rules to allow these companies specifically. Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth. Often the people whose money is being invested don't even have control over its allocation into these funds.
Coupled with the precarious state of the economy due to all the money already flowing through AI, changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster. It reminds me of subprime mortgages.
> Two other indices changed their rules to allow these companies specifically
One of which is the NASDAQ 100, marketed for decades as a tech-focused index.
> Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth
Pensions build their own benchmarks. About 10 to 20% of retirement assets follow these indices directly for a variety of purposes. The S&P 500 aims for continuous large-cap growth, but that isn’t true for most indices, which seek to replicate something random.
> changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster
The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows due to this decision. And most retirement assets don’t blindly follow any index, let alone any single one. I opposed the rule changes at S&P. But the catastrophising was made for clicks and views. Not to inform anyone.
Like, anyone who actually acted on that brouhaha changed out of an index that isn’t going include SpaceX, incurring transaction fees and potentially tax hits (for non-retirement accounts) in the process, and probably cycling into a higher-fee fund.
> marketed for decades
So why change? You're not building a case for why this change is needed. Is there even another Nasdaq 100 company like SpaceX? Probably not because it would be an obvious point of discussion. So now we need to add a new 'thing' to our definition of tech, then change our funds to adopt our new definition. To what end, with this haste?
> The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows
Is it a fund or just an index? If an index, what are you monitoring when you cite 'no outflows'?
> So why change? You're not building a case for why this change is needed
It has changed loads of times. Nobody noticed any time. Including this one. (Look at flows into and out of related funds.)
> Is there even another Nasdaq 100 company like SpaceX?
Right now? No. Including SpaceX. By the end of the year? Probably a few.
> Is it a fund or just an index? If an index, what are you monitoring when you cite 'no outflows'?
Covered assets. Indices license their indices. Funds pay that royalty.
> I opposed the rule changes at S&P
So you are happy with this outcome, but also so upset at the people that evangelized your preferred policy position that you think HN readers should cut them from the information diet?
Seems most likely that the public outcry actually influenced this outcome, so I don't see why the nuances of alarmism about it (imminent decision vs fait accomplit) should nix an entire information source.
> you are happy with this outcome, but also so upset at the people that evangelized your preferred policy position that you think HN readers should cut them from the information diet?
I'm fine with this outcome. I genuinely don't care about HN readers' opinions on this. I posted the original consultation to HN to crickets [1]. It's abundantly clear that people want to use this as a useless vector for griping.
> most likely that the public outcry actually influenced this outcome
Nope. Lots of reasons to show how and why that is the case. From personal connections to the timeline of the decision making. But I'm sure that's how the same YouTube commentors who misled the first time will spin it to great effect...
> I don't see why the nuances of alarmism about it (imminent decision vs fait accomplit) should nix an entire information source
Because they're bad information sources. They're terrific entertainment. And if you recognise that, keep subscribing. But this is in line with the numpties who listen to All In like it's the gospel.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324
I mean S&P had actually drawn up a lot of the changes, regulations, and paperwork for entrants, so it wasn't a done deal, but they absolutely were considering it, and it was a very real "risk".
>> What was the common misconception?
> That the rule change was a done deal.
What are you talking about? The rule has already been changed in the NASDAQ. That makes it a done deal.
Anything changed can always be undone, but to be clear it has already happened. That makes it a done deal.
The S&P change was taken as a done deal. Search that page for S&P. The indices that flipped are less relevant than many individual active managers.
Wrong.
HN has been speculating on how wealth would be extracted from 401k and IRAs at least since the November elections in 2024.
Far before any influencers even thought this would be a thing.
I thought forced cryptocurrency funds, but it turned out to be something else.
Do you think that all the alarm had any effect on the blocking of the rule change? Is the right time to complain about a possible change is after it has been decided?
I don't think doom and gloom on HN had any effect, no.
