| ▲ | paultopia 13 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Uh, can someone explain this to me like I’m 5, but somehow still have money invested in index funds? It makes me sound like my invested-in-vanguard-total-market-indexes-and-fidelity-target-date-funds money is going to be mechanically dumped into Elon Stock because of FinanceWord FinanceWord FinanceWord gobbledgook FinanceWord but is that the correct reading? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | nighthawk454 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index funds divvy up money into stocks, in this case weighted by market cap. More market cap = bigger slice of the pie. SpaceX wants to instantly jump near the top of the pie - capturing tons of the money in index funds for itself, and also therefore taking it away from other companies stocks. SpaceX (and others like OpenAI, Anthropic)'s private market cap valuation is so high that if they IPO they would instantly jump to the top of the entire stock market. This has never really happened before. By the rules, funds would have to suddenly start buying a huge weight of SpaceX stock - and sell NVDA/AAPL/GOOGL/everything else - to achieve the new balance. Normally there are rules on how fast a new company can get included in the index. You usually have to be on the market for some time, demonstrate consistently high valuation, etc etc. SpaceX wants to skirt this and jump straight onto the index (near the top). Further, the rules also usually weight you according to how much of your stock is actually on the market. If you only sell 5% of your company, you only get weighted at 5% of your market cap. SpaceX wants a bonus multiplier so even though they'll only make 5% of their stock available for sale, they want to be weighted in the index as if it was say 15% available. Aka over-bought / boosted price. This creates both mechanical forced buying and artificially constrained supply. Likely sending the price to the moon, not based on fundamentals but based on gaming the index rules. Then, once insider lock-up periods are over in a few months, SpaceX can choose to release even more shares - say jumping the available shares from 5% to 100% - which will unleash their full market cap (now even further inflated) and thus capturing even more of the money in index funds. Index funds being 'passive' guarantees there will be buyers for SpaceX employees and executives to sell their shares to, likely at exorbitantly over-valued prices. At which point they wash their hands of the valuation and your retirement account becomes the new bag holder who has to worry about whether SpaceX is actually worth what you just paid for it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | vmbm 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you are an index investor, it is probably not worth your time and energy to make any drastic changes because of this particular incident. Space X will comprise a small percentage of the indexes in question, and any impact on your portfolio will likely be imperceptible. And if your holdings are in a taxable account, the tax hit from selling are probably not worth it. Longer term, folks should be aware that Wall Street has fully caught on to the normalization of index investing and have been looking at ways to use passive investors as exit liquidity. Private equity and private credit are the two recent high profile examples. There was an executive order recently that directed the federal government to consider allowing these asset classes into 401k's. And these sectors have been increasingly making there way into the public markets in various ways (which is ironic considering the name of the asset class). Same story with crypto. In the past, most passive index investors worried about fees and portfolio composition and diversity. But moving forward it is probably worth thinking about index governance as well. For example the S&P500 has a one year waiting period before an public company can be considered. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | konaraddi 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
My understanding: It depends on what index the fund is tracking. QQQ tracks the Nasdaq-100 so QQQ is vulnerable. VT tracks the FTSE Global All Cap Index so VT is not directly affected by Nasdaq’s choices but is still exposed to some extent because spacex is likely going to be in the aforementioned FTSE index, Nasdaq’s actions impact spacex’s market cap, and thus Nasdaq’s actions impact spacex’s position in the aforementioned FTSE index which in turn affects VT’s composition (to a smaller extent than QQQ’s). EDIT: to be clear the above are just examples with two funds (QQQ and VT) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | tptacek 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The claim is that Nasdaq is going to artificially admit SpaceX to the Nasdaq-100, an index they control, in order to win their business away from NYSE. If the index you invest in is derived from the Nasdaq-100, that's problematic. It seems kind of likely that SpaceX would make it into most of the major indices on the merits, relatively quickly (the S&P has a 1-year waiting period), just based on its likely size and liquidity. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | willis936 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yeah the ETFs have sold off their trust quite a bit in the past year. No longer can anyone with skin in the game trust the stewardship of the fiduciaries. They are simply showing that they are bad at what they do and people should not entrust their future to them. Pull your money out of the target date funds and into a responsible mix of indexes. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | skybrian 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Good question. I don't know, but I'll point out that different indexes have different rules, so someone would need to check if a change to the rules for Nasdaq indexes affects the others you mention. (Perhaps they follow what Nasdaq does somehow?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [deleted] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | bagacrap 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You are fine because you don't hold QQQ. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||