This seems a sensible thing to do. If you change the rules on how things end up on your index, you force everyone using that index to reevaluate it. Your index is now perceived as more volatile (and probably is), and all the finance people need to reevaluate the risk of their index funds and decide if it is now 'growth', 'high growth' or whatever bucket it belongs in based on the new risk profile. And then all the portfolios need to be rebalanced. Which all takes time, more time than was being proposed. The sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules.
> sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules
It depends. Indices aren’t funds. They aren’t meant to balance investor interests. They’re meant to communicate some metric about the market.
The S&P tells you how big companies are doing in an index optimized to balance representation against trading cost. So in 2005, float was taken into account for weighting (versus just market cap). This made sense. Also, since the start, the S&P 500 has been a committee-based index. Not rule based. This has made it successful; if you want stable and unchanging, you never went for the S&P 500.
The S&P 500 may not be a fund itself, but Standard & Poor's is a business whose ability to sell services is correlated with the continued relevance of the S&P 500. It absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis.
It seems entirely reasonable to say: "if we make a certain decision, we correlate both our reputation and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy with the whims of one of the most volatile personalities in industry, and we should likely pay attention to this trial balloon that shows such anticipatory fear of the decision that we might lose our reputation as an index altogether."
> absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis
As a business, sure. As a committee, it’s still a deeply technical process. I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.
> and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy
This vastly overstates the amount of assets tied to the S&P 500. It’s a lot. But it’s a strong minority of equity exposures.
There's overlap between strong minority and nontrivial, so not sure how it can be vastly overstated. Do you have numbers you can add to this, or any explanation of equity exposure etc?
The market cap of the S&P 500 according to Google is ~$65T. Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia. That's a big deal.
The rules around index inclusion exist for a reason. Too much control in one person's hands (which SpaceX has), too small a float (so you don't get price discovery), lack of a history of financial performance and minimal trading days just don't give investors confidence and, like it or not, investment decisions are made based on the index. If you want to argue against passive investment, well, good luck with that.
I think a lot of people have this weird idea that what we need is some theoretically unfettered market for "true" price discovery when it's actually regulations like this that create markets. It's like a libertarian brain worm.
I don't think anybody wants these mega-companies out of the index, specifically. They just don't see why rules that exist for a reason should be suspended when the net effect of that is that investors have less information and there is a lot of forced purchasing. If you have confidence in your IPO, let the market decide what it's worth without trying to fix the price because what they seem to want is for insider lock-ups to end about the time we'd otherwise be getting normal price discovery. Kinda weird.
Investor confidence needfs to be managed by creating a stable, regulated market.
> Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia.
This is a common misconception. The S&P 500 weights allocation by float-adjusted market cap, not by total market cap. In the case of SpaceX, they are planning to float ~4% of shares at IPO. Even if SpaceX was added to the index, its index weight would be based on that tiny float, and at a $1.75T valuation it would be treated as roughly a $70 billion company.
SpaceX weight would be ~0.125% of the index, not ~2.5% as you imply.
Before the changes, the Nasdaq-100 index was total market cap-weighted not float-weighted. Once a company crossed 10% floated shares, the company was added to the index at full weight.
Nasdaq's new system is a hybrid of float-weighted and cap-weighted. If a company has below 33.3% float, its weighting is 3x float. Above that, it's cap weighted. This allows a gradual fade-in of the company into the index.
It's a better system than the previous one, and in Nasdaq's own words, more conservative.
For the Nasdaq-100, SpaceX at 4% float gets 3 x 4% = 12% of its market cap counted, which is $210B not $1.75T. Still <1% of the index.
Also, the multiplier is 3x, not 5x. Nasdaq proposed 5x, but after feedback, this was reduced to 3x. The new thresholds are 3x and 33%, not 5x and 20%.
The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation. It's not made up from the ether based on nothing. You can disagree with their reasoning and come to a different number, but you need to show your work if you want anyone to give a shit about your made up number. How many satellites have you launched this year? What's the going rate for a kilogram to LEO? Who are the competitors and what do they charge? Things like that which aren't magic made up numbers.
They have to be rebalanced every quarter regardless. And I'm not sure how many people would actually sell due to the inclusion of a single company. They're very loud about it, but no evidence that this is causing a significant amount of selling.
At a fundamental level, an index is supposed to reflect the market. If the current market is IPO-ing unprofitable companies at absurd multipliers, the index should reflect that. Because that is the market.
The longer major indexes exclude these companies, the further the index strays from representing the market, and the worse they do their core job of tracking it.
