7 ms·
This should be a 5 alarm fire. It reminds me of nothing more than organized crime rackets that targeted control of union retirement funds
by 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 agoWhy? 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 agothey should wait for the major lockups to pass, there by skipping some of the inevitable volatility they will likely cause.
- fourside 4mo agoWhy does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules?
- 21asdffdsa12 4mo agoBecause 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 agoStop 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.
- toasty228 4mo agoSadly that's what happens when people have a "high" technological culture with absolutely zero political nor ethical education. They see all the cool gadgets while being completely blind to the political and social side effects
- 3form 4mo agoIt's not only a question of _ethical_ education; the magical claims should also be refuted on rational grounds. Seems that's difficult, too.
- camillomiller 4mo agoThis is a good point. It's like a strange form of selective magical thinking, or maybe it's really just a global psychosis. Tech people without a background in humanities (not academic, even just because of personal interest) are the most prone to this in my experience.
- frankacter 4mo ago>Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules? They don't, while timing certainly benefits, and potentially was triggered by them and OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs, these rules are not specific to only apply to SpaceX. FTSE Russell (Russell 1000/2000 etc.) Adopted "fast entry" for large IPOs. Eligible companies (investable market cap above Russell Top 500 cutoff) can join after 5 trading days (previously quarterly rebalances). Also eased float rules with carve-outs. https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-russell/2026/ftse-russell-introduces-ipo-fast-entry-enhancements-for-russell-us-indexes https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-rus... Nasdaq (Nasdaq-100): Effective May 1, 2026, top ~40 market-cap companies can enter after 15 trading days (previously 3+ months). Adjusted low-float handling. https://spotgamma.com/spacex-ipo-index-changes-spotgamma/ https://spotgamma.com/spacex-ipo-index-changes-spotgamma/ S&P Dow Jones (S&P 500): Reducing seasoning from 12 months to 6 months for megacaps and waiving the 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement for large issuers. https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/stock-indexes-are-contorting-themselves-to-include-spacex-and-openai-92136b13 https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/stock-indexes-are-contort...
- gwerbin 4mo agoThis is not a "why".
- lostlogin 4mo ago> >Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules? They don't, while timing certainly benefits, and potentially was triggered by them So the question remains, why do they warrant a rule change?
- frankacter 4mo agoThe answer remains, these rules do not specifically apply to only SpaceX, they apply to a range of companies that fit specific profiles. Timing happens to favor SpaceX, but will equally favor OpenAI, Anthropic and others within the same qualifiers. The links above provide specifics as to the what's and the why.
- 4mo ago
- jjav 4mo ago> Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules? It does not, of course, but when oligarch corruption runs supreme, it is whatever they want.
- rvba 4mo agoBecause twitter helped elect those who set the rules now.
- realusername 4mo ago> SpaceX will certainly be in the top few companies. I'd argue that it certainly isn't.
- hagbarth 4mo agoBecause 5 days is not enough for the market to discover the price of SpaceX. And the rules were changed so the float is weighted as if it was much much larger than it is.
- gizajob 4mo agoAre you sure? It discovers it within seconds following a bad earnings report. It seems hard to know right now whether five days might actually be sufficient or not, seeing as the cat is out of the bag about how unprofitable and debt laden this trillion dollar enterprise is.
- randbyte 4mo agoIf price is fully discovered right after ER then you will see price stabilized right after ER. But in fact post ER prices can wildly differ from the next minute, next day and next week price. It’s speculation and anticipation.
- HereBeBeasties 4mo agoNo, it's not long enough. You need long enough for the initial investors to get past their lock-up period and either sell their shares, or not, which is typically 90-180 days. Otherwise, index fund investors will pick this up at basically peak overvalued initial pricing, only to potentially take a bath on it three months later. Additionally with SpaceX they are issuing only a very small percentage of stock compared to a usual IPO, with an unprecedented valuation. Couple that with a much larger than usual amount of the IPO being issued through retail investment platforms rather than to professional institutions (30% rather than a more typical 5%) and it looks pretty unsettling.
- disillusioned 4mo agoBecause nothing about the IPO price has any resemblance to a fair market valuation, and if it's being propped up by this forced inclusion, even less so? The rules existed to fundamentally protect against a Potemkin village situation where an underwriter and some early round investors whip the valuation into a froth and raise against a rabid corps of retail investors who don't necessarily care about a PE ratio of 1,000+ because they're buying the hype. More importantly, it allowed organic price discovery to occur. This eschews that process because the indexes are _forced_ to participate essentially at _any_ price, so rather than the market writ large having the opportunity to reward or punish the underwriter pricing of the IPO and determine any true idea of price, they're forced to buy the banker's narrative, which will intrinsically prop up the stock to some degree, but at what cost, and based on what underlying?
