16 ms·

For SpaceX (and possible the others): Yes it can, since they changed the rules to force over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at

• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• thegreatpeter 4mo ago
  It’s an index fund. It must follow the index. They’re forced to buy any company in the SP500. They are buying it at IPO pricing
• JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > All three benchmarks are now structured to buy SpaceX at IPO pricing S&P has not finalized a rule change yet.
  • lovich 4mo ago
    Do you think it’s more or less likely that they will make the same change as the other benchmarks?
    • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > Do you think it’s more or less likely that they will make the same change as the other benchmarks? S&P has historically been more conservative. My personal guess is they won't adopt all of the proposals.
      • lovich 4mo ago
        But you think they’ll adopt some of these proposals that are in the benefit of these companies IPOing at the expense of large funds?
        • sersi 4mo ago
          If the S&P adopt those rules would there be any index fund that is S&P without the new rules?
          • thephyber 4mo ago
            An index fund like the S&P500 is not the S&P500. It is stuck competing in a world of low margin pain. I sincerely hope S&P and Nasdaq rollback the SpaceX-targeted changes, but unfortunately I seriously doubt it.
          • dnnddidiej 4mo ago
            IZZ, or in other words fuck em.
          • camel_Snake 4mo ago
            Dimensional funds have a type of index factor funds that roughly track these indices without strict adherence to S&Ps inclusion rules. That's the only one I'm aware of.
          • mdnahas 4mo ago
            Vanguard doesn’t use S&P, because they wanted low fees and the license was expensive. They use CRSP’s index rules. I checked and it looks like new stocks get added to the CRSP index at the next rebalancing, which is September. So, even the knockoff S&P adds it quickly. BTW, CRSP was run by University of Chicago, but got sold recently to Morningstar, a mutual fund company.
  • themafia 4mo ago
    Are you actually optimistic?
    • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
      > Are you actually optimistic? Not particularly. When I posted the request for comment to HN it got crickets [1]. Not enough people care about this. And the "safe" option has kind of shifted with the other index providers having moved first. That said, there were a lot of proposals and I'm not expecting all of them to be adopted. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324
      • loeg 4mo ago
        There's no obviously correct answer here.
        • lucketone 4mo ago
          Not changing rules would seem quite obvious and correct at the same time.
          • loeg 4mo ago
            It is not obvious that excluding SpaceX is (1) better for index investors or (2) what index investors/buyers want. Passive index investors buy the whole market. For better or worse, SpaceX is (will be) part of the whole market. Most indices will be buying proportionate to float, which is probably the correct thing to do. Only the Nasdaq 100 isn't float-weighted, and there's just less money in that index than the S&P500 (even with outsized weighting, Nasdaq 100 indexers will buy about 0.5% as much SpaceX as S&P500 indexers).
            • lucketone 4mo ago
              Eventually buying spacex is obvious and correct. Buying prematurely is questionable.
• Xunjin 4mo ago
  If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating...
  • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > If this is a bubble... The pop stage will be devastating... Why? It could be sudden. It could be slow and gradual. I've seen no reason it needs to be one versus the other.
    • tomrod 4mo ago
      Because it is deliberately extracting cash from Mom and Pop into the robber baron's wallets?
      • dragontamer 4mo ago
        Why would that pop the bubble? Robber Barrons existed from like 1860 through 1915 and extracted the wealth of many people, including Native American tribe lands. Like this shit can keep going until we decide enough is enough and actually change our society.
        • tmp10423288442 4mo ago
          Not related - many robber barons went bankrupt in the severe economic crashes of the time, such as the Panics of 1873 and 1893. The Gilded Age continued despite bubbles popping.
      • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        Okay? Why does that mean a devastating pop?
        • vermilingua 4mo ago
          Where were you in 2008?
