5 ms·

Many IPOs slide below their initial offering. Very few IPOs changed the rules to allow themselves to be incuded in significant indexes far faster than the rule

Many IPOs slide below their initial offering. Very few IPOs changed the rules to allow themselves to be incuded in significant indexes far faster than the rules previously allowed, and then slipped below their initial offering.

EgregiousCube 3mo ago
[flagged]
- nixon_why69 3mo ago
  OP didn't arrange those goalposts, Musk and his friends did. It's the only company to get fast-tracked in this way while losing money.
  - EgregiousCube 3mo ago
    He did, by arguing that a company that is fast-tracked for index inclusion has an obligation to prevent its stock price from following common post-IPO price patterns; and using "the only company to do so" as an allusion to a false trend.
    - nixon_why69 3mo ago
      No, Musk did, by arguing for fast-track index inclusion. He wasn't saying "you all will eat shit on this deal", he was promising exceptional returns.
      - Lerc 3mo ago
        I don't follow that logic, why does wanting something sooner imply higher expectations of results? Did musk explicitly claim he expected exceptional returns? I don't think I'd be surprised either way, but I'm not sure what he's actually said.
        nixon_why69 3mo ago
        If SpaceX followed the existing rules for index inclusion, after a year and profitable, nobody would have a problem. They managed to maneuver "immediately and with no profit" and now they're tanking. That's bad, all of us with a 401k are losing money because of it. The people pointing this out are not the problem, SpaceX's (or I should say xAI's performance) is the problem.
        Lerc 3mo ago
        I'm inclined to think that it would have been better that they followed the existing rules for inclusion, but I don't see how this is a cause of performance or an expression of performance. I understand that investments made during the short lived peak would have lost money and that some amount of 401k will have lost money, but only for the purchases of indexes made during the peak, that may be substantial however, I'm not sure how transitions that add or remove stocks from an index work, there must be some mechanism to soften the impacts of the change, but I'm not an expert in that field. Is it your contention that if they had have followed the standard path for inclusion, and then went on to have a similar share performance, then you would be OK with it?
        rtkwe 3mo ago
        Part of the reason for the long window before inclusion is so that the price is reasonably stable and the market has had a chance to do it's whole price discovery dance for a little while before index funds etc are forced to buy in. Part of Musks goal with lobbying for early inclusion was to prop up the price by requiring the index funds to buy and hold his stock which gives a larger market for the insiders to sell in to. He wanted to unlock that giant pool of passive investment without having to wait like everyone else had to and prove profitability over multiple quarters.
        Lerc 3mo ago
        That makes more sense. Over what period do the index funds have to meet the levels? It seems like any coordinated change caused by modifying the structure of an index would cause quite volatile behaviour unless it had specific mitigation mechanisms built in.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 3mo ago
Yeah that plus wrapping the xAI dogshit debt inside SpaceX is where it gets really scummy. At least the S&P500 didn't (yet) succumb and lower their requirements and that's where most of my investment money is parked.
- rchaud 3mo ago
  not to mention hiding all the Twitter losses inside of xAI because AI in general loses lots of money.
  - rtkwe 3mo ago
    I had completely forgotten they'd already wrapped xAI around Twitter. That's getting to turducken levels of nested bad companies. There's also the Tesla (potential) self dealing where SpaceX bought a bunch of Cybertrucks and appears to be leasing them to employees for cheap as a perk.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
AbstractH24 3mo ago
My gut tells me most do, but would love for someone to do some actual analysis of it.

EgregiousCube 3mo ago

[flagged]

nixon_why69 3mo ago
OP didn't arrange those goalposts, Musk and his friends did. It's the only company to get fast-tracked in this way while losing money.
- EgregiousCube 3mo ago
  He did, by arguing that a company that is fast-tracked for index inclusion has an obligation to prevent its stock price from following common post-IPO price patterns; and using "the only company to do so" as an allusion to a false trend.
  - nixon_why69 3mo ago
    No, Musk did, by arguing for fast-track index inclusion. He wasn't saying "you all will eat shit on this deal", he was promising exceptional returns.
    - Lerc 3mo ago
      I don't follow that logic, why does wanting something sooner imply higher expectations of results? Did musk explicitly claim he expected exceptional returns? I don't think I'd be surprised either way, but I'm not sure what he's actually said.
      - nixon_why69 3mo ago
        If SpaceX followed the existing rules for index inclusion, after a year and profitable, nobody would have a problem. They managed to maneuver "immediately and with no profit" and now they're tanking. That's bad, all of us with a 401k are losing money because of it. The people pointing this out are not the problem, SpaceX's (or I should say xAI's performance) is the problem.
        Lerc 3mo ago
        I'm inclined to think that it would have been better that they followed the existing rules for inclusion, but I don't see how this is a cause of performance or an expression of performance. I understand that investments made during the short lived peak would have lost money and that some amount of 401k will have lost money, but only for the purchases of indexes made during the peak, that may be substantial however, I'm not sure how transitions that add or remove stocks from an index work, there must be some mechanism to soften the impacts of the change, but I'm not an expert in that field. Is it your contention that if they had have followed the standard path for inclusion, and then went on to have a similar share performance, then you would be OK with it?
      - rtkwe 3mo ago
        Part of the reason for the long window before inclusion is so that the price is reasonably stable and the market has had a chance to do it's whole price discovery dance for a little while before index funds etc are forced to buy in. Part of Musks goal with lobbying for early inclusion was to prop up the price by requiring the index funds to buy and hold his stock which gives a larger market for the insiders to sell in to. He wanted to unlock that giant pool of passive investment without having to wait like everyone else had to and prove profitability over multiple quarters.
        Lerc 3mo ago
        That makes more sense. Over what period do the index funds have to meet the levels? It seems like any coordinated change caused by modifying the structure of an index would cause quite volatile behaviour unless it had specific mitigation mechanisms built in.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

rtkwe 3mo ago

Yeah that plus wrapping the xAI dogshit debt inside SpaceX is where it gets really scummy. At least the S&P500 didn't (yet) succumb and lower their requirements and that's where most of my investment money is parked.

rchaud 3mo ago
not to mention hiding all the Twitter losses inside of xAI because AI in general loses lots of money.
- rtkwe 3mo ago
  I had completely forgotten they'd already wrapped xAI around Twitter. That's getting to turducken levels of nested bad companies. There's also the Tesla (potential) self dealing where SpaceX bought a bunch of Cybertrucks and appears to be leasing them to employees for cheap as a perk.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

AbstractH24 3mo ago

My gut tells me most do, but would love for someone to do some actual analysis of it.