It was much broader then HN
S&P wasn't fait accompli, but the NASDAQ 100 was
> S&P wasn't fait accompli, but the NASDAQ 100 was
Sure. Nobody was properly making this distinction in social media, including on HN. Particularly with respect to the differences in scale and purpose between the NASDAQ 100 and S&P 500.
The fact that a fast track was even considered is controversial IMHO. People flipping out, especially if their retirement is tied up with those indices, is to be expected. No one wants to be a bag holder for billionaire insiders.
Every rule change is controversial. This one was less so than almost any prior one I can remember–the dual-class one in 2017 (later reversed) generated far more real press. This one was mostly an influencer thing.
You're making a similar mistake treating it as fait accompli that SpaceX will tank between IPO and some future date, but that isn't a given either.
It's more about sidestepping the waves of market manipulation.
SpaceX is not worth $1 trillion, when most of that valuation is based on xAI being worth far more then their already dominant position in the space launch business.
sure it's not a given, but I certainly am not confident enough that it won't happen to bet my money in it, which I would automatically be doing if it was admitted to the SP500
It would make up less than 0.15% of the index with the limited float available at IPO. Even if it went to zero, your portfolio wouldn't notice it.
I would't be surprised if the freak-out reaction to SpaceX being on the nasdaq100 and even being considered for the s&p500 was a strong factor in S&P saying no; if so than the histrionics were worth it.
> would't be surprised if the freak-out reaction to SpaceX being on the nasdaq100 and even being considered for the s&p500 was a strong factor in S&P saying no
I would. I know some of the people. And NASDAQ 100-tracking funds have seen inflows, not outflows, as a result of the flip.
S&P management wanted the flip. The econometricians said no, because they're that sort of folk. The influencers get to entertain and drive some fraction of listeners to churn, which I guess keeps the ecosystem fed through commissions and management fees.
Oh come on Jump, how can you deny it's not shady?
I could kind of agree with the argument that "well these companies stay private longer so they are more mature" but the float exemption with the seemingly arbitrary calculation to figure out weights completely belies that argument.
> how can you deny it's not shady?
It wasn't. It's dumb. But that's different from shady. At the end of the day, the market never priced in the S&P making this decision because the default understanding was a public consultation by S&P goes nowhere. Influencers ran with a consultation being a fait accompli and now anyone saying otherwise is licking billionaire balls.
>if ... YouTuber... stop following them.
Great advice.
Not really seeing the issue you are raising. Seems like a pretty nuanced thread.
Yes, I think given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P, everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming about providing exit liquidity.
My prediction is that this will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs. Only time will tell.
They might but changing the rules for a highly controversial company would do more harm in lost trusts than gain for investors.
Exactly. There is this undercurrent of The End Times everywhere, that this is it. This is the end of ... everything that was. When in fact it is not the end times, and the people at those indexes want to exist longer than SpaceX.
Index investors often believe that indexes work well because they average everything out.
The reality is something like 96% of public companies underperform treasuries.
ref: https://paretoinvestor.substack.com/p/why-96-of-stocks-are-d...
That blog post is garbage and fails to accurately convey the paper it is based on.
>I rely on the Center for Research in Securities Prices (CRSP) monthly stock return database, which contains all common stocks listed on the NYSE, Amex, and NASDAQ exchanges. Of all monthly common stock returns contained in the CRSP database from 1926 to 2016, only 47.8% are larger than the one-month Treasury rate in the same month. In fact, less than half of monthly CRSP common stock returns are positive. When focusing on stocks’ full lifetimes (from the beginning of the sample in 1926 or first appearance in CRSP through the 2016 end of the sample or delisting from CRSP), just 42.6% of common stocks, slightly less than three out of seven, have a buy-and-hold return (inclusive of reinvested dividends) that exceeds the return to holding one-month Treasury Bills over the matched horizon. More than half of CRSP common stocks deliver negative lifetime returns. The single most frequent outcome (when returns are rounded to the nearest 5%) observed for individual common stocks over their full lifetimes is a loss of 100%.
