People are doing so because the math is not mathing.

Assuming that all the claims are true, this would lead to a collapse under its own weight, because at that point, supposedly, most people won't be needed in the jobs they currently occupy.

Assuming the claims aren't true, there will be a reckoning where all the glitter thrown will hit the ground and people that invested would like to have their marbles back at whatever the cost.

I'd be betting on the latter rather than the former. BECAUSE all those companies are RUSHING for an IPO because none of them want to be left with the bag.

Just for the sake of comparison and to put things in perspective, just for the spaceX situation, running a datacenter is no easy task and require significant maintenance and supporting infrastructure, now you're going to tell me that you can achieve the same and even more in space where virtually everything is more complicated to achieve? And you're telling me that your entire business, or at least a big majority of it, will be this entirely unproven infrastructure? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me...

Now this being said, somehow some things may lie in the middle, but people seem to be a bit either too fond of the claims or too aggressive towards some part of the tech stack.

> The greatest tech revolution by far and people on this site are trying to movie their money away from it. I hope y'all will do an honest retrospective in a year or so.

I this sentiment often, and think it is short-sighted:

1. The tech fails at the goal - profitability is what we see for any tech that augments humans, which isn't anywhere close to satisfying the trillions in debt, busting the market and bleeding trillions from the economy.

OR

2. The tech succeeds at the goal - humans are mostly now needed anymore other than for menial low-paid work. Economy slows, then almost completely stops.

What is the outcome you see that keeps you optimistic? How do you intend to avoid the soup kitchen if this all works out? Because, you see, if this all works out you will have nothing of value to contribute too.

AI can still have a massive impact while these three companies go nowhere.

Same as the dotcom and same as the railroads.

That doesn't necessarily make it the best investment at this point in time. Especially on a short time horizon such as "a year or so" AI stocks could easily correct 50% or so. And if you think that sounds impossible then you probably don't have much experience with the stock market.

If you’re here next year for the “honest retrospective”, it’s a deal.

Have you heard of the dot com bubble?

The trouble this time is if this goes bust I see a huge crash. And if it's wildly successful it seems worse.

Call me when the greatest tech revolution stops burning through billions and billions of dollars.

Yeah like Cisco in 2000

> but the S&P 500 also has never allowed entry of companies that may never become profitable

I suspect this will be revisited if all these companies are still 1T+ market cap 12 months from now. At some point the S&P will have to say the market itself has spoken and likely capitulate.

> the S&P 500 also has never allowed entry of companies that may never become profitable

Yup. Which is why it was always a long shot. I personally thought they'd adopt some of the seasoning rules, but they were more conservative than even that.

> if you had seen it what would have that pricing looked like?

Look up rebalancing trades, or, less graciously, rebalancing front running. If the index is going to rebalance to include a new entrant, you'll see the other components trade down in anticipation. It's a very tight signal, and it wasn't present to any measurable degree for the S&P 500.

> The rules are in place for a reason, why does it matter what the percentage is? They're not profitable. When they prove they're worth the dollars, they can be included, per the rules.

I'm sure you know this, but the rules have been changed many times over the years. Now that companies IPO much later with huge market caps, I suspect we'll see more rule changes over time. The S&P 500 is fairly conservative, so they held tight this time. If these companies are still 1T+ 12 months from now, there will be a very strong argument that the market has decided these companies are important regardless of current profitability, and the S&P will likely have to revisit.

> why does it matter what the percentage is

This percentage directly determines the influence on SP500 index funds holders (SPY, VOO, etc.).

The outcome could have been:

1. not included (0%)

2. included, weight by free float (0.3%) --- 54th in the list between $AXP and $MCD

3. included, weight by free float x 3 (0.9%) --- 19th in the list between $ORCL and $JNJ

4. included, weight by market cap (1.75 trillion / 67 trillion = 2.6%) --- 8th in the list between $AVGO and $META

https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500

#2 is _much_ closer to #1 than #3 (let alone #4), meaning that had an exemption been made to allow SpaceX in, given the rest of the existing rules, at least the impact to ETF holders would not be outblown. The same could not be said for NASDAQ , which was the main source of all the debate.

> That is essentially a wealth transfer to the rich. They don't need it.

These are not valid arguments. The companies that get added to the S&P are always owned in some fraction by rich people.

SpaceX is obviously majorly owned by Elon, but it’s also owned by regular employees, a bunch of private investors and other funds that regular people invest in.

> They're not profitable.

Right

> When they prove they're worth the dollars,

Profitable isn’t related to “worth the dollars”. You need to look at income and how much is being reinvested into growth. Amazon famously remained unprofitable due to reinvestment and waiting for them to become profitable before investing was a bad bet.

Are you sure he doesn't need it? People are saying SpaceX has six months to bankruptcy.