> 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?

▲

gruez 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>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.

	▲	dh2022 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The market will not drive index fund purchases of SpaceX - the 5x multiplier of the floating shares will. And that’s the rub.
	▲	conductr 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Fiduciary responsibility in this context is a large umbrella of responsibilities. They should be fighting the new nasdaq rules on behalf of us. As you mentioned, this forces them to participate in fleecing the passive fund holding public and undermines the whole point of index funds. I don’t see how a fund manager could just blindly take this rule change and not make a ruckus about how it’s forcing him to break their fiduciary obligations Following the rules of the fund and being index is one thing. Sitting silently as this pump and dump is designed to fleece your clients, is something entirely different. > Starting May 1, 2026, Nasdaq rules allow large IPOs (e.g., top 40 market cap) to join the Nasdaq-100 Index within 15 trading days. This forces index-tracking funds to buy new shares, often at inflated valuations shortly after listing, a "fast entry" rule designed for mega-IPOs like SpaceX or OpenAI