S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by dijit » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #316

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #274

Letting new stocks marinate in the market and get 4 quarters of SEC filings along with following all the GAAP accounting practices will definitely help evaluate them before inclusion. The last large boom/bust cycle had a couple of companies, at least, that were doing illegal things. I'm not stating that these three are, just that nobody knows and the process should play out. I do wonder if any of these three companie…

> just that nobody knows I don't understand. Guilty until proven innocent, because they... are too successful? What could possibly be the generalizable idea here? Should we have a speed limit for too successful companies, even if they might be doing super valuable work? Who would we trust to be the judge of the potential havoc that bad capital allocation in such a moment might cause? EDIT: To be more clear, I don't h…

if you can't maintain success for 4 quarters then you weren't really successful.

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

#322

Post by iterateoften » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #316

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #274

Letting new stocks marinate in the market and get 4 quarters of SEC filings along with following all the GAAP accounting practices will definitely help evaluate them before inclusion. The last large boom/bust cycle had a couple of companies, at least, that were doing illegal things. I'm not stating that these three are, just that nobody knows and the process should play out. I do wonder if any of these three companie…

> just that nobody knows I don't understand. Guilty until proven innocent, because they... are too successful? What could possibly be the generalizable idea here? Should we have a speed limit for too successful companies, even if they might be doing super valuable work? Who would we trust to be the judge of the potential havoc that bad capital allocation in such a moment might cause? EDIT: To be more clear, I don't h…

More like its a regulated space and it makes basic sense to have regulations

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

#323

Post by infecto » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

JoshTko wrote: post #278

infecto wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you pierced the hearts of Elon haters/fan boys and are getting downvoted. Absolutely agree with your statement. Most top comments are just upvoted from the hivemind. Elon topics are always the worst because nobody even uses critical thinking and will just upvote/downvote based on the theme of Elon = Good or Bad.

So what's your intelligent argument as to why SpaceX's deserves an exception? Please lay out a case that's comessurate to the gravity of such an exception

You missed the plot and are only reinforcing the point. Where in my comment was I saying SpaceX deserves an exception? I am just stating what I observe anytime Elon or one of his companies comes up, it devolves into the extremes. Sorry you fall into that trap.

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

#324

Post by lokar » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:37 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #316

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #274

Letting new stocks marinate in the market and get 4 quarters of SEC filings along with following all the GAAP accounting practices will definitely help evaluate them before inclusion. The last large boom/bust cycle had a couple of companies, at least, that were doing illegal things. I'm not stating that these three are, just that nobody knows and the process should play out. I do wonder if any of these three companie…

> just that nobody knows I don't understand. Guilty until proven innocent, because they... are too successful? What could possibly be the generalizable idea here? Should we have a speed limit for too successful companies, even if they might be doing super valuable work? Who would we trust to be the judge of the potential havoc that bad capital allocation in such a moment might cause? EDIT: To be more clear, I don't h…

How do you know they are successful? The normal way we judge that in companies is with several quarters of public financial filings, independently audited and following GAAP standards.

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

#325

Post by wat10000 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:38 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #316

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #274

Letting new stocks marinate in the market and get 4 quarters of SEC filings along with following all the GAAP accounting practices will definitely help evaluate them before inclusion. The last large boom/bust cycle had a couple of companies, at least, that were doing illegal things. I'm not stating that these three are, just that nobody knows and the process should play out. I do wonder if any of these three companie…

> just that nobody knows I don't understand. Guilty until proven innocent, because they... are too successful? What could possibly be the generalizable idea here? Should we have a speed limit for too successful companies, even if they might be doing super valuable work? Who would we trust to be the judge of the potential havoc that bad capital allocation in such a moment might cause? EDIT: To be more clear, I don't h…

“Innocent until proven guilty” is for the courts. It doesn’t apply elsewhere.

If somebody comes up to you on the street and claims to be the wallet inspector, should I cry “guilty until proven innocent!” when you refuse to hand yours over?

These rules ensure some stability before a company gets included in an index. That’s all. No company has a right to be included just because of their valuation at some moment.

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

#326

Post by lokar » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:38 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #321

jstummbillig wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just that nobody knows I don't understand. Guilty until proven innocent, because they... are too successful? What could possibly be the generalizable idea here? Should we have a speed limit for too successful companies, even if they might be doing super valuable work? Who would we trust to be the judge of the potential havoc that bad capital allocation in such a moment might cause? EDIT: To be more clear, I don't h…

if you can't maintain success for 4 quarters then you weren't really successful.

And even if it's not in the S&P, you can still just buy the stock.

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

#327

Post by dannyw » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

jstummbillig wrote: post #316

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #274

Letting new stocks marinate in the market and get 4 quarters of SEC filings along with following all the GAAP accounting practices will definitely help evaluate them before inclusion. The last large boom/bust cycle had a couple of companies, at least, that were doing illegal things. I'm not stating that these three are, just that nobody knows and the process should play out. I do wonder if any of these three companie…

> just that nobody knows I don't understand. Guilty until proven innocent, because they... are too successful? What could possibly be the generalizable idea here? Should we have a speed limit for too successful companies, even if they might be doing super valuable work? Who would we trust to be the judge of the potential havoc that bad capital allocation in such a moment might cause? EDIT: To be more clear, I don't h…

These companies are allowed to go public and anyone can buy their shares.

Since the start, the S&P 500 has had a simple and consistent profitability screen. Your company must be GAAP profitable in the past quarter, as well as for your past four quarters when summed up.

The S&P 500 committee isn’t targeting these companies. They are simply choosing to keep the rules they’ve had in the beginning. And when these companies can deliver one year of profitability, like every single company added to the S&P 500 since inception, they too can join the index.

Refusing to change longstanding rules that make sense (remember: companies are supposed to be profitable!!) isn’t unfair.

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

#328

Post by groundzeros2015 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

psychoslave wrote: post #314

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sounds like a non-profit service project, not an investment.

How is that incompatible?

I think making money usually helps people. But it does affect every decision you make. When you’re investing you look at financial criteria. When you’re donating you look at social criteria.

The whole “VC in non-profit” thing was a trend from 2012 to 2017 or so and it did not work out for this reason.

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

#329

Post by gizajob » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

gizajob wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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...

That is what looked like the catalyst but seeing the response made me feel the confirmation from the S&P really was a big factor, particularly because the algorithms must all have been banking on the rapid inclusion for the AI companies which would keep the tech ship afloat at its current valuation. I don’t think the jobs report was enough either, and the market hasn’t really been reacting strongly to ideas about interest rates shifting, I’d say in the current climate them staying the same is priced in about as much as the, changing.

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

#330

Post by groundzeros2015 » Sat, Jun 06, 2026, 2:40 PM UTC

mannanj wrote: post #301

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is government seizing data centers a good thing?

How about because they used tax payer money to help fund them? Why should my money make AI executives & shareholders richer? And let them own the products of my tax? edit: We used to call that Fraud.

I agree governments shouldn’t throw money in these. That didn’t answer my question of why we want to seize them.

> because they used tax payer money to help fund them

Source showing a significant part of the investment was tax money?