Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

361–370 of 542 posts

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

#361
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk. Carvana is the poster child for this. It's astonishing that a company with a history of shady practices, and that has yet to offer a convincing explanation for why it is not a scam, is part of the S&P 500.

what's the argument for it being a scam?

They're an outlier in the industry in terms of profit per car. But they don't actually get revenue from selling cars, their revenue comes from selling car loans. So they're making the additional margin on the financing. They are also famous for not turning down loan applications. So putting the pieces together, it seems like they are selling high risk loans at a healthy profit. Which brings up the question of who is buying those loans. They don't disclose the buyers, but claim that those buyers are not controlled by Carvana or its parent. Given the history of fraud, it's hard to take those claims at face value. The suspicion is that they are selling the loans to family-controlled shell companies and leveraging the stock to finance the scheme.

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

#362
post #112

Good. Indexes are supposed to be slow-moving, precisely due to their entry requirement of sustained profitability that skews towards mature companies. All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk. SpaceX and OAI stock will be available through Robinhood, Questrade and all the o…

>All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk. Carvana is the poster child for this. It's astonishing that a company with a history of shady practices, and that has yet to offer a convincing explanation for why it is not a scam, is part of the S&P 500.

Please elaborate why caravan is a scam?

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

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do they historically beat the S&P 500?

Yes, but not in the last decade or so. In any case, it's been only in the last years that we have had an explosion of a huge variety of funds with low fees, so some of these product strategies need to be retro fitted for a time they did not exist.

Please cite funds that beat passive indexes over long periods of time.

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

#364
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's the argument for it being a scam?

They're an outlier in the industry in terms of profit per car. But they don't actually get revenue from selling cars, their revenue comes from selling car loans. So they're making the additional margin on the financing. They are also famous for not turning down loan applications. So putting the pieces together, it seems like they are selling high risk loans at a healthy profit. Which brings up the question of who is…

This is how many businesses operate. You have still not provided example of fraud or scam behavior.

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If S&P started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find uninvestable, then that's compromising the integrity of the index, and defeats the purpose of the index entirely. But they haven't started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find investable: on the contrary you are demanding they start arbitrarily change a long established and pretty basic rule to arbitrarily include pre-profit companies…

That's a fair point that the inclusion criteria are applied consistently, not arbitrarily. But I fundamentally disagree with their inclusion criteria. It was designed for traditional companies with low growth and high GAAP profitability, not high-growth companies rapidly reinvesting into the core business. Amazon is infamous for having positive cash-flow yet running near-zero GAAP earnings for nearly two decades, bec…

I don't think earnings is an antiquated metric for valuing companies though. Other metrics exist to estimate future earnings and attract a different class of investor looking for different risk/return profiles than people wanting to index companies big enough to generate steady returns with fairly high confidence they'll be doing a similar thing tomorrow. If people want to invest in a different type of company from the companies the index was designed to capture they're entitled to do so: if their expected returns are that good you don't need to browbeat indices into changing their entire ethos to get funds involved in their IPO.

Sure, some companies which vastly outspent competitors on growth became very successful profitable midcaps and joined the relevant indices when they did, but everyone else waited their turn (including the ones that never became profitable midcaps because the money tap was their moat)

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

#366

Keeping newly-publicly listed companies off an index keeps outliers from screwing with the index. It's no secret that companies that have recently gone public tend to be considerably more volatile than companies that have been public for a while. I see a lot of comments saying things to this effect: "S&P 500 is just a metric/benchmark, not a fund, so it should consider the whole market even if that includes a newly-l…

The irony of all this drama is probably 90% of 401ks (retirement accounts) are in a target date fund since that's the default for most/all. When you get your 401k it figures out when you're going to be 65 and then drops you in a fund that gives you the highest and safest return at the time you hit 65. Target date funds contain all kinds of other funds and are actively managed and drift towards bonds (historically safer). As you get closer to retirement you have less time to make up a downturn therefore the risk level gets automatically turned down.

So the whole argument of taking advantage of retirement accounts with these rule changes kind of falls apart. If you're close to retirement these funds want nothing to do with equities let alone high risk IPOs. If something happens, like a rule change to a tracked index, and all of a sudden the risk goes way up then the fund managers will make an adjustment to the portfolio that gets the risk back to where it was. Further, the SP500 deciding not to change rules doesn't do anything really anyway. If you're far from retirement your target date fund is going to get exposure to these IPOs because you can tolerate the risk and therefore maybe reap the reward.

If you're actively managing your 401k and have everything in say a total market fund or some other investment then you're well enough aware and educated to switch funds as you please. I don't think those people are going to be impacted either because they will/should just switch to a fund they like. If they are negatively impacted then they made the wrong decision.

If you have your own brokerage account and you're invested in a fund tracking an index you no longer like, well, then you need to sell and buy something you do like. I still don't see the reason for all the drama :shrug:

What i think is really happening is people are having a very emotional response to SpaceX because of Elon Musk and the idea of him becoming a trillionaire and Anthropic/OpenAI because of AI and the risk to labor.

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

#367
post #112

Good. Indexes are supposed to be slow-moving, precisely due to their entry requirement of sustained profitability that skews towards mature companies. All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk. SpaceX and OAI stock will be available through Robinhood, Questrade and all the o…

Also worth noting that other index providers are less principled. > Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days

There are so many indexes these days and they all have different angles. I don’t see this as being less principled and more it’s the nasdaq 100.

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

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk. Carvana is the poster child for this. It's astonishing that a company with a history of shady practices, and that has yet to offer a convincing explanation for why it is not a scam, is part of the S&P 500.

Please elaborate why caravan is a scam?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carvana#Controversy

"In January 2025, short-selling investment firm Hindenburg Research published a report titled "Carvana: A Father-Son Accounting Grift For The Ages," in which it disclosed a short position against the company. The report alleged that Carvana's financial turnaround was a "mirage" propped up by accounting manipulation and lax loan underwriting."

"A class-action securities fraud lawsuit is proceeding against Carvana, its founders, executives, and underwriters in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona."

(i have no opinion on the matter, just functioning as your google)

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk. Carvana is the poster child for this. It's astonishing that a company with a history of shady practices, and that has yet to offer a convincing explanation for why it is not a scam, is part of the S&P 500.

Please elaborate why caravan is a scam?

See my reply to @rtpg. The short answer is that it is believed they are selling high-risk loans to a company they control, making it look like the publicly traded Carvana is some kind of miracle in the car industry while offloading the risk to anonymous shell companies.

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

#370
post #112

Good. Indexes are supposed to be slow-moving, precisely due to their entry requirement of sustained profitability that skews towards mature companies. All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk. SpaceX and OAI stock will be available through Robinhood, Questrade and all the o…

Also worth noting that other index providers are less principled. > Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days

if i had to short 1 of the 3, it would be OpenAI
Post reply on HN