> I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.

How can you possibly know that? Do the people on that committee have a cast-iron tenure guarantee?

> How can you possibly know that?

I know folks who have been on these. They don’t have tenure. But they’re basically emeritus. If S&P wanted to do something that would cause chaos, it would be fucking with those folks because they made a decision that looks bad.

▲

lovich 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s a public benchmark fund that has much of its value based on its decisions being publicly stable and publicly consistent.

Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided? If your statement is accurate it sounds like moving out of such a fund would be prudent. I feel like it’s not accurate since they are sticking to their guns and not changing the rules to benefit oligarchs like Musk such as Nasdaq is doing.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided?

There are lots of rules-based funds. S&P is transparently committee based. It’s why dual-class new entrants are banned, but Google and Berkshire are grandfathered in.

There is a genuine debate on rules versus committees in the index world. But S&P has stuck to its guns as a bastion of the latter. And it works. Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.

▲

maest 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.

I'm fairly confident most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default. And that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation.

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default A lot of retail goes into S&P lookalikes. And at the end of the day, they've consistently picked one over the other. > that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation Unlikely. Nobody has dropped NASDAQ 100-tracking funds. If anything, these guys will see long-term net inflows due to this move. S&P probably would have if they’d changed rules—this was an econometric, not business, decision.

▲

mandevil 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just a FYI, S&P rolled back the dual-class rule. It was in place from 2017 to 2023.