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

511–520 of 542 posts

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

#511

Post by ath3nd »

beernet wrote: post #442
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #383

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…

Companies are innovating things that significantly enhance human capabilities and people will still find a reason to drag them down. I am not a fan of either these companies. At the same time, I strongly disagree with these doomer scenarios as they are dangerous for progress of humanity.

[dead]

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

#513

Post by l23k4 »

buggy6257 wrote: post #482
l23k4 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Two of those YouTube links are to Patrick Boyle who is a very respectable and knowledgeable ex hedge fund manager who dives DEEP into the topic while remaining entertaining. It’s a hilariously outdated take to say that YouTube content guarantees a lack of value or authority.

Who cares? Only people who are willing to give their DNA samples to meta and google can access those links anyway.

Of course, they'd also have to be willing to consume the content in the least efficient format imaginable.

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

#514

Post by watwut »

tristanj wrote: post #497
qnpnpmqppnp wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there's some truth in your point, I think you're being unfair in framing this story as passive investors betraying their own philosophy because they suddenly realize this passivity would cause some "overpriced turds" to be included in their portfolio. Passive investors did not "backtrack", on the contrary their preference on this matter is that index rules should remain unchanged. Conversely, it seems fully con…

The reasoning here is backwards, because the rules in their current form exclude all three of the major upcoming IPOs of civilization changing companies (spacex, anthropic, openai). These companies are all large-caps, are currently in the top 20 largest companies in the US, but the S&P 500 index which claims to be a measure of the 500 largest companies in the US will systematically exclude these. Very likely for 3-5…

Not wanting to change the rules just because these three companies really really want in before prices settle and before they are profitable is the correct behaviour.

The unjustifiable thing is changing rules for them.

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

#515

Post by l23k4 »

dudeinhawaii wrote: post #447
l23k4 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that set of rules particularly good?

No offense but your responses sound like AI or engagement farming. I think the "why are these rules good" is self-evident to anyone who read the comment.

[flagged]

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

#516

Post by aucisson_masque »

Ekaros wrote: post #233
parliament32 wrote: post #161

What a pleasant surprise. I was positive S&P would get strongarmed into the bamboozle like Nasdaq but it seems they have a bit more integrity. Good for them.

I think key difference here is that Nasdaq is also the market. Where as S&P is external. From this view them manipulating their own market which they profit in various ways actually is somewhat more questionable... Incentives are entirely different. And really now I am starting to think that Nasdaq maybe should not have index it runs in the first place...

> key difference here is that Nasdaq is also the market. Where as S&P is external.

As someone who has little experience in American stocks and index, would you explain it a bit more ? What you mean that nasdaq is also the market ?

I thought they are both index, a valuation of entreprises and that's all.

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

#517

Post by Ekaros »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #516
Ekaros wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think key difference here is that Nasdaq is also the market. Where as S&P is external. From this view them manipulating their own market which they profit in various ways actually is somewhat more questionable... Incentives are entirely different. And really now I am starting to think that Nasdaq maybe should not have index it runs in the first place...

> key difference here is that Nasdaq is also the market. Where as S&P is external. As someone who has little experience in American stocks and index, would you explain it a bit more ? What you mean that nasdaq is also the market ? I thought they are both index, a valuation of entreprises and that's all.

Trading of publicly listed stocks happen on stock exchanges, Nasdaq is one of these. They make money by charging fees for companies to publicly list stocks. But also charging fees from anyone who wants to directly trade there. Say stock brokers who allow smaller customers to trade via services these brokers offer.

So Nasdaq owns the company which facilitates this trading of stocks. But they also own the company which says what are 100 most important companies on that market.

Now they changed rules to get big new most likely popular stock on their market. This could at least maybe get some new brokers in. Or make them in general more desirable market to be connected to and thus get fees.

I am not just sure if there is even more fees in some part I don't know there...

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

#519

Post by sobani »

tionate wrote: post #503
wbl wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Market cap weighting is special. If company A has 500 shares, company B 500 also, than a fund that has 5 shares of A and 5 of B is market cap weighted.

This is only true if those 500 shares had identical value, as market cap is the number of shares x the price.

They do have identical value.

500 shares of company A is worth 100% of the market cap of company A.

500 shares of company B is also worth 100% of the market cap of company B.

So if you have 5 shares of each, you'll have 1% of the market cap of each, even if one of those companies finds the cure for cancer or turns out to be a money furnace.

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

#520

Post by malfist »

wbl wrote: post #465
malfist wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then you wind up with a portfolio that isn't balanced and isn't tracking like an index fund. An index fund doesn't simply buy a flat amount of stock and hold it, they buy stock in proportion to the relative weight of the exchange. Which is always moving

Market cap weighting is special. If company A has 500 shares, company B 500 also, than a fund that has 5 shares of A and 5 of B is market cap weighted.

And what happens if company A issues more stock? Company B is delisted? Company C is now listed? Company A and C merge? Company A spins off it's most valuable side business into it's own independent listing company?
Post reply on HN