- Bombthecat 4mo ago[flagged]
- watwut 4mo agoThen there is no reason to change the rules, right?
- karmakurtisaani 4mo agoBut this is like Elon's other products. It's so good that it doesn't have to follow rules!
- lostlogin 4mo agoCareful. If you disagree with him, he might brand you a paedophile.
- OtherShrezzing 4mo agoWill those things not still be true after the standard 12mo trading window and GAAP profitability?
- oblio 4mo agoSpaceX financials are a mess outside of the actual SpaceX part. xAI is losing money hand over fist, other random bits in there are doing the same. The valuation makes no sense. It's basically a money transfer from the average person to the poor richest person on the planet. The true Great Filter is mental illness, apparently.
- XorNot 4mo agoMoreover their filings on the matter basically correctly weight their space launch business and then go "and xAI will obviously be worth a bajilion dollars more".
- philipallstar 4mo ago> xAI is losing money hand over fist I wonder how much better Anthropic is doing.
- oblio 4mo agoWell, apparently Anthropic became "profitable" last month, because of some 1-time deal with xAI. I wouldn't bet on either Anthropic or OpenAI being profitable, we'll find out soon enough what this house of cards has inside, as they both want to IPO. Though with the current US administration, as proven by the SpaceX IPO, laws are mere recommendations.
- loandbehold 4mo agoAnthropic is paying xAI, not other way around.
- oblio 4mo ago> That’s $15 billion a year in compute costs, but reduced to an indeterminately-discounted level for the precise months that Anthropic is using to tell investors and the media that it has an operating profit. That operating profit is a result of accountancy rather than any improvements to its business model. > While I wouldn’t say this is cooking the books, it’s definitely a shiatsu-grade massaging of the numbers. Anthropic has deliberately leaked a quarterly “profit” where it knows it can suppress its costs https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle/ https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle... It turns out, there are many ways to skin a financial cat.
- sehansen 4mo agoIndex funds are largely synonymous with passive, long term, buy-and-hold investors. That kind of investors are best served by slower changes to the index, especially since index funds are intended to piggy back on the price discovery that happens in public trading. An IPO price, which is the result of a private negotiation, is exactly what you don't want to buy stocks at if you're a passive, long term investor.
- Ekaros 4mo agoIf it is actually growing company with growing valuation being a year late is not big deal over say 10 or 20 years. It is actually the smart move.
- aswegs8 4mo agoHow is that the smart move? It's exactly what OP stated as undesirable for index fund investors. The price discovery of the public markets hasn't taken place yet.
- eru 4mo agoThere's lots of different indices with different rules, and lots of different funds to implement these. Pick one that works with your preferences.
- mcherm 4mo agoI did. Then the rules were changed.
- SwellJoe 4mo agoBecause it's a scam by the richest people in the world to steal from the retirement accounts of everyone else.
- vintermann 4mo agoAnd when it happens, I suspect we'll end up having to eat austerity to avoid inflation again. Under new leadership from the Responsible Party, whoever that is where we live.
- csomar 4mo agoAsk yourself this question: Why were the rules there in the first place? SpaceX being big doesn't make this okay, it actually makes it more dangerous since more and significant money could be funneled.
- matwood 4mo agoYou shouldn't be downvoted because your point is completely valid. Matt Levine made the same point in the last Money Stuff podcast. These indexes are supposed to contain the largest, most significant, and in some cases all companies so people shouldn't be mad at the indexes for pulling in a company that's going to have a 1.5T market cap at IPO. Given the market cap, it would actually be weird to not have it in an index like the S&P500 or QQQ. Instead blame the bankers and market who are putting buying in at 1.5T valuation. If people really don't want SpaceX in their S&P 500 tracking ETF, we should see a S&P-ex SpaceX in short order.
- oulipo2 4mo agoSo then, why change the rules?
- watwut 4mo agoThe whole point of original rule was to have market discover price over time before adding a company. It is absurd to blame "market" that did not had enough time to settle. "Bankers" are to blame for making this rules change happen. It is entirely valit to blame people who changed the rules to allow this to happen.