It's not the index's fault that market is pushing out overpriced and unprofitable companies.
Indices are supposed to reflect a part of the market. That's why you have all of S&P500, the Dow, NYSE Composite, and Nasdaq Composite (and several others) in the US — They each reflect different attributes of the market as a whole.
As it stands, it's clear that the users of S&P500 are not interested in the performance of the parts of the market made up of overpriced (and potentially highly volatile) IPOs.
The market is more unpredictable than it’s been in a long, long time so I hesitate to make a firm prediction but to me the odds that SpaceX will be a successful IPO over a 3-6 month window are significantly lower now. S&P inclusion basically requires funds to hold a position by default, and per their own estimates $20tn of assets are indexed/benchmarked to the S&P.
Nothing that you are saying here has any commitment to what to expect, is all heresay. It's 100% ad hominem, to the person. That's a fault whether the direction is complimentary or derogatory. I personally really don't want to see vacuous empty comments like this.
No, I'm saying they are hyping up some random podcast while saying sweet nothings. I really don't like empty hype. I want some actual content to posts that actually says something, not just links breathlessly encouraging me to go spend an hour listening.
The amount of misinformation around this topic was absolutely nuts over the past few days. Good rule of thumb: if a YouTuber or other influencer was pitching doom and relaying this rule change by S&P as a fait accompli, stop following them.
Contrarily, you can interpret the doom pitches as a necessary political backlash whose degree of panic and whose quantity prevented the change from ending up as a fait accompli.
Public decisionmakers do this sort of thing all the time. They "float an idea", "test the waters", "put up a trial balloon". They see what they can get away with. When the decisionmaker has a strong desire for the change, it may only get rolled back if powerful and widespread public dissent makes itself known, as it did in this case. When they don't really care about the issue, they might cancel it at the first sign that anyone has an issue. We can't know their degree of insistence just based on outcomes in these cases.
> the doom pitches as a necessary political backlash
It was totally misinformed, came well after the public-comment period had ended and had zero net effect other than maybe generating some commissions and management fees for rando managers.
There is bona fide hatred for these companies and their managers. Influencers twisted the facts to channel that for views.
If you’re buying into a tech-marketed fund like the NASDAQ 100 and it doesn’t include a large chunk of the tech market, you’re no longer passively investing in tech. You’re investing in an actively-managed fund.
Historically, companies like SpaceX would have gone public earlier and grown into the index. Recognizing that has changed with multiple $1+ trillion IPO contenders makes sense; as it turns out, I think both NASDAQ and S&P decided correctly.
Historically a $1T market cap with a PE of 20.0 would be achievable with a $50B/yr profit. That seems easily achievable eventually for SpaceX, as it has actual hardware and services and IP.
> Historically a $1T market cap with a PE of 20.0 would be achievable with a $50B/yr profit. That seems easily achievable eventually for SpaceX, as it has actual hardware and services and IP.
It seems crazy to me to make a comparison between a company being valued on it's current profit and then to say it's reasonable for another company to have the same market cap because it could eventually have the same profit.
Yet, I, a relative peasant financially has been hit by 3 different brokers that I'm eligible to participate in the offering. I would hazard a guess they are not getting the uptake in institutional money they were hoping for.
Yes, they did. In the wake of Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, for which the 2nd order effect was that companies take years and years longer to IPO. 10-17 years on average since 2010 (it used to be lower). (There are other reasons, it's not purely due to SOX.
The existing investors don't have liquidity. I can't buy a house or pay my bills with shares I'm not allowed to sell. A better exit later is worthless if I starve to death before the exit.
Yeah, the rules have kind of made the passive investment active. I don't understand OPs point at all. I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things, and OP has provided 0 justification for that.
Do you think that all the alarm had any effect on the blocking of the rule change? Is the right time to complain about a possible change is after it has been decided?
That the rule change was a done deal. The pitch was some shadowy financial cabal forcing everyone’s retirement savings into SpaceX (which would not have been true even if S&P voted to include, but that’s a separate topic).
The top comment and most of its subthreads are run-of-the-mill alarmism.
Most assets don’t follow those funds. And NASDAQ 100 is explicitly tech focused, I support them making the change.
The doomsaying was around most retirement assets. Which don’t follow any single index. But to the extent they do, follow the S&P 500.
The market wasn’t pricing in any rebalancing. Commenters were screaming bloody murder about it. In the middle, I’m sure some numpties generated trading and management fees by switching target funds.
As they should have. The rules were in flight with a layover time measured in days on assets that are managed on the timescale of years. There was a legitimate reason to act urgently. It's easy to make claims in hindsight but the information on hand it was 100% the right call to protect your investments.
