Crazy to see the Twitter behavior here of really smart, well conveyed top level comments replied to by weird propaganda pushing bottom feeders.
HN discussion quality has deteriorated dramatically, especially for anything AI related.
S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
31–40 of 524 posts
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
They weight by free float so it would been something like 0.3%. Hardly the end of the world
Why is that relevant? The rules are in place for a reason, why does it matter what the percentage is? They're not profitable. When they prove they're worth the dollars, they can be included, per the rules. Also, S&P500 has a current market cap of $67 trillion, 0.3% of that is some $200billion. That is essentially a wealth transfer to the rich. They don't need it.
> That is essentially a wealth transfer to the rich. They don't need it.
These are not valid arguments. The companies that get added to the S&P are always owned in some fraction by rich people.
SpaceX is obviously majorly owned by Elon, but it’s also owned by regular employees, a bunch of private investors and other funds that regular people invest in.
> They're not profitable.
Right
> When they prove they're worth the dollars,
Profitable isn’t related to “worth the dollars”. You need to look at income and how much is being reinvested into growth. Amazon famously remained unprofitable due to reinvestment and waiting for them to become profitable before investing was a bad bet.
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Major W. Regular people were going to get robbed blind Not really. One, it was unlikely to happen. The market not pricing in any rebalancing communicated that. Two, the magnitude–even for the S&P 500–would have been small. About a third of stocks are in passive strategies, about 15% in any index, and while most of that is the S&P 500, the index market is incredibly competitive. S&P made the right move. But the trag…
What was unlikely to happen? It already happened in Nasdaq. It’s nice that it didn’t for S&P but for most investors it already did happen, so I’m not sure the ‘whatever’ attitude is warranted. Also, since when is it appropriate/intellectually OK to respond to allegations of corruption by saying ‘stop freaking out, it’s only a small amount of corruption PER PERSON’.
> What was unlikely to happen?
S&P adopting the rule changes.
> It already happened in Nasdaq
NASDAQ 100 is marketed as a tech-focussed fund. It's also way smaller. And it makes sense for it to include new issues. Total-market funds are also being adapted to include these, and again, that makes sense.
> for most investors it already did happen
What do you mean? For the vast, vast majority of investors, nothing happened. If S&P had adoped these rules, the majority of investors would still be unaffected.
> when is it appropriate/intellectually OK to respond to allegations of corruption by saying ‘stop freaking out, it’s only a small amount of corruption PER PERSON’
I'm saying the allegations of corruption were misplaced. The rule changes have been mooted for years. Did Musk et al try to put their thumbs on the scale? Sure. That should be called out.
But the scaremongering that followed was full of factual misrepresentations. Moreover, it presumed corruption across the board versus certain actors trying to corrupt a process, all for the purpose of getting views.
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#34Yep!! Respect to them. I was planning to move to an equal weight index but this gives me a little more time to evaluate options.
> I was planning to move to an equal weight index The only substantial effect I've seen of the influencers who were doomsplaining this decision was some minor churn in retirement assets from low-cost S&P 500 followers to higher-cost funds. (The market, broadly, never priced in a rebalancing of the S&P 500. So this was almost entirely whipped up by influencers.) Broadly speaking, if you were actually considering tradi…
> The market, broadly, never priced in a rebalancing of the S&P 500
And if you had seen it what would have that pricing looked like?
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#35Stocks and money. It's so boring. I will go drive my old German car now, and get a bit drunk in a bottle of Nebbiolo while listening to some French lunatic with a piano. Enjoy your trip to Mars and your self driving toy cars. The world is off its rails. Bit time.
just be sure do it in that order and not the other way around
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was planning to move to an equal weight index The only substantial effect I've seen of the influencers who were doomsplaining this decision was some minor churn in retirement assets from low-cost S&P 500 followers to higher-cost funds. (The market, broadly, never priced in a rebalancing of the S&P 500. So this was almost entirely whipped up by influencers.) Broadly speaking, if you were actually considering tradi…
The market may not have ever priced in a rebalancing of the S&P 500, but the S&P 500 also has never allowed entry of companies that may never become profitable.
> the S&P 500 also has never allowed entry of companies that may never become profitable
Yup. Which is why it was always a long shot. I personally thought they'd adopt some of the seasoning rules, but they were more conservative than even that.
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#37Big relief for me. As a passive investor, I want the indices to follow the same passive strategy they always have, and specifically not make exceptions for specific companies like SpaceX wanted. Plenty of ways to get exposure to that stock without it going into the indices it is not qualified for.
[flagged]
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#38I wonder if profitable means that investment must be recouped or just if your operational expenses must be compensated by your earnings.
Anthropic is becoming "profitable" while burning a series H of 69 bns usd. Does it count as profitable?
I'm curious if someone well versed in finance can answer, because from my uneducated perspective, it's not profitable to burn billions in order to make a billion.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/20/anthropic-revenue-explosive-...
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I was planning to move to an equal weight index The only substantial effect I've seen of the influencers who were doomsplaining this decision was some minor churn in retirement assets from low-cost S&P 500 followers to higher-cost funds. (The market, broadly, never priced in a rebalancing of the S&P 500. So this was almost entirely whipped up by influencers.) Broadly speaking, if you were actually considering tradi…
> The market, broadly, never priced in a rebalancing of the S&P 500 And if you had seen it what would have that pricing looked like?
> if you had seen it what would have that pricing looked like?
Look up rebalancing trades, or, less graciously, rebalancing front running. If the index is going to rebalance to include a new entrant, you'll see the other components trade down in anticipation. It's a very tight signal, and it wasn't present to any measurable degree for the S&P 500.
Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic
#40Big relief for me. As a passive investor, I want the indices to follow the same passive strategy they always have, and specifically not make exceptions for specific companies like SpaceX wanted. Plenty of ways to get exposure to that stock without it going into the indices it is not qualified for.
[flagged]
> This news tanked 5% off the Nasdaq yesterday
No, it did not. The market moved in reaction to earnings misses from e.g. Broadcom [1] and the strong jobs report.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/broadcom-stock-sin...