• grassfedgeek 4mo ago
  This is such a scam. SpaceX used its massive IPO and listing fees (and the prestige of being the largest IPO ever) as leverage. Index providers and exchanges saw financial incentives: listing fees, trading volume, data sales, and long-term revenue from asset managers. Reuters reported that SpaceX advisers contacted major index providers (including Nasdaq) to discuss early index entry, and that SpaceX was leaning toward listing on Nasdaq only if it got early inclusion in the Nasdaq 100. The rules built to protect passive investors were waived: - S&P 500’s 12-month seasoning and 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement → waived - Nasdaq’s seasoning window (90 trading days) → cut to 15 - FTSE Russell’s seasoning window → cut to 5 days Meanwhile, Danish pension fund excludes SpaceX citing governance and valuation (Musk holds approximately 42.5% of the equity, but commands roughly 83-85% of total voting control): https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/danish-pension-fund-excludes-spacex-citing-governance-valuation-2026-05-29/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/danish-pension-f...
  • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > S&P 500’s 12-month seasoning and 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement → waived S&P hasn’t announced a final rule change yet.
    • fluidcruft 4mo ago
      Yeah, right.
      • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
        > Yeah, right Yes. Literally right.
        • fluidcruft 4mo ago
          Are you seriously under the illusion S&P is second guessing or reconsidering its plans? There's no evidence of that.
• jmyeet 4mo ago
  You forgot the part where NASDAQ already enacted a rule change that normally prohibits small floats from index inclusion (and thus forced purchase by index funds), which was normally 10% [1]. SpaceX is only floating ~4.3% of their stock and they're triple-weighting it. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/garthfriesen/2026/04/25/spacex-ipo-is-forcing-changes-to-index-and-underwriting-rules/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/garthfriesen/2026/04/25/spacex-...
  • jauntywundrkind 4mo ago
    Also worth asking what SpaceXLAI's plan is to make money. $22.7T of their $28.5T Total Addressable Market is... Drumroll... Enterprise AI! That's the plan, that's what we are investing in: spacex and Tesla and Twitter are all side shows, to sell AI. That's what everyone's absurdly overpriced forced passive investment is going to. https://bsky.app/profile/segyges.bsky.social/post/3mnan7hr2j22u https://bsky.app/profile/segyges.bsky.social/post/3mnan7hr2j... There is nowhere near enough burning rage for this absurd fleecing of the public.
    • smallerize 4mo ago
      It's not only Grok, but also the robotics applications.
      • marcosdumay 4mo ago
        So... The US GDP in 2024 (the last one I found) was $27.8T... They are planning to capture 100.7% of it?
        • ben_w 4mo ago
          Or a bit of everyone else's. To quote a message I wrote on a finance channel on telegram: The TAM for "enterprise applications" at 28 T sounds both too much and too little: by the time the tech (and/or overall economy) allows it to reach that number, that number itself will look unimpressive, and this kind of scale seems to be reachable with ground-based more easily than with space based (at current energy prices, even that TAM is only about 2% of being Kardeshev 1). Feels like Musk did vibe-economics for "how big is the global digital economy?", much like the claims about factories on the moon making data center satellites looks like he prompted grok with "if I tile the moon with solar powered factories and mass drivers to launch them, how many TW can it launch per year?"
• spikehoppins 4mo ago
  Do you have a source for the $30 million claim? It'd be nice to work out the math. Not _all_ of 401k funds / index funds are going to go to SpaceX.
  • smallerize 4mo ago
    *trillion The 12 largest companies in the USA together have that market cap, so probably not.
    • chrisweekly 4mo ago
      yeah, trillion. 30m isn't even a vapor droplet.
  • JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > Do you have a source for the $30 million claim? Index funds in total had about5 $7 trillion in 2021 [1]. [1] https://alexchinco.com/double-what-you-think-it-is.pdf https://alexchinco.com/double-what-you-think-it-is.pdf
  • prepend 4mo ago
    As of April, the combined market cap of index funds (including ETFs) is just under $21T. [0] Actively managed funds is $18T. And, for example, the S&P500 alone is $69T. [0] https://www.ici.org/research/stats/combined_active_index_0426 https://www.ici.org/research/stats/combined_active_index_042...