- matwood 4mo ago> The whole point of original rule was to have market discover price over time before adding a company. IPOs and indexes were not really built to handle companies that stay private as long as we are now seeing. SpaceX is trading at crazy levels in the private market right now. Even if it prices down to something ~1T, it would be silly for an index that is a total market or the biggest 500 companies to ignore it. With that said, it'll be float weighted and have about as much impact on the s&p 500 as something like DoorDash.
- whattheheckheck 4mo agoScam company with no revenues
- 4mo ago
- moffkalast 4mo agoIf Al Capone were alive today he'd seem like an honest man compared to these crooks that are running rackets on a global scale.
- DaedalusII 4mo agoThere are many valid complaints about public markets undervaluing businesses in comparison to private markets, now that everyone is putting their money on the line we start to see a different view being taken which is exactly why public markets have always been a superior price discovery mechanism in comparison to private markets
- eru 4mo agoThe ability to short stocks in public markets also helps.
- saidnooneever 4mo agoi read it as most likely people will lose their retirements if the companies goes bust. is that correct? in my country now they move to new pension model which will allow more aggressive investments with them. i am worried it will just get sent to these bros and i'll work until i die.
- moffkalast 4mo agoThe reason they're doing that is because traditional European ponzi scheme pension systems don't work with shrinking populations, so actually we're working till we die in either case unless automation taxes pay for it.
- saidnooneever 4mo agoeach few years the pension age rises 69 for me now, but it will likely go up further. much further up is beyond the average life expectancy...
- sscaryterry 4mo agoYep, I'm sure in 25 years time, when I "should" retire, the retirement age will be 75, meaning another 10 years of work, so I have 35 left :) At least!
- onemoresoop 4mo agoToo bad it's getting harder and harder to find employment after you're in your 50s
- endemic 4mo agoWelcome to Costco, I love you.
- bluGill 4mo agoWhich is why I have several different sets of savings for retirement. I have no choice about working now, but I hope to retire early in a few years, and my other savings just need to get me through until the official retirement income starts.
- hliyan 4mo agoI've been told the following (obviously negative) narrative. Can someone verify/refute some of these? I've put (?) next to questionable claims. 1. Twitter is purchased with debt 2. Debt is transferred to xAI via acquisition of X/Twitter 3. Debt is further transferred to SpaceX via acquisition of xAI 4. SpaceX IPO offered at extreme valuation 5. Index fund inclusion rules waived for SpaceX IPO: profitability requirement, inclusion period cut from 90 to 5 days 6. Index funds are largely held by passive investors such as pension funds. 7. Index fund managers are not incentivized to exclude a SpaceX from their indexes. (?) 8. Holders of original X/Twitter debt (banks) incentivized to support the rule waiver since post IPO, SpaceX will have liquidity to service/pay the debt. 9. Passive investors are unable to rapidly respond to these types of changes because liquidating portfolios will incur capital gains taxes. (?) 10. SpaceX is in Texas jurisdiction, where shareholder lawsuits are not possible and must instead go for arbitration. (?)
- Npovview 4mo agoWe Uncovered a Hidden Wealth Transfer in the SpaceX IPO. You're Holding the Bag. https://youtu.be/sYA-z0Y8WRQ https://youtu.be/sYA-z0Y8WRQ There is video explaining the process
- alexp2021 4mo agoThanks. That's pretty shady and grim :(
- killbot5000 4mo agoI’ve always suspected the “index funds are the safest investment” system is ripe for exploitation.
- riffraff 4mo agoif you're invested in a broadly diversified index you can be annoyed by this thing, but it won't impact you a lot. E.g. if you owned something based on MSCI ACWI, which is free float weighted and global, SpaceX will end up being less than 1% of your portfolio even at a trillion dollar valuation. It's just NASDAQ which is complicit in this scam by overweighting SpaceX.
- pj_mukh 4mo agoOkay before we set off the alarm though, can someone tell me What percentage of these index funds will be SPCX and TSLA? Like if both these stocks become penny stocks what happens to the indices? Isn’t the whole point that they are hedged across the whole market?
- andruby 4mo agoAssuming $75B float for SpaceX * S&P500: 0.08% – 0.12% * NASDAQ-100: 0.47% – 0.70% * Russell 1000: 0.1%
- mgiannopoulos 4mo agoA key point to look out for is how much money Anthropic and later OpenAI will go for in their IPO, which will utilise the same (updated) rules.
- derf_ 4mo agoAs of January, TSLA was somewhere around 2.3% of the S&P [1]. Because SpaceX will have so little float available, it would be somewhere around 0.7% if included. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500
- bwb 4mo agoYa, but this is a proof-of-concept rip-off. The fact that the indexes don't have our back is a huge problem.
