Remix.run Logo
fluidcruft 2 hours ago

It's really concerning given how the indexes are changing rules to fast-track SpaceX being forced into index funds. S&P is also working on updates to S&P 500 to force it down everyone's throats quickly and algorithmically.

epistasis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm usually a Boglehead, with some exceptions, and one exception I'd love is some sort of trade that would eliminate my exposure to SpaceX for the next few years. I'm sure there's some combo of options that would do it.

Probably finding an ESG-focused ETF would do it. ESG basically meant "good governance, we follow laws" which translated into better governed public companies that therefore had better returns, as one would expect. Really weird how it was politicized into something entirely different...

bryanlarsen 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

There's an ETF for everything out there. (There are more ETF's than stocks). There'll be a large market for "S&P500 without SpaceX" et al, so it's seems likely somebody will fill it. It probably will have to use a worse name because of the S&P trademark.

Galanwe 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I'd love is some sort of trade that would eliminate my exposure to SpaceX

You can just short SpaceX of an amount equivalent to its share of your SP500 holdings. You will have to pay borrowing costs though, but on something that liquid it will be very small.

BJones12 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah. For comparison, SpaceX will be maybe half the size of MSFT. MSFT is 7.4% of the SP500 index, so for a $1,000,000 portfolio if you were to short MSFT you'd pay 0.25% on the value of that 7.4%, or $185/year.

So eliminating SpaceX exposure will cost you $100 per million of your SP500 ETF per year, or so.

parliament32 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Shorts have unlimited risk. Buying a put is risk-defined and probably a better strategy.

BJones12 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

No, because the unlimited risk of shorting is balanced (hedged) by the unlimited upside of holding the same number of shares via the ETF.

parliament32 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah you're not wrong. I didn't think about it that way because you can't really break something out of an ETF basket, and you also don't control the ETF basket, but if you think those risks are minimal it's probably fine to just compare dollars-to-dollars.

Personally I would still probably go with the long put strategy unless the price difference is exorbitant.

jocaal 22 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

You cannot however sell only SpaceX shares from your ETF to cover your short's losses. So due to liquidity issues I wouldn't recommend your strategy.

Galanwe 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

What are you talking about? You don't need to touch anything about your ETF. You just have to short a single name on the side.

Also there is no liquidity issue, we're talking SP500 names here, you'll pay GC, which should be around 25bps as the other comment mentions.

Galanwe 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not just a short, it's a portfolio of X short + X long. It's effectively canceling perfectly.

parliament32 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> some sort of trade that would eliminate my exposure to SpaceX

I think it's less complicated than you'd think.. just buy LEAPS puts proportional to your exposure.

daft_pink 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

LEAPS are very expensive.

parliament32 3 minutes ago | parent [-]

[delayed]

jakub_g 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One annoying thing is that those "non-standard" ETF variants have much higher management costs than basic S&P500 / All World ETFs.

nothercastle 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

Dimension funds aren’t bad

xenospn 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Stock markets are ruled by hype and fomo. Good corporate governance has little to do with returns, unfortunately.

epistasis 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

Short term gains are hype and fomo, but if you're holding index funds long like I am, then returns have a lot more to do with performance. And given the lack of hype around ESG, it seems like an exceptional time to buy in to it.

wolvoleo 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That's also the kind of thing that pension funds should be investing in. They shouldn't invest in hypes as they're by definition in for the long haul and eventually hypes always blow.

Sure you can make a lot of money but only if you know when to get out before the crash. And that's something that doesn't gel well with long term investment.

JumpinJack_Cash 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Bro the index is about riding the hype and fomo and when the phenomenon progressively loses track it gets less and less quota

epistasis 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don't understand the lingo in your comment but my best possible guess is that I disagree vehemently with it.

Long term dollar cost averaging is not about hype and fomo. Overall pricing in equities does vary according to alternative investment routes, which is why I'm diversified into those as well.

Stonks go up. Stonks go down. Averaging over decades, ownership is about owning a share of productive output of a large portion of our entire economy, an amazing restructuring of social relations that presents an amazing opportunity for the common person, unseen throughout the history of humanity.

aNoob7000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Add Anthropic and OpenAI to the list. Companies that are bleeding money.

Personally, a company should be making money before adding it to the index.

parliament32 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Interestingly, these are the exact rules they're working to overturn: currently, no matter how many stupid accounting tricks you pull off, you need to actually be profitable to be included in the S&P 500.

hparadiz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

LarsDu88 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is a fallacy. OpenAI and Anthropic would not continue to make money indefinitely by simply sitting still for the simple fact that their models can easily be distilled by competitors. Their value is contingent on sitting at the top of the leaderboards and staying there such that the marginal value of their AI is better than the mostly Chinese competitors.

