tristanj

19 ms·

331.
by tristanj 5mo ago
> getting to change the rules so that your IPO gets included before the general market can discern your value because of your connections to the benchmarks is cheating. I disagree with you because you are vastly exaggerating the scope
332.
by tristanj 5mo ago
My issue is that so many people have forgotten the purpose of the S&P 500 index (i.e. it's a benchmark to reflect the large-cap U.S. equity market), and instead treat it as a list of approved companies they should blindly invest th
333.
by tristanj 5mo ago
S&P claims their S&P 500 product is the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". For this benchmark to be accurate, at a fundamental level, this benchmark has to follow the market and reflect current market conditio
334.
by tristanj 5mo ago
I addressed that exact point here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48407542 Based on previous IPOs, SpaceX will grow to ~40% float by 12 months, thus if it keeps its current valuation unchanged, will remain near the top
335.
by tristanj 5mo ago
I am saying none of those things. S&P claims their S&P500 index is the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". That's taken directly from their website. I dispute this claim, because the (current) rules for S&
336.
by tristanj 5mo ago
No? Where did I say that? The purpose of the S&P 500 is to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". That's direct from their website. I never dispute this. I dispute the fact they claim to be the best benchm
337.
by tristanj 5mo ago
I'm not debating any of that. This discussion is about the S&P500 as a benchmark, which has an expressly stated purpose of tracking large-cap US equities. This discussion is about if S&P500 actually achieves this benchmark, whe
338.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The S&P 500 brochure describes itself as "the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities". That language implies they act as a benchmark, which I find questionable, given that based on their current eligibility requirements,
339.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The S&P's historical inclusion criteria were designed to filter out unstable, illiquid questionable companies to get a view of large-cap US equities. That logic worked when every major American company was public and profitable. Th
340.
by tristanj 5mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48407542
341.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The purpose of a benchmark is to reflect the market. If the US economy is pumping out high-growth but overpriced & unprofitable companies via IPOs, at unreasonable valuations, the benchmark should reflect that. It's not S&P&#x2
342.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Those filters for S&P 500 inclusion criteria have changed many times. They are not sacred nor set in stone. The question is, do those filters, which were designed for GAAP profitable traditional companies & discriminate against fast
343.
by tristanj 5mo ago
"go make a new benchmark" completely ignores how this works in practice. Benchmarks are only useful because everyone uses the same one, you can't swap it out. The S&P 500 benchmark is used as a comparison for trillions of
344.
by tristanj 5mo ago
What is the S&P 500 meant for then? It was created in 1957 as a benchmark of US equity performance. That's S&P Global's own stated purpose. If it's systematically excluding companies that represent significant chunk
345.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Baseball rules exist to prevent cheating. The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market. When S&P rules end up excluding a significant part of the market with trillions in real market cap, that means the rules a
346.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Because the index needs accuracy. If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap and not included in the index, then the index is wrong right now. The longer this company is not in the index, the longer this error compounds. In the coming
347.
by tristanj 5mo ago
No. Trump has done practically everything possible to pump up the stock market, during both of his terms.
348.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Your baseball cheating analogy makes no sense here. Rules against corked bats / steroids exist so people don't cheat at a sport and all players can compete equally. S&P rules are supposed to make the index reflect the market.
349.
by tristanj 5mo ago
You have your history backwards. The S&P 500 was created in 1957 as a benchmark . The first investable index fund tracking it (Vanguard's) wasn't created created until 1976. Vanguard created their fund to track the benchmark
350.
by tristanj 5mo ago
> it excludes one or two stocks. It's more than that. None of SpaceX, OpenAI, nor Anthropic will meet the criteria, and they will make up a significant part of the US stock market. Each of these companies is heavily investing thei
351.
by tristanj 5mo ago
On a fundamental level, the S&P 500 index is meant to be a benchmark of the market. Journalists, policymakers, investment managers, politicians, regular investors, everyone I know all use the S&P 500 as the benchmark of the US sto
352.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The problem with your framing of "users of S&P500 are not interested overpriced IPOs" is that it conflates two fundamentally different things: what an index describes vs what investors prefer . The moment you start filterin
353.
by tristanj 5mo ago
That's misleading. Before the changes, the Nasdaq-100 index was total market cap-weighted not float-weighted. Once a company crossed 10% floated shares, the company was added to the index at full weight. Nasdaq's new system is a h
354.
by tristanj 5mo ago
> Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia. This is a common misconception. The S&P 500 weights allocation by float-adjusted mar
355.
by tristanj 5mo ago
At a fundamental level, an index is supposed to reflect the market. If the current market is IPO-ing unprofitable companies at absurd multipliers, the index should reflect that. Because that is the market. The longer major indexes exclude
356.
SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P(bloomberg.com)
1062 points by tristanj 5mo ago|517 comments
357.
by tristanj 5mo ago
The FT article has a lack of evidence of an actual operation. It claims Mythos is being used for "offensive cyber operations" in the first paragraph, but doesn't give a source supporting this claim. The lone piece of evidence
358.
by tristanj 5mo ago
I do not, the gym phone has its own SIM. I have it running a cheap data-only eSIM from esimdb.com If you need synchronized phone / text messages, I suggest Google Voice. When anyone rings your (free) Google Voice number, it will forwar
359.
by tristanj 5mo ago
I bought a cheap Android "dumbphone" specifically for going to the gym. I was constantly getting distracted responding to messages / browsing the internet while working out, so on this phone I only have my workout tracker and
360.
by tristanj 5mo ago
Queries: 1) Why does Starship need to launch a 100-ton "proven" payload? Starship has already demonstrated it can launch dozens of Starlink v3 satellites into space. 2) Starship already has the heaviest payload and lowest cost-to-

More ›