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

Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 161 posts

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#21

Post by loeg »

Retric wrote: post #16
4fterd4rk wrote: post #15

SpaceX has not been added to the S&P 500. They asked for the rules to be waived. S&P said no. I don't understand this article.

S&P 500 didn’t change their rules but other indexes have. https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/2026_May_NDX_Changes_FAQ.... Q: What is the purpose of modifying the liquidity and seasoning requirements? Could this change result in the inclusion of illiquid securities in the index? A: Most indexes require a liquidity threshold for new constituents, often as a minimum share count or average daily trading value. For the Na…

Nasdaq isn't super relevant.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#22

Post by nullstyle »

Retric wrote: post #7
mattmaroon wrote: post #2

Everybody is upset about the rule change, but to be honest, they would’ve just ended up in the same position a few months later. Elon has kept Tesla’s market cap at 5-10x what any reasonable investor would think it should be for the better part of a decade. It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag. It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year.…

Without rapid purchasing by indexes SpaceX’s stock would likely to tank as ever more people would be able to sell over the first year. It’s a 24 year old company with a current high flying stock price based on very questionable numbers.

With several large bets on the table with starship that have yet to play out.

Remember mars by 2024? I think that was around the time they started accepting deposits on tesla semi.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#23

Post by Retric »

loeg wrote: post #21
Retric wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

S&P 500 didn’t change their rules but other indexes have. https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/2026_May_NDX_Changes_FAQ.... Q: What is the purpose of modifying the liquidity and seasoning requirements? Could this change result in the inclusion of illiquid securities in the index? A: Most indexes require a liquidity threshold for new constituents, often as a minimum share count or average daily trading value. For the Na…

Nasdaq isn't super relevant.

Sure but it’s not the only one. Add in SPY, QQQ, and IWM Force Index Funds and the percentage of Americans buying SpaceX early due to rule changes looks bad.

Edit: Ops SPY didn’t change their rules.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#24

Post by HWR_14 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #2

Everybody is upset about the rule change, but to be honest, they would’ve just ended up in the same position a few months later. Elon has kept Tesla’s market cap at 5-10x what any reasonable investor would think it should be for the better part of a decade. It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag. It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year.…

They probably won't be on the S&P for years, because of profitability requirements.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#25

Post by Retric »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #20
Retric wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without rapid purchasing by indexes SpaceX’s stock would likely to tank as ever more people would be able to sell over the first year. It’s a 24 year old company with a current high flying stock price based on very questionable numbers.

We all said that about Tesla for years, and a lot of people got burned on the trade. This time may be different, but it also may not be.

Tesla’s numbers looked vastly more reasonable.

“In 2025, SpaceX generated $18.7 billion in revenue, with its Starlink satellite internet service accounting for $11.39 billion, or 61% of total sales.”

Tesla had higher revenue number in at the start of 2019, when it had a market cap of ~0.06 trillion. Further Tesla was highly volatile in 2021 despite huge earnings growth with some people bank when it fell from 1.2T to 0.34T before recovering.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#26

Post by asveikau »

mattmaroon wrote: post #2

Everybody is upset about the rule change, but to be honest, they would’ve just ended up in the same position a few months later. Elon has kept Tesla’s market cap at 5-10x what any reasonable investor would think it should be for the better part of a decade. It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag. It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year.…

I got a good investment vehicle for you. How would you like to purchase shares in the Brooklyn bridge? You could see returns in the form of tolls.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#27

Post by sfblah »

fortran77 wrote: post #11

You can opt to put some or all of your 401K into a "Value fund" VVIAX (Vanguard) or FLCOX (Fidelity) to reduce your exposure to the highest of high-flying stocks. Of course, many small company 401Ks limit your investment options to a small family of high expense ratio funds...

Unfortunately most people won't do that, either from ignorance or fear of missing out. Sometime in the next few years the chickens are going to come home to roost on the infinibubble, and I'm not really sure if the US financial system will weather it.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#28

Post by infecto »

Retric wrote: post #23
loeg wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nasdaq isn't super relevant.

Sure but it’s not the only one. Add in SPY, QQQ, and IWM Force Index Funds and the percentage of Americans buying SpaceX early due to rule changes looks bad. Edit: Ops SPY didn’t change their rules.

SPYis sp500 is it not? Why would they include it?

For others like qqq it has no bearing to be frank. It follows the nasdaq 100. Maybe an argument that the extra few months would have allowed more price discovery but I am not so sure.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#29

Post by HWR_14 »

anotherhue wrote: post #3

What exactly can an individual do? For many their accounts have limited fund choices and if you don't want to pay high ER for fund manager's pedicures then you end up on an index, which (S&P500 excluded) have now bent the knee. Mine are on russel indexes so I have no choice. Short spacex is the only answer I've heard but I'm wise enough to know I don't have the mentality for derivatives.

Shorting SpaceX when you own the same amount of SpaceX in an ETF doesn't require any derivatives and is a fairly safe play. The amount of interest you have to pay will vary a little bit, but it should cost a very small amount net.

The biggest issues are the effort and tax implications of balancing the SpaceX short.

Re: Americans express unease over SpaceX's influence on retirement savings

#30

Post by ojbyrne »

loeg wrote: post #21
Retric wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

S&P 500 didn’t change their rules but other indexes have. https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/2026_May_NDX_Changes_FAQ.... Q: What is the purpose of modifying the liquidity and seasoning requirements? Could this change result in the inclusion of illiquid securities in the index? A: Most indexes require a liquidity threshold for new constituents, often as a minimum share count or average daily trading value. For the Na…

Nasdaq isn't super relevant.

Also CRSP, which is the index used by US Total Market funds and many Target Date funds.
Post reply on HN