And b/c these chinese competitors are open weight, the layer below frontier class AI is totally commoditized.

If there were a recession, the first thing enterprise customers would do is setup Kimi or Deepseek rigs. It would be a race to the bottom and no one would be profitable.

A similar phenomenon happened with rail lines in the 1850s where irrational exuberance led to a massive overbuild of rail lines, followed by a race to the bottom and the bankruptcy of almost all players. In the end, banks ended up absorbing the few companies that survived.

parliament32 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because they're doing the fancy equivalent of selling $20 bills for $15 and chirping about how high their revenue is. You, me, and everyone else could generate $inf revenue with that strategy, but that doesn't make it a viable business model.

MBCook an hour ago | parent [-]

Right.

At this point burying money in jars in the back yard and forgetting where some are has a much higher rate of return.

hparadiz an hour ago | parent [-]

Using Google’s own IPO S-1 / SEC filings:

Year Revenue Net income / loss

1998 Not reported

1999 $220k -$6.076M

2000 $19.108M -$14.690M

Do you guys not know what a loss lead is?

parliament32 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I have no doubt there are a handful of positive examples when we ignore the tens of thousands of failed companies along these lines.

I have no problem with money-furnaces trading publicly. If people want to invest in those, fantastic, power to them. But they absolutely should not be included in vehicles like pensions and indexes.

MadxX79 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But Google didn't go public until 2004, when they were highly profitable.

Every startup goes through a phase where they aren't profitable... For most of of them that ends when they go bankrupt.

marcosdumay an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You seem to be ignoring that a loss lead is supposed to lead people into doing something profitable.

logifail an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Do you guys not know what a loss lead is?

We don't know which of today's companies will be successful and/or highly-valued in N years' time.

Check Cisco's valuation on March 27, 2000; it was briefly the most valuable publically traded company in the world. Almost everyone believed it was worth it. Then it fell 88% over two years.

Full disclosure: some of us are old enough to have held stocks during the dot-com boom. Fortunately I was still a student and therefore too poor to have had any significant amount of money to lose :)

MBCook 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Survivorship bias.

Also, those numbers are multiple orders of magnitude smaller than the AI stuff going on now.

matthewdgreen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Really depends on the valuation and P/E they plan to list at, and some estimate of their future revenue story. I love Codex and Claude Code but OpenCode/Kimi is wildly cheaper and 90% as good.

tclancy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Didn't we have a story just yesterday that Anthropic's run-rate now looks like $49 billion/ year and they might have their first quarterly profit? I would suggest if you have billions of dollars coming in the door and aren't breaking even, maybe you do have a small leak somewhere?

mrweasel an hour ago | parent [-]

Part of that potential profitability is reportedly coming the fact that they get a discount on compute from SpaceX in May and June. Anthropic and SpaceX signing a contract where Anthropic leases datacenter capacity for the low low price of $1.25 billion per month, except for the first two month when they get some sort of discount.

Anthropics expected profitable quarter just happens to be the quarter were their cost is artificially low?

alpha_squared 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Because from where I'm sitting it seems like you're just operating on hopes and feels.

I hate these flippant comments. Similarly, from where I'm sitting it seems you're struggling to disentangle revenue from profit.

hparadiz an hour ago | parent [-]

I buy 50 billion of hardware. Make 45 billion back in year 1. My losses are 5 billion. I Pay of all my creditors by year two. Then spend another 55 billion on hardware in the second half of year two. My profit is at this point zero.

<you are here>

By year three I am printing money.

It's not a flippant comment. It's basic math.

zdragnar an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In year three your competitors invest in making a better model and crush your business because you have no moat at all.

The entire business requires massive ongoing investment because getting massive investments is the only thing resembling a competitive advantage that you can get.

The equivalent to anything you can do will be available as an open weight set in six months to a year. Sink or swim.

zzleeper an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sorry that's confusing cash flow with profits, where things get amortized

rchaud an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not basic math when the numbers are this big. There's not going to be $50 billion coming in Year 3 if there's a market correction and lenders scale back financing. Borrowed money is how companies are paying for AI, and that's the first thing that disappears in a recession.

43fg an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

" But they could just not do anything and continue raking in the money."

Hahaha what a fucking bozo.