• gruez 4mo ago
  >and cut the seasoning window from 90 days to 5. 90 days or 5 days, it doesn't really matter because the float will be tiny due to the 6 month lockup. What kind of price discovery are we expecting that would happen in the other 85 days?
  • donbox 4mo ago
    If it does not matter, then don't change it.
  • randbyte 4mo ago
    > it doesn't really matter because the float will be tiny due to the 6 month lockup. Not really: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/spacex-allow-early-share-resale-before-usual-sixmonth-lock-up-2026-05-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/spacex-allow-early-...
  • HWR_14 4mo ago
    SpaceX is slowly and steadily increasing the float over the first 6 months by having a rolling end to the lockup. The only major cliff will be Elons shares
    • rlt 4mo ago
      Steadily starting about 60 days (Q2 earnings) after the IPO.
    • throwaway2037 4mo ago
      > The only major cliff will be Elons shares Do you really think he would see a large portion of his shares on his unlock date? If so, why? What would he do with the capital?
      • andruby 4mo ago
        Off-load some of them when the valuation is _to the moon_ from AI and then later he'll force shareholders and the board to gift him even more shares then he sold.
• d--b 4mo ago
  Wow, didn’t know that. If SpaceX tanks and 401ks are left holding the bag, this could result in the biggest class action lawsuit ever.
  • Analemma_ 4mo ago
    Oh, SpaceX already has that covered: thanks to the TX legislature, SpaceX shareholders cannot file shareholder lawsuits, you can only complain to the "Texas Business Court" or get binding arbitration [0]. [0]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spacex-investors-can-t-complain https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-21/spa...
    • michaelmrose 4mo ago
      This is optimistic about binding arbitration providing protection from more traditional remedies
    • d--b 4mo ago
      People can surely sue the index publishers for removing the safeguards, or the index funds to take more risks than they were mandated. When money is lost in the order of billions, someone is getting sued.
      • edoceo 4mo ago
        Will take 6+ years and lots of fees lost to recover loss. Won't be anywhere close to made whole.
      • chii 4mo ago
        > someone is getting sued. but that doesnt mean any money gets recovered at all. Musk sure as hell aint giving anything back. The fix is to simply not buy it - those 401k aren't completely passive, you can choose a different investment (instead of NASDAQ index).
      • bell-cot 4mo ago
        > People can surely sue... Would either published indexes or investment funds exist, if suing them for poor performance was anything resembling that easy? I'm thinking "no".
• fragmede 4mo ago
  So the obvious thing to do, for someone that's got ~$3mm to play with, is to setup an ETF that is SP500 but with the old rules. If you can convince $40mm of other people's money to go into your not-specifically-Musk-less-but-just-happens-to-be ETF, they'd come out ahead.
  • sersi 4mo ago
    Only $3mm needed?
    • fragmede 4mo ago
      According to https://www.etf.com/sections/news/launching-etf-no-cheap-endeavor https://www.etf.com/sections/news/launching-etf-no-cheap-end...
      • sersi 4mo ago
        Interesting, thanks. Actually slightly cheaper than I expected.
  • roflulz 4mo ago
    The S&P Shariah index fund is required to exclude SpaceX and already exists https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-500-shariah-index/#overview https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-500-shar...
    • deaux 4mo ago
      Looking at their exclusion criteria, which one do you believe it falls under?
    • decimalenough 4mo ago
      Why would a Shariah index fund have to exclude SpaceX?
    • riffraff 4mo ago
      Why? Was space exploration incompatible with Sharia? Is it the pornography bit of xAI?
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• willsmith72 4mo ago
  this is disgusting corruption, a direct wealth transfer from the many to the few. shame on everyone involved
  • kevin_thibedeau 4mo ago
    We need the opposition taking names for investigations in 2029. They're not all getting pardons.
    • lenerdenator 4mo ago
      They're just as on the take as anyone. Think about it: you have hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence that the hyper-wealthy may have trafficked minors across state and international borders. Only one person is in prison over it, and her cell gets upgrades. 35 years ago this would have been a slam dunk for the opposition party of any republic. Instead of standing ten toes down on it, opposition leaders are doing... what exactly? Going on with business-as-usual, for the most part. They should be attempting to add language to every single bill that comes across the floor to see more done. They aren't. I think stock trading shenanigans are far lower on the list of moral outrages, particularly given Congress' predilection for insider trading.