>Individual common stocks tend to have rather short lives. The median time that a stock is listed on the CRSP database between 1926 and 2016 is seven and a half years. To assess whether individual stocks generate positive returns over the full ninety years of available CRSP data, I conduct bootstrap simulations. In particular, I assess the likelihood that a strategy that holds one stock selected at random during each month from 1926 to 2016 would have generated an accumulated 90-year return (ignoring any transaction costs) that exceeds various benchmarks. In light of the well-documented small-firm effect (whereby smaller firms earn higher average returns than large, as originally documented by Banz, 1980) it might have been anticipated that individual stocks would tend to outperform the value-weighted market. In fact, repeating the random selection process many times, I find that the single stock strategy underperformed the value-weighted market over the full ninety years in ninety six percent of the simulations. The single-stock strategy underperformed the one-month Treasury bill over the 1926 to 2016 period in seventy three percent of the simulations.
>The fact that the overall stock market generates long term returns sufficiently large to be referred to as a puzzle, while the majority of individual stocks fail to even match Treasury bills, can be attributed to the fact that the distribution of stock returns is positively skewed. Simply put, large positive returns to a few stocks offset the modest or negative returns to more typical stocks.
https://obj.portfolioconstructionforum.edu.au/articles_persp...
Compare this to the blog post:
>The implication is devastating for index fund orthodoxy: When you own a broad market index, you’re mathematically forcing yourself to hold the 96.6% of stocks that create no value while simultaneously diluting your exposure to the 3.4% that generate all returns.
The professor just told you that investing in any individual stock is a terrible decision and that investing in more stocks means having greater exposure to the stocks that do net a return, creating a puzzle, where diversification doesn't reduce yields, in fact it did the opposite: it increases the yields.
There's also a general fallacy that any index (directly referred to as index orthodoxy) has to be a "broad market index", when in reality there are many competing indices. If someone came up with an index that would follow any investment strategy the blog post suggests and it turns out to work reliably, then people would switch part of their portfolio to that index. "Index othrodoxy" would prevail, because people just need a better index rather than abandoning the idea of an index altogether.
It's also difficult to reconcile with the fact that after fees, most active funds have failed to net higher returns to their investors. This random blog post is basically delivering an active investment strategy on a silver platter that will make fund managers and the people investing into it rich, is this believable? Consider that it's written in a "shocking" AI style, trying to sell you something.
Funnily enough, the ad in the middle of the blog post "The U.S. Treasury collapse is HERE!" is incompatible with the premise of the article, that 96% of stocks are worse than treasuries.
>But even if we use the more moderate 80/20 framing, the strategic implication is identical: If 80% of market returns come from 20% of stocks, why would you construct a portfolio that treats all five hundred stocks in the S&P 500 equally?
The thing is, you don't have to do that, like at all. There are indices like the S&P 500 Pure Value and S&P 500 Enhanced Value that are known to outperform the regular S&P 500. The problem is that they have done so over the long term and long term really means long term. There have been decades where they underperform.
Also, the article is three times as long as it needs to be, it's clearly AI generated.
lol what
You can just wait for the price to drop post ipo as it usually does if you actually want to invest.
> given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P
The misinformation was almost certainly not taken into account, and it shouldn’t have been.
> everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming
Influencers will scream regardless. It’s what they’re paid to do. The NASDAQ 100 made these changes and is doing just fine.
> will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs
There are lots of indices. S&P largely targets those built around mature companies. If you want a total-market index, those exist and tend to rapidly incorporate IPOs.
This comment was flagged, it does not contain anything that could possibly deserve that. Shame on you people.
For all the people worried about spacex inclusion in nasdaq/qqq/etc
It won't matter for your portfolio. Your portfolio will keep growing.
Maybe! Returns aren't guaranteed either way.