This is not misinformation. Misinformation is saying the proposed rule change and their proximity to trillion dollar IPOs introduced no risk. Please do not spread such misinformation.
It seems to me like there's a fair amount to be concerned about, I wouldn't consider myself an expert on finance by any means so if you have some explanation of why it's not that bad I'd love to hear it.
Two other indices changed their rules to allow these companies specifically. Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth. Often the people whose money is being invested don't even have control over its allocation into these funds.
Coupled with the precarious state of the economy due to all the money already flowing through AI, changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster. It reminds me of subprime mortgages.
> Two other indices changed their rules to allow these companies specifically
One of which is the NASDAQ 100, marketed for decades as a tech-focused index.
> Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth
Pensions build their own benchmarks. About 10 to 20% of retirement assets follow these indices directly for a variety of purposes. The S&P 500 aims for continuous large-cap growth, but that isn’t true for most indices, which seek to replicate something random.
> changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster
The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows due to this decision. And most retirement assets don’t blindly follow any index, let alone any single one. I opposed the rule changes at S&P. But the catastrophising was made for clicks and views. Not to inform anyone.
Like, anyone who actually acted on that brouhaha changed out of an index that isn’t going include SpaceX, incurring transaction fees and potentially tax hits (for non-retirement accounts) in the process, and probably cycling into a higher-fee fund.
So why change? You're not building a case for why this change is needed. Is there even another Nasdaq 100 company like SpaceX? Probably not because it would be an obvious point of discussion. So now we need to add a new 'thing' to our definition of tech, then change our funds to adopt our new definition. To what end, with this haste?
> The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows
Is it a fund or just an index? If an index, what are you monitoring when you cite 'no outflows'?
So you are happy with this outcome, but also so upset at the people that evangelized your preferred policy position that you think HN readers should cut them from the information diet?
Seems most likely that the public outcry actually influenced this outcome, so I don't see why the nuances of alarmism about it should nix an entire information source.
I mean S&P had actually drawn up a lot of the changes, regulations, and paperwork for entrants, so it wasn't a done deal, but they absolutely were considering it, and it was a very real "risk".
Yes, I think given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P, everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming about providing exit liquidity.
My prediction is that this will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs. Only time will tell.
Exactly. There is this undercurrent of The End Times everywhere, that this is it. This is the end of ... everything that was. When in fact it is not the end times, and the people at those indexes want to exist longer than SpaceX.
> given that misinfo this was probably the right decision by S&P
The misinformation was almost certainly not taken into account, and it shouldn’t have been.
> everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming
Influencers will scream regardless. It’s what they’re paid to do. The NASDAQ 100 made these changes and is doing just fine.
> will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs
There are lots of indices. S&P largely targets those built around mature companies. If you want a total-market index, those exist and tend to rapidly incorporate IPOs.
I could kind of agree with the argument that "well these companies stay private longer so they are more mature" but the float exemption with the seemingly arbitrary calculation to figure out weights completely belies that argument.
> S&P wasn't fait accompli, but the NASDAQ 100 was
Sure. Nobody was properly making this distinction in social media, including on HN. Particularly with respect to the differences in scale and purpose between the NASDAQ 100 and S&P 500.
The fact that a fast track was even considered is controversial IMHO. People flipping out, especially if their retirement is tied up with those indices, is to be expected. No one wants to be a bag holder for billionaire insiders.
SpaceX is not worth $1 trillion, when most of that valuation is based on xAI being worth far more then their already dominant position in the space launch business.
It depends. Indices aren’t funds. They aren’t meant to balance investor interests. They’re meant to communicate some metric about the market.
The S&P tells you how big companies are doing in an index optimized to balance representation against trading cost. So in 2005, float was taken into account for weighting (versus just market cap). This made sense. Also, since the start, the S&P 500 has been a committee-based index. Not rule based. This has made it successful; if you want stable and unchanging, you never went for the S&P 500.
It seems entirely reasonable to say: "if we make a certain decision, we correlate both our reputation and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy with the whims of one of the most volatile personalities in industry, and we should likely pay attention to this trial balloon that shows such anticipatory fear of the decision that we might lose our reputation as an index altogether."
As a business, sure. As a committee, it’s still a deeply technical process. I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.
> and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy
This vastly overstates the amount of assets tied to the S&P 500. It’s a lot. But it’s a strong minority of equity exposures.
How can you possibly know that? Do the people on that committee have a cast-iron tenure guarantee?