      • tdeck 4mo ago
        Indeed, not enough people are asking why the Biden administration sat on the Epstein files for 4 years and did nothing with it.
      • 9dev 4mo ago
        Not just the opposition. In other times this would have been the reason for a revolution.
        • sph 4mo ago
          There wasn't TikTok and Doordash at the time. Panem et circenses.
• freetime2 4mo ago
  I don't like this either, but from the article: > Although Nasdaq has already shortened the “seasoning” period before index inclusion to 15 trading days and FTSE Russell has slashed its waiting time to five days (and S&P Dow Jones is reportedly considering something similar), most share indices weight firms in proportion to the value only of shares they have released for public trading (the “free float”). For SpaceX, this means just the $75bn or so of stock it intends to issue in June—so its initial weight in the S&P 500 will be around 0.1%. The NASDAQ 100 is an exception, and has changed its rules to weight companies at up to three times their free float, in an apparent effort to woo Mr Musk. Even so, SpaceX’s probable initial weight in this $40trn index will still only be around 0.5%. So people who hold ETFs that track the S&P 500 probably don't have too much to worry about. People invested in the NASDAQ 100 probably have more to be outraged about - but then again I suppose if you're invested in the NASDAQ 100, you may be consider more exposure to SpaceX to be a good thing.
  • Rover222 4mo ago
    how dare you come in with rationality in the face of ELON BAD
    • snapcaster 4mo ago
      It's still extremely corrupt, and done to benefit a very small group of people. Dismissing the criticism like this is directly against the rules and spirit of hackernews to assume good faith
      • deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      • Rover222 4mo ago
        You're using the word corruption without any solid evidence. The decision for the rule change has been clearly explained.
  • chii 4mo ago
    This needs to be higher for more visibility, because the weighting and the float's proportions are an important aspect that most news sources or comments fail to mention.
• davidw 4mo ago
  See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48363245 "The SpaceX Squeeze"
• tdeck 4mo ago
  What can those of us who are passive investors do to protect ourselves?
  • brikym 4mo ago
    I asked this the other day. The response was to buy VGT instead of QQQ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48324097#48334357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48324097#48334357
    • brikym 4mo ago
      Seems this advice was wrong as VGT uses an MSCI index which does have fast track entry. Do your own research.
  • noosphr 4mo ago
    Become active investors.
  • bradleybuda 4mo ago
    Not buy these index funds. If you don’t want to own the entire market, don’t buy funds that seek to own the entire market. Funds like ESGV which exclude companies with poor governance have existed for a very long time - I can’t find a clear answer as to whether or not it will buy SpaceX, but I’m sure you can find funds that cater to your desires.
    • tshaddox 4mo ago
      That ignores the actual issue here, which is the change in rules. Index funds already seek to own the entire market, and when most people chose these index funds there were rules about when newly listed stocks get purchased by the funds. And now those rules are being changed.
      • eru 4mo ago
        > Index funds already seek to own the entire market, [...] No, it depends on the index in question.
• pryce 4mo ago
  This should be a 5 alarm fire. It reminds me of nothing more than organized crime rackets that targeted control of union retirement funds
  • guywithahat 4mo ago
    Why? An index fund represents the market (usually top 100 or 500 companies), and SpaceX will certainly be in the top few companies. I would argue it's a lot riskier to buy it after the IPO price (if you're buying it secondary it would be easier to spike prices by accident), plus then it's not representative of the actual market until you've purchased the stock. Unless I'm misunderstanding this, buying at the sale price is the least risky way of purchasing the stock, which is what index funds should do. They should pursue the least risky way of indexing the market
    • stingrae 4mo ago
      they should wait for the major lockups to pass, there by skipping some of the inevitable volatility they will likely cause.
    • fourside 4mo ago
      Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules?
