3 ms·

How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?

by l23k4 4mo ago

nullstyle 4mo ago
You use your back channels and good ole boys club connections to try getting the rules for inclusion changed. Maybe collude would be a better verb than design? Is that your objection?
- l23k4 4mo ago
  Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory?
  - nullstyle 4mo ago
    Common sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation?
    - l23k4 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - nullstyle 4mo ago
        Lol, the dude asking for reporting to justify his oligarch dickriding dismisses patrick boyle in his chat history as just a youtuber while using paywalled links to support his position. My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play.
        l23k4 4mo ago
        Criticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg.
        nullstyle2 4mo ago
        newly created alt because apparently my main account has hurt too many feefees to allow me to respond to a discussion I'm having. "posting too fast" my swingin dick... I'm not criticizing bloomberg, i'm criticizing you for posting paywalled links to support your position in an open discussion. Given I'm bailing on this convo now because hackers news is a shite application getting in the way of people trying to talk, let me respond to our sibling thread with the closet thing my opinion has to evidence: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH. IMO we remain at an all time high of financial flimflammery as a portion of our GDP and there have been a number of recessions triggered by the financial sectors malfeasance during my lifetime because of it.
        l23k4 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        nullstyle2 4mo ago
        and you assume these people don't have family offices filled with very well paid competence. There was a 3 month gap between Matthew Lee raising the flag about unethical accounting practices at lehman brothers and the firm's collapse. My opinion is that we haven't hit the analgous moment yet but we will.
    - AlexCoventry 4mo ago
      Common sense and rationality go out the window in corrupt, unregulated environments with perverse incentives.
dghlsakjg 4mo ago
Passive investors and retirement accounts are heavily in on automatic indexing. This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules. The accusation is that these changes were made so that index funds will buy this stock automatically far earlier than they would have previously. Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders.
- l23k4 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dghlsakjg 4mo ago
    It has been covered extensively. The change of nasdaq rules has been covered by Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, and most others who have reporters on the Wall Street beat. Columnists at all three of those publications have called it out as a possible play on institutional indexing money. I don’t need to tell you who like it’s some big secret either. It was Elon Musk on behalf of spacex. The changes were openly part of the ipo. I’m not going to cite sources for a major financial news story that is being extensively covered in the financial and general press.
    - l23k4 4mo ago
      Here's Matt Levine from Bloomberg saying something along the lines of "lol, obviously the indices have to do this, they'll look like fools if they don't because these will be the biggest companies on the market". He famously spends much of his time making fun of Musk, but seems to reject the idea of his influence here. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/index-funds-can-t-say-no-to-spacex https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind... Perhaps you can provide a single counterpoint? I can't find the columns you refer to.
      - dghlsakjg 4mo ago
        That is one of the columns. The headline makes my point succinctly. Your paraphrase of the column misses the crucial point. A Nasdaq index fund doesn’t buy a company unless it is in the Nasdaq. Under the old rules SPCEX was ineligible for listing. Now Nasdaq index funds all have to buy. Index funds by nature do not selectively buy stocks, if the stock is in the index, they buy, that’s their mandate. That’s the game, to be included in as many indexes as possible that force institutional investors to buy. That’s hundreds of billions worth of funds that now have to buy in, that previously wouldn’t have had to if it wasn’t listed on the Nasdaq. The SP500 did not waive the rules, and that made above the fold news this week, because it is a major blow to the big IPOs happening this month since they are valued so high. It will be harder for them to move stock if the massive index funds aren’t buying automatically. The big IPOs this month are asking for prices that demand hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of liquidity. Index funds are automatic liquidity, but only if you are on the index. They didn’t ask them to change long standing rules for shits and giggles.

How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?

by l23k4 4mo ago

How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?

You use your back channels and good ole boys club connections to try getting the rules for inclusion changed. Maybe collude would be a better verb than design? Is that your objection?

l23k4 4mo ago
Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory?
- nullstyle 4mo ago
  Common sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation?
  - l23k4 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - nullstyle 4mo ago
      Lol, the dude asking for reporting to justify his oligarch dickriding dismisses patrick boyle in his chat history as just a youtuber while using paywalled links to support his position. My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play.
      - l23k4 4mo ago
        Criticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg.
        nullstyle2 4mo ago
        newly created alt because apparently my main account has hurt too many feefees to allow me to respond to a discussion I'm having. "posting too fast" my swingin dick... I'm not criticizing bloomberg, i'm criticizing you for posting paywalled links to support your position in an open discussion. Given I'm bailing on this convo now because hackers news is a shite application getting in the way of people trying to talk, let me respond to our sibling thread with the closet thing my opinion has to evidence: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH. IMO we remain at an all time high of financial flimflammery as a portion of our GDP and there have been a number of recessions triggered by the financial sectors malfeasance during my lifetime because of it.
        l23k4 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        nullstyle2 4mo ago
        and you assume these people don't have family offices filled with very well paid competence. There was a 3 month gap between Matthew Lee raising the flag about unethical accounting practices at lehman brothers and the firm's collapse. My opinion is that we haven't hit the analgous moment yet but we will.
  - AlexCoventry 4mo ago
    Common sense and rationality go out the window in corrupt, unregulated environments with perverse incentives.

dghlsakjg 4mo ago

Passive investors and retirement accounts are heavily in on automatic indexing. This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules. The accusation is that these changes were made so that index funds will buy this stock automatically far earlier than they would have previously. Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders.

l23k4 4mo ago
[flagged]
- dghlsakjg 4mo ago
  It has been covered extensively. The change of nasdaq rules has been covered by Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, and most others who have reporters on the Wall Street beat. Columnists at all three of those publications have called it out as a possible play on institutional indexing money. I don’t need to tell you who like it’s some big secret either. It was Elon Musk on behalf of spacex. The changes were openly part of the ipo. I’m not going to cite sources for a major financial news story that is being extensively covered in the financial and general press.
  - l23k4 4mo ago
    Here's Matt Levine from Bloomberg saying something along the lines of "lol, obviously the indices have to do this, they'll look like fools if they don't because these will be the biggest companies on the market". He famously spends much of his time making fun of Musk, but seems to reject the idea of his influence here. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/index-funds-can-t-say-no-to-spacex https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind... Perhaps you can provide a single counterpoint? I can't find the columns you refer to.
    - dghlsakjg 4mo ago
      That is one of the columns. The headline makes my point succinctly. Your paraphrase of the column misses the crucial point. A Nasdaq index fund doesn’t buy a company unless it is in the Nasdaq. Under the old rules SPCEX was ineligible for listing. Now Nasdaq index funds all have to buy. Index funds by nature do not selectively buy stocks, if the stock is in the index, they buy, that’s their mandate. That’s the game, to be included in as many indexes as possible that force institutional investors to buy. That’s hundreds of billions worth of funds that now have to buy in, that previously wouldn’t have had to if it wasn’t listed on the Nasdaq. The SP500 did not waive the rules, and that made above the fold news this week, because it is a major blow to the big IPOs happening this month since they are valued so high. It will be harder for them to move stock if the massive index funds aren’t buying automatically. The big IPOs this month are asking for prices that demand hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of liquidity. Index funds are automatic liquidity, but only if you are on the index. They didn’t ask them to change long standing rules for shits and giggles.