The rules around index inclusion exist for a reason. Too much control in one person's hands (which SpaceX has), too small a float (so you don't get price discovery), lack of a history of financial performance and minimal trading days just don't give investors confidence and, like it or not, investment decisions are made based on the index. If you want to argue against passive investment, well, good luck with that.
I think a lot of people have this weird idea that what we need is some theoretically unfettered market for "true" price discovery when it's actually regulations like this that create markets. It's like a libertarian brain worm.
I don't think anybody wants these mega-companies out of the index, specifically. They just don't see why rules that exist for a reason should be suspended when the net effect of that is that investors have less information and there is a lot of forced purchasing. If you have confidence in your IPO, let the market decide what it's worth without trying to fix the price because what they seem to want is for insider lock-ups to end about the time we'd otherwise be getting normal price discovery. Kinda weird.
Investor confidence needfs to be managed by creating a stable, regulated market.
This is a common misconception. The S&P 500 weights allocation by float-adjusted market cap, not by total market cap. In the case of SpaceX, they are planning to float ~4% of shares at IPO. Even if SpaceX was added to the index, its index weight would be based on that tiny float, and at a $1.75T valuation it would be treated as roughly a $70 billion company.
SpaceX weight would be ~0.125% of the index, not ~2.5% as you imply.
Before the changes, the Nasdaq-100 index was total market cap-weighted not float-weighted. Once a company crossed 10% floated shares, the company was added to the index at full weight.
Nasdaq's new system is a hybrid of float-weighted and cap-weighted. If a company has below 33.3% float, its weighting is 3x float. Above that, it's cap weighted. This allows a gradual fade-in of the company into the index.
It's a better system than the previous one, and in Nasdaq's own words, more conservative.
For the Nasdaq-100, SpaceX at 4% float gets 3 x 4% = 12% of its market cap counted, which is $210B not $1.75T. Still <1% of the index.
Also, the multiplier is 3x, not 5x. Nasdaq proposed 5x, but after feedback, this was reduced to 3x. The new thresholds are 3x and 33%, not 5x and 20%.
https://www.nasdaq.com/newsroom/nasdaq100-index-methodology-...
This is a big win for many S&P 500 etf holders
So by that metric the very loud people succeeded: these new IPOs will enter the index under the established rules and time-frames.
The longer major indexes exclude these companies, the further the index strays from representing the market, and the worse they do their core job of tracking it.
It's not the index's fault that market is pushing out overpriced and unprofitable companies.
As it stands, it's clear that the users of S&P500 are not interested in the performance of the parts of the market made up of overpriced (and potentially highly volatile) IPOs.
Go do a google search
Long listen but a very thorough and nuanced discussion by a bunch of smart investment / finance guys in Canada. No click-bait-sky-is-falling content.
* https://archive.is/15pOn
This lets you read the whole article: https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-oth...
* https://press.spglobal.com/2026-06-04-S-P-Dow-Jones-Indices-...
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/new-fast-tracks-account-olde...
They changed their minimum float rule for these mega IPOs with low float.
Nasdaq clearly did it for the big bucks and getting the listing, why did Russell bend the knee?
so they get a little bit of a pass for me, but Nasdaq doesn't
(It was a common misconception on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48364055.)
Public decisionmakers do this sort of thing all the time. They "float an idea", "test the waters", "put up a trial balloon". They see what they can get away with. When the decisionmaker has a strong desire for the change, it may only get rolled back if powerful and widespread public dissent makes itself known, as it did in this case. When they don't really care about the issue, they might cancel it at the first sign that anyone has an issue. We can't know their degree of insistence just based on outcomes in these cases.
It was totally misinformed, came well after the public-comment period had ended and had zero net effect other than maybe generating some commissions and management fees for rando managers.
There is bona fide hatred for these companies and their managers. Influencers twisted the facts to channel that for views.
If you’re buying into a tech-marketed fund like the NASDAQ 100 and it doesn’t include a large chunk of the tech market, you’re no longer passively investing in tech. You’re investing in an actively-managed fund.
Historically, companies like SpaceX would have gone public earlier and grown into the index. Recognizing that has changed with multiple $1+ trillion IPO contenders makes sense; as it turns out, I think both NASDAQ and S&P decided correctly.
It seems crazy to me to make a comparison between a company being valued on it's current profit and then to say it's reasonable for another company to have the same market cap because it could eventually have the same profit.
The valuation is insane and the very low float plus short timeframe for actual price discovery just seems built to extract money from index investors.
They can follow the same rules as everyone else.
Could woulda shoulda. Mate they didn’t. Moreover if they had, the existing investors would’ve got a shittier exit.
