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

S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 524 posts

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#151

Post by trumpdong »

jjav wrote: post #101
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weight by free float so it would been something like 0.3%. Hardly the end of the world

> They weight by free float so it would been something like 0.3%. Hardly the end of the world That's one way to look at it. At a personal level, it's a small sliver and if it were to drop, its influence on your balance isn't much. So that's true. Another way to look at it is that with ~200 million people owning index funds, all their funds balances together, even a tiny fraction of a percent is a massive amount of mo…

Are you sure he doesn't need it? People are saying SpaceX has six months to bankruptcy.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#152

Post by frikskit »

petesergeant wrote: post #55
frikskit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’.

It was unlikely to happen anywhere but the Nasdaq-100, because only Nasdaq has the incentive to do it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411713

But… it’s not just nasdaq it’s Russell indices too.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#153

Post by matwood »

khriss wrote: post #66

A lot of comments here are saying that the impact on the S&P would have been 'minimal' since the S&P is float weighted. So SpaceX would have been ~0.3% of the index. The point isn't that the impact would have been minimal. It's that changing the rules to suit the rich and connected is the literal definition of crony capitalism. Why should SpaceX get exemptions from entry requirements to the S&P when every other compa…

> Why should SpaceX get exemptions from entry requirements to the S&P when every other company before it didn't?

The rules have never been set in stone and changed a number of times since the S&P 500 was created. The current set of rules are based around the old way of companies IPOing and growing into something that could be included. Now, companies are staying private longer and IPOing with huge valuations.

Take AI/Elon emotion out of it for a second, and there is a rational debate to be had if multiple 1T+ market cap companies should be accommodated for in an index that's supposed to represent the 500 largest/most influential US companies. If these companies are still in the 1T+ ranges a year from now, I suspect the S&P may change some rules to get them in with the idea that the market has spoken.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#154

Post by Marazan »

kortilla wrote: post #32
figmert wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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.

Amazon met profitability requirements and went into the SP500 at around $2.40 in November 2005. Two years before it was $2.70. Six Years before it was $4.40.

Two years _after_ listing it was $4.50. Six years after it was ~$10.

Waiting for profitability seems like it was a good bet.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#155

Post by BlandDuck »

flakeoil wrote: post #111
sscarduzio wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but… Plenty? Really?

Just buy the stock or buy a mutual fund which invests in IT, AI, Tech what have you. Sooner or later they will probably also be included in the general index funds.

Exactly. That's what the index funds would have had to do as well.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#156

Post by trumpdong »

blobbers wrote: post #69

Good. Financial grift needs to end. Passive investment has become slightly too passive. S&P saved us. We weren't so lucky when they were rating bonds before the GFC. Glad they seem to have grown some ethics and are not bending the knee to the rocketman.

As a rule, no one in the financial industry has ethics. They're doing this because they think it'll be more profitable.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#157

Post by frikskit »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33
frikskit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 happen…

It’s not just Nasdaq-100 it’s Russell indices too, which are way bigger by the way (not that it matters).

Regarding misplaced corruption allegations. Virtually everywhere it is illegal to both give a bribe as to receive a bribe. It’s not just Musk et al who should be called out.

As for the unnamed sources doing the scaremongering, it seems you should be calling those specific people out instead of downplaying this whole issue. You’re dismissing the argument not on its merits but because some people argue for it badly.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#158

Post by JumpCrisscross »

frikskit wrote: post #157
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 happen…

It’s not just Nasdaq-100 it’s Russell indices too, which are way bigger by the way (not that it matters). Regarding misplaced corruption allegations. Virtually everywhere it is illegal to both give a bribe as to receive a bribe. It’s not just Musk et al who should be called out. As for the unnamed sources doing the scaremongering, it seems you should be calling those specific people out instead of downplaying this wh…

> It’s not just Nasdaq-100 it’s Russell indices too, which are way bigger by the way (not that it matters)

Russell does total-market indices. S&P also changed its rules for total market because it pretty clearly makes zero sense for total market to ignore a few trillion dollars of the market.

The NASDAQ 100 change has some capability of being sketchy due to Nasdaq wanting to win the listing. Russell, eh, not seeing it. They're just being Russell.

> it seems you should be calling those specific people out. Instead you’re downplaying this whole issue because some people overreacted

It's a couple YouTubers. No crime of the century. But from what I've heard from the RIA community, a not-inconsequential amount of fees are being generated in the Bay Area from folks rotating out of low-fee index funds into bespoke nonsense because they are scared about a 0.3% change they think happened that didn't ever occur.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#159

Post by frikskit »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #158
frikskit wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just Nasdaq-100 it’s Russell indices too, which are way bigger by the way (not that it matters). Regarding misplaced corruption allegations. Virtually everywhere it is illegal to both give a bribe as to receive a bribe. It’s not just Musk et al who should be called out. As for the unnamed sources doing the scaremongering, it seems you should be calling those specific people out instead of downplaying this wh…

> It’s not just Nasdaq-100 it’s Russell indices too, which are way bigger by the way (not that it matters) Russell does total-market indices. S&P also changed its rules for total market because it pretty clearly makes zero sense for total market to ignore a few trillion dollars of the market. The NASDAQ 100 change has some capability of being sketchy due to Nasdaq wanting to win the listing. Russell, eh, not seeing i…

So what that it’s total market? We must be talking about different issues. The main issue for me is that the seasoning window was reduced. Of course eventually spcx should be included, I’m not arguing against that (and I haven’t heard anyone else argue that convincingly or at all either).

If everyone expected the price of the stock to remain the same or higher after the seasoning windows then why were those with the most to lose if it did not, lobby so hard to change the rules?

Also, what do you mean the 0.3% thing never happened? The ipo hasn’t happened yet, so obviously the index rebalance hasn’t happened.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#160

Post by kakacik »

frozenseven wrote: post #96
LinguaBrowse wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve moved my S&P 500 investments to the Equal Weight index to reduce my exposure to AI. Quite aside from SpaceX, I think the large-cap tech companies are making some uncomfortably large bets on AI and any major upset could cause a domino effect. But as so many ETFs have a significant stake in large-cap US tech stocks (the top 10 holdings of the iShares MSCI World ETF is entirely comprised US Big Tech, making up 20%…

[flagged]

Large swaths of population will be left unemployed, lives ruined, with no replacement work in sight if it all pans out. So far, every company is working with massive debt, burning through money in hope that financials will start making sense sometime in the future. Adoption rate will be next to nothing if one has to pay say 3-5k a month for a normal unthrottled access. Very few will get much richer. I know I know, rich couldn't give smaller nano-fraction of a fuck about others, and in US its kind of built in the system, but most of mankind has different values.

If all that works out. Most people including me so far don't see the promised revolution, productivity gains are meager since not all of us work in code sweatshops churning simple crud or similar apps out like there is no tomorrow, llm models are extremely unreliable, confidently hallucinating shit out of blue, their quality highly varies over time as compute is present or not.

If thats your revolution, well fuck that revolution we can do better as mankind. Its probably a change, but bearing hallmarks of the worst in mankind we could muster together and seems to bring the worst traits out of humans, ie greed.

Post reply on HN