A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses • Hacker News Board

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#161

Post by dmoy » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:24 PM UTC

spprashant wrote: post #36

dmoy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The float adjustment probably handles this for you? The tiny amount of float of that $1.75T means that for any large total market or s&p or whatever fund (VTI, SPY, etc), SpaceX is going to be a minuscule fraction of the fund. Apple has a float of >99%. SpaceX is going to come out with 3-4% float. Since all big serious total market / whatever index funds are float adjusted, this means that SpaceX will be treated more…

I am not smart with stock legal-ese but I pasting something I found in a different article here. > To balance index integrity and investability, Nasdaq proposes a new approach for including and weighting low-float securities (those below 20% free float). Each low-float security’s weight will be adjusted to five times its free float percentage, capped at 100%. Securities with more than 20% free float will continue to…

That's just nasdaq though, yea? VTI follows CRSP, not nasdaq. SPY doesn't follow nasdaq. Etc etc

I guess figure out whether QQQ is going to do the 5x float thing?

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#162

Post by tripletao » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:36 PM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #150

taurath wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

Geez this comment is a melodramatic non sequitur. There's no rule you have to own QQQ and indeed most people don't. There are thousands of low cost ETFs that provide passive exposure to the market. If this new rule bothers you, be like most people and buy one of those instead of QQQ. Problem solved. Like sure, let's improve our tax systems (as an aside, I would say there are many more efficient and progressive option…

If you already own highly appreciated QQQ in a taxable account then your options are limited, since moving to a different ETF would realize the capital gain. It may be preferable to hold even if you think you're losing money buying SpaceX at an inflated price, if selling would lose even more in taxes.

If you own an ETF that buys SpaceX but without overweighting vs. float, then you're not contributing to the inflated price in that sense. You're still buying at the inflated price though, so the NASDAQ rule change still affects you indirectly.

I guess the point of the "wealth tax" comment is that any higher taxation of the wealthiest individuals would reduce their power to shape the rules to their favor, and a wealth tax is potentially harder to avoid than income taxes. I think most prior attempts just made them emigrate, though.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#163

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:40 PM UTC

malfist wrote: post #101

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules I’m genuinely confused how a passive investor winds up tracking the NASDAQ 100 versus a broader index. Also, if you’re picking and choosing your exposures, you aren’t passive.

A broader index that tracks the NASDAQ tracks the NASDAQ 100 and is impacted by this rule. You buy VTI, you're impacted.

> You buy VTI, you're impacted

VTI “seeks to track the performance of the CRSP US Total Market Index” [1]. Not the NASDAQ 100. It will include the latter’s components. But it shouldn’t reference its weights.

[1] https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#164

Post by scythe » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:46 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #111

scythe wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unknown subject is a valid construction in language. It is not necessary to be able to answer "who's they?". It is semantically equivalent to saying "I knew the rules would be changed." There are also perfectly ordinary situations in which this pattern is used to imply the influence of an unknown party. "They built a bridge over the river." Clearly the speaker does not believe that bridges over rivers construct t…

>There are also perfectly ordinary situations in which this construction is used to infer the influence of an unknown party. "They built a bridge over the river." Clearly the speaker does not believe that bridges over rivers construct themselves. She doesn't need to know who built the bridge. This excuse only works if who built the bridge isn't central to the discussion. Otherwise this is just generic conspiratorial…

>This excuse only works if who built the bridge isn't central to the discussion.

It isn't central to the discussion. The appearance of corruption is clear; nailing down the culprit is difficult. It isn't reasonable to expect people to have a theory of corruption in order to complain about it.

>Otherwise this is just generic conspiratorial thinking

The perception of corruption is not a conspiracy theory. Corruption is an ordinary financially motivated crime, while conspiracy theories usually involve some kind of grandiose or mystical objective ("new world order").

Anyway, the question is moot because the only possible answer is "the regulatory authorities". We know who makes the rules! I just didn't want to tolerate this kind of fallacious nitpicking.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#165

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:49 PM UTC

jaredklewis wrote: post #150

taurath wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

Geez this comment is a melodramatic non sequitur. There's no rule you have to own QQQ and indeed most people don't. There are thousands of low cost ETFs that provide passive exposure to the market. If this new rule bothers you, be like most people and buy one of those instead of QQQ. Problem solved. Like sure, let's improve our tax systems (as an aside, I would say there are many more efficient and progressive option…

[deleted]

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#166

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:52 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #151

Dylan16807 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck. Someone can win at roulette and make more money than the average player over some measurement period, but nobody can be good at roulette (when properly implemented and stuff). Stocks are somewhat possible to be good at but results are mostly random and the fee you'd pay is usually way too much.

> They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck. How would you know it is or is not luck? > roulette Has no winning strategy - it's very different. The winning strategy with stocks is understanding the underlying businesses better than the average investor. Peter Lynch's Magellan fund did consistently better than others because Lynch had insights others didn't. W…

> How would you know it is or is not luck?

It's hard to know in the moment, but almost every promising fund has subpar long term results. Whether they lost their touch or were lucky in the first place, it means that seeking out promising funds is a very bad way to find a place to put your money.

The number of funds with significant valuable insights is low, and the number where those insights are bigger than the fees is lower.

Anyway my point was just that a big spread of outcomes doesn't prove that significantly different skill levels exist.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#167

Post by esseph » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:53 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #159

bitmasher9 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d also argue that "passive investor" applies more to the buy and hold strategy when paired with low engagement in the account (few transactions, or scheduled transactions). I’d consider someone that puts $50 into Coca Cola stock every paycheck a passive investor

> I’d consider someone that puts $50 into Coca Cola stock every paycheck a passive investor They’re not. Passive vs active are terms of art in investing. They refer to the degree selection effect is at play.

[dead]

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#168

Post by lxgr » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #163

malfist wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A broader index that tracks the NASDAQ tracks the NASDAQ 100 and is impacted by this rule. You buy VTI, you're impacted.

> You buy VTI, you're impacted VTI “seeks to track the performance of the CRSP US Total Market Index” [1]. Not the NASDAQ 100. It will include the latter’s components. But it shouldn’t reference its weights. [1] https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/etfs/profi...

That index seems to add new listings even more quickly (5 trading days!), so this effect doesn’t seem to be easy to escape just by switching indexes. MSCI is also on the order of days.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#169

Post by KK7NIL » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:30 PM UTC

throwway120385 wrote: post #130

KK7NIL wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing like a forced tax event to get the people rioting in the streets!

I think you need to consider who is being taxed. I doubt very much that OP is part of the class of people who really should be paying more tax. Rather, they're concerned about their retirement assets. Is that a good outcome here if it applied to everyone?

You seem to have read some sort of political opinion into my post that is not actually there.

I was just making a joke about the outrage OP is showing, I wasn't making a judgment on whether they get taxed too much or too little.

Re: A forecast of the fair market value of SpaceX's businesses

#170

Post by dh2022 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:44 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #74

conductr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're buying most index funds, you should literally not care about this. Disagree. Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Granted, I’d be more concerned if the fund manager was buying it without a requirement to. The issue still remains about why are we paying so much for this stock? Make it make sense?

>Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Right, but the whole point of index funds is that you're letting the market decide what's worth investing/buying (via market cap/free float weightings) and at what price. If you're making calls on what's "waste" or not, then you're no longer a passive investor and you're just picking stocks.

The market will not drive index fund purchases of SpaceX - the 5x multiplier of the floating shares will. And that’s the rub.