Log out and dont talk about valuation again.

mohsen1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a market for an S&P 500 ETF without those companies. I'll immediately switch over

rlkf an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You probably want an ETF that follows something like the MSCI USA Ex Mega Cap index then: <https://www.msci.com/indexes/index/758086>

fsckboy 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you can buy S&P 500, and short the component companies you don't like, but caution, this will achieve the solvency you want, but you will likely remain irrational

zzleeper 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Let me know if you find one! I'm at a loss. (And even then, if I switch I have to pay $$$ taxes on capital gains)

stouset an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You can sidestep this entirely with a total-market fund like VTSAX/VTI, which hold the entire market and should be more resistant to being gamed.

They’re free-float adjusted so entities like SpaceX are valued only by what’s available on public markets. And Vanguard (and its funds) are owned by its investors, which makes it seem implausible that the rules would be rewritten in a way that would damage investors.

SilverElfin an hour ago | parent [-]

VTI lists fast even before these recent changes as I recall. So it’s more vulnerable, not less.

LPisGood an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It may list fast, but it covers many more securities from what I understand so it’s insulated. I think the fact is that any broad market ETF is gonna own at least some piece of a $1 trillion company.

svachalek 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The additional securities it includes are weighted by market cap though. So a total market fund ends up being 80% S&P 500, and even if they add thousands more companies those all fit in the 20% slot.

felixgallo an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

well that's the problem, right? There is no justification for a trillion dollar Elon Musk valuation. And he and his investors know this. That's why they're trying to change the rules to dump the stock while it's irrational on every investor in the world. If they really believed in the value of the company, would they be bribing people to scam the index funds?

toomuchtodo 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

Indeed, it's like robbing a bank while the bank is holding a party. Except its everyone's portfolios who are invested in the index funds with potential exposure in scope.

High level, it's concerning to observe this unfold while almost every asset class is at its peak and there is no one willing to purchase (office real estate [1] [2], private equity [3], us equities [4], crypto, etc). Late Stage Capital Markets when you've exhausted greater fools available.

[1] Office Real Estate Is Facing ‘a Year of Reckoning’ in 2025 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-12-18/commercia... | https://archive.today/fTPSY - December 18, 2024

[2] Blackstone Is About to Take a 54% Loss on Iconic Seattle Tower - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-29/blackston... | https://archive.today/fcA8W - May 29, 2026

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47049024 (citations)

[4] BlackRock Scales Back Equities After ‘Generational’ Earnings [Peak S&P] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-29/blackrock... | https://archive.today/lMIcH - May 29th, 2026

44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
_delirium an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Any of the direct indexing providers will let you blacklist individual stocks from the index. The intended use is to exclude stocks you hold elsewhere (or receive as stock grants) to avoid causing wash sales, but it can also be easily used to make a custom "S&P 499".

zzleeper an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm looking at Schwab (and saw a few others) and couldn't find anything: https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/primer-on-wash-sales

I would assume this is not an ETF but sth else?

zparky an hour ago | parent [-]

https://www.schwab.com/direct-indexing

ngriffiths 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In addition to covering the IPO in general last week, Matt Levine also wrote about this specific question Tuesday[1]:

> Historically index providers were in the business of making these sorts of quality decisions, so that index funds were not forced to buy stocks they didn’t like.

> These rules create some tension between the idea that an index is a list of all the stocks and the idea that an index is a list of all the good stocks. Historically, it didn’t matter all that much: The point of the stock market is to tell you which stocks are good, so a company with a high stock valuation should be a very good company, so it should get a high weighting in both the Index of Good Companies and the Index of All the Companies.

> But SpaceX — and also maybe OpenAI and Anthropic in their coming IPOs — will probably break that link. SpaceX will probably (1) do all sorts of stuff that index funds hate and that index providers have specifically tried to exclude and also (2) be gigantic, because the market loves it.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind...

daft_pink 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apparently, the index funds are based on free float and since the number of free floating shares is limited, the total exposure to the index will be very small.

root_axis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And accelerating the schedules for insiders to dump shares.

wg0 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We're going to witness bigger blast than the great depression, dot com bust and 2008 crisis combined.

These greedy capitalists are after the pension funds + retail investor (ETFs in particular) through IPOs but there's no profitability in sight.

philwelch an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Almost all of the YoY growth in the S&P500 is in a very small number of tech companies. If one of those fast-growing tech companies isn't in the S&P500, the index as a whole becomes obsolete.

SilverElfin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The same rules are now affecting other big IPOs. I think Cerebras was confirmed as getting fast listing too even though they’re much smaller. It’s one big act of dumping on retail markets

rchaud an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Waiving profitability requirements to join the S&P 500 and trigger auto-buys from index funds is DEI for corporations.