3 ms·
With the Nasdaq rule changes, almost certainly.
by BobbyJo 4mo ago
With the Nasdaq rule changes, almost certainly.
- laughing_man 4mo agoThose rule changes aren't happening.
- l23k4 4mo agoThey became effective last month.
- a2tech 4mo agoMy understanding is that the s&p 500 were the only ones unwilling to change their rules.
- l23k4 4mo agoWhy "unwilling"? That's a weird wording. S&P Dow Jones Indices decided to not go through with their rule change after it became a political issue. Obviously they were willing, the proposed rule change originated from them!
- nullstyle 4mo agoPlease provide some support that the rule changes were proposed from within. Given the fact they tried pulling this nonsense on 3 indices, it seems very unlikely the rules changes originated from within.
- l23k4 4mo agoIt is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say, so the burden of proof to prove otherwise must fall on you. And anyway, the rule change is truly the only reasonable way they can react to the current situation. It will absolutely be untenable to keep Anthropic , OpenAI and SpaceX off the S&P 500 with them also being the highest valued companies on the market.
- nullstyle 4mo agoQuatsch. The indices will say whatever benefits their power the most, regardless of truth. The fact that they are bending now to pressure is proof enough for me. We live in an age proving that valuation is just a manipulation. This whole story is just like the BaM situation: the people with more money feel emboldened to pull every dastardly trick they can to tilt the table towards their pockets, away from the honest participants. SpaceX and the AI IPOs are just the latest and most grand scheme. I’m guessing you were surprised by the collapse of lehman brothers back in the day.
- l23k4 4mo agoSo you don't actually have any evidence to support your claim? This just seems like a matter of faith at this point, that's fine.
- lostlogin 4mo agoI don’t think you have either? It’s and interesting point. I’ve done a bit of searching and am also empty handed.
- l23k4 4mo ago>I don’t think you have either? I don't know how I could? The indices have already provided their reasoning for these rule changes, but that's just summarily rejected by the conspiracy-minded. To laymen this appears to be a grand conspiracy. Rules are being changed to accommodate big companies, that's usually bad. To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli. The indices exist to reflect the market, these IPOs are going to be big enough that the 90s-era rules will/would result in untenable divergence.
- trhway 4mo agothe explanation what i heard from some financial analytics is that small float with large valuation would create a dog pile/short squeeze type situation among the funds trying to reflect the SpaceX valuation vs. the whole index valuation - 1.8T vs 70T ratio would be 50B of float vs. 2T where is total of index funds is much larger than 2T, and that is even without accounting for retail investors and other, non-index funds, who will buy a part of float too thus reducing further the float available to the index funds. Such squeeze situation would lead to stock price rise leading to valuation rise, .... >To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli. of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them. >to reflect the market the described above squeeze is hardly a way to reflect the market
- tedd4u 4mo agoFTSE 100 / Russell: changes happened. 5 days from IPO to inclusion. NASDAQ 100: Changes happened: a) Allow inclusion in 15 days post-IPO rather than 3 months. b) Allow inclusion of companies with very small float. c) allow valuation (index proportion) to be 3x float rather than enterprise value. S&P: no changes.