441–450 of 542 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but how about the 500 that have been profitable under GAAP accounting rules for at least 12 months have a public float of at least 10% (so that new investors have some governance rights) have traded for at least 12 months (and won't have sudden changes in public float or shares available due to lockups and recent listing)
Why is that set of rules particularly good?
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…
At this moment, there is so so much, publicly available information [1] on the fact the SpaceX IPO is the biggest scandal in the long history of Wallstreet insiders fleecing the "Johns". A scandal orchestrated and cheered on by the NASDAQ, as well as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan the underwriters, that if you spend any money on it, you deserve to be parted with your money. And if you have a 401k...you are forced to buy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but how about the 500 that have been profitable under GAAP accounting rules for at least 12 months have a public float of at least 10% (so that new investors have some governance rights) have traded for at least 12 months (and won't have sudden changes in public float or shares available due to lockups and recent listing)
Why is that set of rules particularly good?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That ".125% is not much to matter" argument also cuts the other way, against the Matt Levine argument that the S&P is excluding trillion dollar companies and should adjust the rules for them. Should S&P really adjust the rules for such a small portion of the index?
Yes, because that number increases to 1-2% of the index after the IPO lockup period ends. There are three IPOs coming this year that meet this criteria.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but how about the 500 that have been profitable under GAAP accounting rules for at least 12 months have a public float of at least 10% (so that new investors have some governance rights) have traded for at least 12 months (and won't have sudden changes in public float or shares available due to lockups and recent listing)
Why is that set of rules particularly good?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real issue is that existing shareholders will all be eyeing each other wanting to exit at the highest price it'll ever be. That's a lot of selling pressure. I can't imagine many people seriously believe SpaceX is a business worth 1.75T.
Satellite internet is not a new invention- Iridium already did it and they went under. Nice for war zones and remote areas but not much else. Besides the Chinese are launching their own network which will mean a price war. And the Chinese tend to win those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this moment, there is so so much, publicly available information [1] on the fact the SpaceX IPO is the biggest scandal in the long history of Wallstreet insiders fleecing the "Johns". A scandal orchestrated and cheered on by the NASDAQ, as well as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan the underwriters, that if you spend any money on it, you deserve to be parted with your money. And if you have a 401k...you are forced to buy…
For your own safety do not read or be advised by Ed Zitron. By all means skip the SpaceX ipo if you like: makes sense. But Ed is neither perceptive nor correct historically. Case in point: a lockup period ending matching with mandated index fund buying is emphatically good for IPO buyers: it adds liquidity to a major cliff every IPO company faces: liquidity seeking by insiders on a schedule. Now it may be bad for axe…
LOL, so the insiders can dump their shares. This is exactly What Zitron says. Maybe we should have Mark Karpeles' or SBF's opinion on this matter, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Baseball rules exist to prevent cheating. > The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market. I personally believe that accurately reflecting a market involves not allowing cheating. I personally believe that 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. If you want to disagree…
> 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 and effects of the proposed rule change. S&P was going to decrease their minimum index inclusion time from 12 months to 6 months. 6 months is far more than enough time for the market to…
6 months from when? The IPO with its minimal float?