Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 542 posts

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

#371

Post by boringg »

ano-ther wrote: post #267
rchaud wrote: 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

More like its a competition to get the listing -- not dissimilar to Amazon shopping cities for its corporate base. Set up a competition and get the best deal would be my speculation on why it was done (as well as goose the demand).

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

#372

Post by infecto »

john_strinlai wrote: post #368
infecto wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 securi…

[flagged]

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

#373

Post by boringg »

vannevar wrote: post #124
rchaud wrote: 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.

Im pretty sure Enron was in there in the past as well - 7th largest by revenue... that would make Carvana seem like nothing.

To answer your question honestly though -- the inclusion is mechanical based on criteria not policing based on opinion. Carvana being a history of shady practices is your opinion... (I would agree with you)

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

#374

Post by gmerc »

XorNot wrote: post #207
gmerc wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are happening now because the entire space narrative is dependent on SDI, sorry Golden Dome, as a massive heist of taxpayer money for the militarization of space (nobody believes in economic civilian space compute). Like SDI it’s bullshit but like SDI it works at robbing everyone blind. That relies on Trump in power.

No? No one believes the Golden Dome will get built. No one is valuing space on that basis either. Even SpaceX's IPO isn't valued based on space launch and that's the problem .

“Space Datacenters”

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

#376

Post by Applejinx »

tristanj wrote: post #326
Applejinx wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investment funds are for making money. Nobody cares about 'accurately reflecting the state of the market' if that's objectionably high-risk. You invest in an investment fund to make money. There is no way you can commit to holding big quantities of these methane bubble swamp gas companies and claim it isn't high risk. You'd have to be certain you could bail at the right moment, and that doing so would not obliterate…

You are confused what the S&P 500 actually is. It is a benchmark, not a managed fund. Investment funds that track the S&P 500 do not have a say on which stocks to buy. They copy what the index allocates. Whether these companies allocated are risky or not, has no relevance to if the benchmark accurately represents the US equity market. If three of the top 10 largest companies in the U.S. are excluded from the index, w…

If they are methane swamp bubble giant frauds (there can be others: for instance, Enron, historically) then they don't count as companies for the purposes of the S&P 500. Methods for determining this might include the metrics the S&P 500 elected not to waive…

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

#377

Post by cmiles8 »

This is the right decision. These indices are intended for stable, profitable companies with a proven long term business model. It’s not ment to be a casino.

The market has plenty of other options available for folks that just want to bet the house on red and hope for the best.

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

#378

Post by epolanski »

infecto wrote: post #363
epolanski wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Medallion, Renaissance, Dodge, Sequoia.

But I don't think that's what you were really asking.

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

#379

Post by chasd00 »

zeafoamrun wrote: post #152
tootie wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically nothing happened though. SpaceX asked them to change rules and they said no.

Everyone was certain they would. Multiple people I know were rebalancing their portfolios way from the big index funds

> Multiple people I know were rebalancing their portfolios way from the big index funds

Hypothetically, let's say the SpaceX IPO is a wild success. Will those people be disappointed on missing out in the returns? In other words, did they rebalance away because of financial numbers they didn't believe in or did they rebalance away because of emotional or philosophical reactions to the company? If they just don't like the company (likely company leadership) then i would guess they don't care how much return they miss out on, they want nothing to do with SpaceX period.

I made a long drawn out comment up thread but i feel like a lot of this drama is due to an emotional response to SpaceX because of Musk, and the possibility of him becoming the first trillionaire, and Anthropic/OpenAI because of AI's risk to labor.

Post reply on HN