      • 21asdffdsa12 4mo ago
        Because this time we did learn our lesson is almost 15 years ago? Its a good time to get out of the ride
      • toasty228 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        • camillomiller 4mo ago
          Stop downvoting the only person that talks reason. We have reached a point where Musk and its tech pals must be stopped with all means possible, because government oversight, democratic processes, and the judicial process clearly do not apply to them anymore.
• quijoteuniv 4mo ago
  [dead]
• FriedPickles 4mo ago
  The money still comes from somewhere. In this case, those index funds will be forced to trim holdings of other companies. So it's cannibalizing other parts of the stock market.
  • chii 4mo ago
    which, if true, would make an arbitrage opportunity for a fund that explicitly excludes these high valuation targets but buys those trimmed companies (because for trimming to have happened, they must've been sold unwillingly and thus must be under-priced).
    • SwellJoe 4mo ago
      Which, again, benefits the wealthy and well-informed and well-connected. The suckers who have their retirement savings in some kind of index fund because all the experts have been saying, "Buy index ETFs and forget about it" for decades are gonna get fleeced, and the wealthiest get wealthier.
      • rnewme 4mo ago
        What to do then, if "Boogleheads" are wrong?
        • SwellJoe 4mo ago
          Bogleheads aren't wrong, historically. At least, not in the general sense that buying index funds and mostly forgetting about it is smarter than trying to beat the market with individual stock picks and timing the market. But, that philosophy came about in an era when there were protections for small investors that prevented the richest man on earth from dipping into your retirement fund to make himself even richer. I don't know how to be a smart investor when the game is so thoroughly rigged for a handful of billionaires.
          • im3w1l 4mo ago
• mastermage 4mo ago
  WTF
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• londons_explore 4mo ago
  > This forces over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations. And more importantly forces them to sell the rest of the market. Who will be on the other side of these trades? I suspect the stock market is not sufficiently liquid for all of that to happen in a single day without the rest of the market seeing a significantly depressed price, and index holders effectively gifting value to everyone else by effectively pre-announcing their large trades.
  • varenc 4mo ago
    [flagged]
• gman83 4mo ago
  This seems like straight up fraud? Presumably all to bail out early investors?
  • Havoc 4mo ago
    That’s the new paradigm of US leadership. Not laws or principles but just „who’s going to stop me“
  • dzhiurgis 4mo ago
    And if it's not fraud, it's fascism
    • selfmodruntime 4mo ago
      Ah yes, market manipulation, a key trait of fascism right next to authoritarian military regimes and ulta-nationalism. Words have lost all meanings.
  • deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
• jjav 4mo ago
  This is going to be very... "interesting". SpaceX will IPO with minimal float, while at the same time forcing every index fund to buy a fixed percentage. A long squeeze, so to speak. I can't picture any scenario where this ends well.
  • tristanj 4mo ago
    It's honestly blown out of proportion. S&P 500 allocation is float adjusted, i.e. the allocation is based on the market cap of the floated shares, not the total market cap. SpaceX float is ~4% at IPO, and at a $1.75T valuation that's $70B in floated shares. SpaceX will be ~0.125% of the index. The actual amount of buying is in the low tens of billions, and given these are $30 trillion+ markets, this is hardly anything to fret about.
• styx31 4mo ago
  See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYA-z0Y8WRQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYA-z0Y8WRQ for a quick explanation in 10 minutes.
• deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
• mgh2 4mo ago
  The crypto market is 2.5T, essentially money parked in nonproductive assets. A simple public awakening and reallocation will suffice.
  • adammarples 4mo ago
    This kind of doesn't make sense. You don't park "money" "in" crypto. Crypto sits there, with its value set at the last sale price. There's nothing to stop the next sale price taking its value to zero without anything happening to real money other than some of it changing hands. It's not like crypto holders can sell $2.5T of crypto and plough it into equities, for a start some other investor will have to buy it from them for $2.5T and then we're in the same position we started in.
    • mgh2 4mo ago
      Explain to me how crashes work then, isn't it when there is an inconsistency on supply vs. demand? It just takes a narrative shift to tumble it - ex: quantum to break crypto security.
      • deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      • mgh2 4mo ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48375692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48375692
      • adammarples 4mo ago
        Someone makes a trade at a lower price. That's all a crash is. It's a crash in price, nothings actually happening to the stock or the token or the money.
• codethief 4mo ago
  Do we know what the situation looks like with other popular indices such as MSCI World, MSCI ACWI, MSCI ACWI IMI, FTSE All-World, …? Do they have any requirement of 12 months of trading or of profitability or similar?
• conartist6 4mo ago
  Well, the good times were nice while they lasted. I fully expect a meltdown.
• ilovecake1984 4mo ago
  This is why I have moved all my money out of the US market. I’d rather go for the picks and shovels in Asia and the boring rule of law in Europe.
• andrepd 4mo ago
  Cutting SNP500 from you etf portfolio seems the sensible choice now. On the other hand, things haven't been sensible for over a decade, and there's still no sign the insanity will stop. The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent...
• bilsbie 4mo ago
  I’m actually neutral on this so far but my main question is are they changing the rules permanently or just one time?
• nonethewiser 4mo ago
  >Yes it can, since they changed the rules to force over $30 trillion in passive 401k and retirement money to buy SpaceX at IPO valuations. Why not just say SpaceX is being added to the SP500? You can complain about the discretion to add it to the SP500. But that's irrelevant in terms of whether or not its "forcing" people to invest in it. Arent you upset people are forced to invest in Apple, Bank of America, etc.?
  • Brigand 4mo ago
    They should have to float on the market for a certain amount of time before being added to any index. This would reveal what the market value of the stocks actually is.
  • ActionHank 4mo ago
    "Why don't you just say that this store is selling pants that smell of poop, it's irrelevant that someone pooped in them because they also sell other pants that no one pooped in. Aren't you upset that they also sell you pants without poop in them?"
• gitfan86 4mo ago
  This fundamentally misunderstand the point of an index. The fundamental reason S&P 500 exists is to let people buy the entire market ( the top 500 companies make up most of the entire market ). That is it. Period. They are not saying these 500 companies are going to be the most successful in 6 months or 10 years. At one point Enron was 0.6% of S&P500 because it was a large company, not because the directors at S&P500 thought the management were honest people. If you don't like that, fine, don't buy S&P500 and buy stocks or other funds that do have companies you like.
  • sigmoid10 4mo ago
    This disregards the fundamental reason why people buy index funds in the first place. Rules for consistent GAAP profitability and cooldown periods specifically prevent retail investors from being exposed to particular malicious stock market tactics and overall risks that otherwise could significantly hurt them in the short term. So it's more like saying "you don't like extra risk? too bad."
    • gitfan86 4mo ago
      Yes, if someone thinks that the top 500 companies include too much risk then yes too bad, you need to move out of SPY. It isn't called the S&P495 because they kick out 5 of the biggest companies that some people consider to be risky. I personally think its super risky to want to be Diversified and NOT include any exposure to SpaceX. Yes, Elon is unique but that doesn't mean his companies are going to fail especially given the potential risk of AI changing the world. Is IBM going to keep selling overpriced IT outsourcing in 5 years?
      • sigmoid10 4mo ago
        It's not about the overall long term risk of the company, it's the inherent short term risk of the IPO that will potentially hurt retail investors. Why not have them trade for a while and go to business as usual so things settle down and the index can prevent wild fluctuations? The only ones who might benefit from this rule change are pump-and-dump types.
• FeepingCreature 4mo ago
  Absolutely nobody is forcing retirement accounts to buy S&P.
  • Vecr 4mo ago
    Is there something up with your Twitter account?
    • FeepingCreature 4mo ago
      Retirement accounts have to passively invest, but not in S&P500 specifically I think. I'm sure there will be passive funds that don't adapt the rules change. edit: Google informs me that you can change the stock allocation in your 401k at any time.
      • Vecr 4mo ago
        What? Have you been replaced with a whole-sentence markov chain? https://x.com/FeepingCreature https://x.com/FeepingCreature please look at your X account.