- rapind 4mo agoIt's only a problem for the ones left holding the bag. I'm at an all-time low allocation percentage in the US stock market and considering pulling more out still. Full on casino vibes at this point.
- mancerayder 4mo ago
- arrty88 4mo agoShould one sell their 401ks ahead of the forced buying
- bdangubic 4mo agothis is not an option for the majority of people
- sph 4mo ago"Be fearful when others are greedy". Greed is at an all-time high, so be careful. Whether that means buying or selling or staying put is for you to decide.
- sebastiennight 4mo agoAny advice that confidently ends with "but whether you do A, B, or C, is for you to decide" can generally be safely avoided. This is providing 0 bits of guidance.
- sph 4mo agoTrue, but so is financial advice on the Internet. There is no answer to 'what should I do with my money today', and anyone that claims to have one either is stupid, lying or trying to scam you. The only valid advice here is to be careful because the economic climate is unstable, and it's not the time to make rash decisions.
- sebastiennight 4mo ago> There is no answer to 'what should I do with my money today' Actually I would argue there are valid answers to that. There are varied schools of thought on it, but the most useful and practical ones each have their specific hierarchy of "what to do now". Here's an example of a single blog post that was the lightbulb moment for me, ten years ago: https://mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zero-to-hero-in-one-blog-post/ https://mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zer... I was not scammed (and never gave any money to this individual or his blog sponsors/advertisers), the advice here is not stupid or mendacious, and it is genuinely helpful if your goals align with the stated intent of their admittedly very simple strategy. The nihilism of "nobody knows what to do or can give you actual advice" is an self-defeating choice. There's plenty of help available out there. At least until some of the internet survives LLMs.
- ejoso 4mo agoThis should trigger all of us to be spinning up lawsuits. This whole thing is an absurd grift.
- kys11 4mo ago[dead]
- bluGill 4mo agoclass action is the average person's best bet here. You should expect to get $.75 while the lawyers make big money.
- throwway120385 4mo agoHopefully you didn't accidentally waive your right to class action by signing something at some point in the last 15 years that survived multiple buy-outs to land in the hands of some company tertiary to the lawsuit.
- petesergeant 4mo ago> This should trigger all of us to be spinning up lawsuits On what grounds? What tort have you suffered? If you want change (and who wouldn't?) you need to talk to your representatives, not the courts.
- joquarky 4mo agoAnd what exactly will that accomplish? Did you grow up in a time when that was effective?
- randomperson321 4mo agoHave you contacted your government representatives yet? I will be doing so. The federal government can probably stop this but we need to act now.
- benl 4mo agoBut the SPCX float is a small fraction of its overall shares. So it will end up being around 0.08% to 0.12% of the weight of the SP500 [1]. Nothing to write home about. Personally, I do think SpaceX is overvalued at these proposed IPO numbers and I will trade accordingly. So should anyone else who is confident and competent at taking appropriate market positions. 1. https://www.investmentnews.com/practice-management/spacexs-index-fund-debut-will-look-nothing-like-what-most-investors-expect-says-jacob-friedman/266776 https://www.investmentnews.com/practice-management/spacexs-i...
- throwawaypath 4mo ago>This should be a 5 alarm fire. Only for people that get their news from reddit. Initial public offerings whose market capitalizations rank within the Nasdaq 100’s top members will normally be eligible to be included after 15 days of trading, Nasdaq said in a statement. The timeline is shortened from at least three months currently. “Industry professionals, including asset managers and institutional passive portfolio managers, were mostly supportive of the Fast Entry proposal and proposed timing,” Nasdaq said in the statement.[0] 15 days vs 90 days isn't some huge shift nor is it inherently some "flaw." These changes have been asked for long before Elon entered the White House. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-30/nasdaq-clears-way-for-spacex-big-ipos-to-gain-fast-index-entry https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-30/nasdaq-cl...
- Lord-Jobo 4mo agoThe question is whether or not those industry professionals are speaking in their own interest, in the interest of all stockholders, in the interest of the economy as a whole, or any mix of the above. This is why non partisan financial institutes like the FED and consumer protection groups like the CPB are important and we should have them as non corrupt and robust as possible. Because it just doesn’t seem wise to trust asset managers with these kinds of things without a lot of evidence and transparency. The 2008 crisis should have taught all of us that much.
- caycep 4mo agoHow did they push this through? Trumpian regulators?
- wmeredith 4mo agoEssentially, yes, as I understand it. Elon's "investment" of millions in the current administration is paying dollars on the penny.