If someone is trying to bend the rules of my passively managed index fund to their will, are they trying to actively manage my passively managed index ETF ?

> 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.

It's years away from $50B/year profit, if it ever gets there. The IPO valuation is insane.

It does have real hardware, but it’s not in wild growth areas. They’re making their most consistent money from Starlink, which is a solid product but has growth limited by competitors from conventional ISPs with far-superior fiber networks, and the space launch business is similarly not the kind of thing where you get Google/Facebook-level growth curves. That’s not a slight, it’s just different industries: advertising companies can grow rapidly because scaling customers is so much easier than launching cargo into orbit.

The wildcard there is AI, and that seems especially dangerous to project long-term revenue from their current performance: xAI is barely in the market except renting capacity to Anthropic, so you’re gambling that they’ll continue to pay $1¼B/month for what is largely a commodity offering. Even if you’re bullish on Anthropic, that doesn’t mean xAI gets part of their profits, and given the way they blindsided the local authorities there’s a substantially greater than zero chance that they’ll get a major setback if the neighbors win their lawsuits. That doesn’t mean they’re doomed, but anyone estimating their future performance has to factor in some real risks.

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.

“ The existing investors don't have liquidity.”

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

>I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things

Because this is how the rulemaking processes for these indices have always worked?

Why are you suddenly making this argument now, and weren't complaining about previous rule changes?

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.

VTI uses crsp and is very large

> marketed for decades

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'?

> I opposed the rule changes at S&P

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 (imminent decision vs fait accomplit) should nix an entire information source.

It's more about sidestepping the waves of market manipulation.

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.

sure it's not a given, but I certainly am not confident enough that it won't happen to bet my money in it, which I would automatically be doing if it was admitted to the SP500