Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P

bloomberg.com

1–10 of 542 posts

Re: SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P

#3
The amount of misinformation around this topic was absolutely nuts over the past few days. Good rule of thumb: if a YouTuber or other influencer was pitching doom and relaying this rule change by S&P as a fait accompli, stop following them.

(It was a common misconception on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364055.)

Re: SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P

#4

The amount of misinformation around this topic was absolutely nuts over the past few days. Good rule of thumb: if a YouTuber or other influencer was pitching doom and relaying this rule change by S&P as a fait accompli , stop following them. (It was a common misconception on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364055 .)

Yes, I think given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P, everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming about providing exit liquidity.

My prediction is that this will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs. Only time will tell.

Re: SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P

#5
post #4

The amount of misinformation around this topic was absolutely nuts over the past few days. Good rule of thumb: if a YouTuber or other influencer was pitching doom and relaying this rule change by S&P as a fait accompli , stop following them. (It was a common misconception on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364055 .)

Yes, I think given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P, everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming about providing exit liquidity. My prediction is that this will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs. Only time will tell.

> given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P

The misinformation was almost certainly not taken into account, and it shouldn’t have been.

> everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming

Influencers will scream regardless. It’s what they’re paid to do. The NASDAQ 100 made these changes and is doing just fine.

> will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs

There are lots of indices. S&P largely targets those built around mature companies. If you want a total-market index, those exist and tend to rapidly incorporate IPOs.

Re: SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P

#7

The amount of misinformation around this topic was absolutely nuts over the past few days. Good rule of thumb: if a YouTuber or other influencer was pitching doom and relaying this rule change by S&P as a fait accompli , stop following them. (It was a common misconception on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364055 .)

What was the common misconception?

Re: SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P

#8
post #7

The amount of misinformation around this topic was absolutely nuts over the past few days. Good rule of thumb: if a YouTuber or other influencer was pitching doom and relaying this rule change by S&P as a fait accompli , stop following them. (It was a common misconception on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364055 .)

What was the common misconception?

> What was the common misconception?

That the rule change was a done deal. The pitch was some shadowy financial cabal forcing everyone’s retirement savings into SpaceX (which would not have been true even if S&P voted to include, but that’s a separate topic).

The top comment and most of its subthreads are run-of-the-mill alarmism.

Re: SpaceX, Other Mega IPOs Denied Fast Index Entry by S&P

#9
This seems a sensible thing to do. If you change the rules on how things end up on your index, you force everyone using that index to reevaluate it. Your index is now perceived as more volatile (and probably is), and all the finance people need to reevaluate the risk of their index funds and decide if it is now 'growth', 'high growth' or whatever bucket it belongs in based on the new risk profile. And then all the portfolios need to be rebalanced. Which all takes time, more time than was being proposed. The sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules.
Post reply on HN