        • FeepingCreature 4mo ago
          Oh, I wasn't sure if you were referring to the X link in the original post. Yeah I don't know what's going on, they banned me for being a spambot or something. Then they unbanned me again, I got the email, but the site hasn't caught on it seems. If it's still banned in a few days I'm gonna remind them about the DSA again. Technical issues are not an excuse to get out from legal obligations.
          • FeepingCreature 4mo ago
            It's fixed now.
• root-parent 4mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47613231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47613231
• deaton 4mo ago
  Changing the rules to appeal to SpaceX is really really bad... especially given the historical performance of IPOs
• outside1234 4mo ago
  The only good news here is that the SP500 and wide market index funds like VTI are "float weighted", meaning they will only buy based on the dollar value of SpaceX stock sold to the public. The latest numbers are something like $75B for SpaceX, which is only something like 3% of the $2T valuation, so they will only buy a small amount of this (0.1% of the SP500 fund) because the total float for the SP500 is $45-50 trillion. Still criminal, and also, anyone buying this individually is a fool.
• derf_ 4mo ago
  It is not just the passive money. Many active managers are benchmarked against those indices, and you do not want to try to explain to your clients that you lagged in performance because you did not buy these stocks when your benchmark did. Sitting out would be taking a huge risk (of losing your job, which is important to you, as opposed to losing your clients' money, which is less important if your benchmark also lost money).
• tananaev 4mo ago
  You're misrepresenting things a bit. S&P 500 has not approved those changes yet and they have some other protections as well. Nasdaq and FTSE Russell definitely sold out and should not be trusted as good indexes going forward. Most popular passive indexes are S&P 500 and some total markets. Total index, like the one used by VTI, is likely the best spot in this case. They have not changed any rules, as far as I know.
  • mdnahas 4mo ago
    Vanguard’s VTI uses an index designed by CRSP. I read the rules and, best I can tell, CRSP indices will add the stocks at the next rebalancing in September. (FWIW, CRSP was run by U of Chicago, but they recently sold it to Morningstar.)
• rustystump 4mo ago
  Very silly question but cant someone just spin up an index cutting out spacex? Like even an etf that is nothing more than an sp500 sans non profitable companies?
  • rurp 4mo ago
    Yes that's definitely possible and will probably happen. The big hurdle is traction though. How many people will know about it and be willing/able to shift into it? A lot of passive investments are effectively locked in by unrealized gains or limited 401k provider options.
• findjashua 4mo ago
  nasdaq & russell, yes. but not s&p - that has a 6-month requirement for eligibility, which ensures stock is past the lock-up period.
• gigatexal 4mo ago
  The rules built to protect passive investors: 1. S&P 500 has required 12 months of trading and 4 quarters of GAAP profitability since 2002. Both waived. 2. Nasdaq cut its inclusion window from 90 trading days to 15. 3. FTSE Russell cut its to 5. All three benchmarks are now structured to buy SpaceX at IPO pricing." Which really really sucks. We all see Trump whoring out the whitehouse for his trailer park presidency. But I didn’t anticipate the markets kowtowing like this. lol bankers gonna be bankers tho nvm
• strangattractor 4mo ago
  Those changes should be taken as a harbinger. Smells a lot like 1999 when a company producing cat turds could get a listing.
• kome 4mo ago
  "All three benchmarks are now structured to buy SpaceX at IPO pricing." that's what fiance is about after all, capturing the saving of working people :) "It's not finance, it's your pensions" https://theloop.ecpr.eu/its-not-finance-its-your-pensions/ https://theloop.ecpr.eu/its-not-finance-its-your-pensions/
• fuzzfactor 4mo ago
  Now if you looked at it the other way around, you could say if they were trying to swallow the stock market they would probably want to start by taking some pretty much larger bites than most :|
• lkbm 4mo ago
  Following up with recent news, S&P won't waive the requirements: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announcements/20260604-1483731/1483731_spdji-us-indices-megacaps-results-20260604.pdf https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announ...