The existing investors don't have liquidity. I can't buy a house or pay my bills with shares I'm not allowed to sell. A better exit later is worthless if I starve to death before the exit.
Did mom and pop invest..? No they did not. The investors who did knew the long time horizon they were committing to.
They could’ve gone public earlier - they chose not to and venture capitalists were happy to keep supplying the funding.
Also lol @ using that act to explain why people take longer to ipo. Lest we forget how deep venture capital has become. Hahahha
The preexisting ruleset was used by investors to gauge their portfolio balance.
Now investors have to revaluate their portfolio based on the new ruleset as their fundamental risks have changed.
I see others are listening to the Money Stuff podcast ;)
That the rule change was a done deal. The pitch was some shadowy financial cabal forcing everyone’s retirement savings into SpaceX (which would not have been true even if S&P voted to include, but that’s a separate topic).
The top comment and most of its subthreads are run-of-the-mill alarmism.
Worth considering:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_paradox
And the rules for the NASDAQ 100 were changed, as were MSCI and CRSP:
* https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/some-indexes-accelerate-e...
The doomsaying was around most retirement assets. Which don’t follow any single index. But to the extent they do, follow the S&P 500.
The market wasn’t pricing in any rebalancing. Commenters were screaming bloody murder about it. In the middle, I’m sure some numpties generated trading and management fees by switching target funds.
This is not misinformation. Misinformation is saying the proposed rule change and their proximity to trillion dollar IPOs introduced no risk. Please do not spread such misinformation.
Two other indices changed their rules to allow these companies specifically. Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth. Often the people whose money is being invested don't even have control over its allocation into these funds.
Coupled with the precarious state of the economy due to all the money already flowing through AI, changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster. It reminds me of subprime mortgages.
One of which is the NASDAQ 100, marketed for decades as a tech-focused index.
> Pensions and retirement funds rely on these indices to have continual, stable growth
Pensions build their own benchmarks. About 10 to 20% of retirement assets follow these indices directly for a variety of purposes. The S&P 500 aims for continuous large-cap growth, but that isn’t true for most indices, which seek to replicate something random.
> changing the rules to throw retirement fund money into brand new extremely highly valued stocks with P/E ratios in the hundreds seems like a recipe for disaster
The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows due to this decision. And most retirement assets don’t blindly follow any index, let alone any single one. I opposed the rule changes at S&P. But the catastrophising was made for clicks and views. Not to inform anyone.
Like, anyone who actually acted on that brouhaha changed out of an index that isn’t going include SpaceX, incurring transaction fees and potentially tax hits (for non-retirement accounts) in the process, and probably cycling into a higher-fee fund.
So why change? You're not building a case for why this change is needed. Is there even another Nasdaq 100 company like SpaceX? Probably not because it would be an obvious point of discussion. So now we need to add a new 'thing' to our definition of tech, then change our funds to adopt our new definition. To what end, with this haste?
> The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows
Is it a fund or just an index? If an index, what are you monitoring when you cite 'no outflows'?
So you are happy with this outcome, but also so upset at the people that evangelized your preferred policy position that you think HN readers should cut them from the information diet?
Seems most likely that the public outcry actually influenced this outcome, so I don't see why the nuances of alarmism about it should nix an entire information source.
> That the rule change was a done deal.
What are you talking about? The rule has already been changed in the NASDAQ. That makes it a done deal.
Anything changed can always be undone, but to be clear it has already happened. That makes it a done deal.
Great advice.
HN has been speculating on how wealth would be extracted from 401k and IRAs at least since the November elections in 2024.
Far before any influencers even thought this would be a thing.
I thought forced cryptocurrency funds, but it turned out to be something else.
My prediction is that this will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs. Only time will tell.
The misinformation was almost certainly not taken into account, and it shouldn’t have been.
> everyone would be saying I told you so and screaming
Influencers will scream regardless. It’s what they’re paid to do. The NASDAQ 100 made these changes and is doing just fine.
> will overall end up costing index holders money though. They will ultimately get a worse entry price for SpaceX and the other mega IPOs
There are lots of indices. S&P largely targets those built around mature companies. If you want a total-market index, those exist and tend to rapidly incorporate IPOs.
You can just wait for the price to drop post ipo as it usually does if you actually want to invest.
I could kind of agree with the argument that "well these companies stay private longer so they are more mature" but the float exemption with the seemingly arbitrary calculation to figure out weights completely belies that argument.
Sure. Nobody was properly making this distinction in social media, including on HN. Particularly with respect to the differences in scale and purpose between the NASDAQ 100 and S&P 500.