Why is that relevant? 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.

Also, S&P500 has a current market cap of $67 trillion, 0.3% of that is some $200billion. That is essentially a wealth transfer to the rich. They don't need it.

▲

matwood 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

smilekzs 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

	▲	ralferoo 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yeah, the thing that really concerns me about the other indices is the minimum free float in calculations, so not only will SpaceX appear in the index way too early, they'll be artificially giving it a massive boost, meaning that passive fund investors are forced to buy even more. That is the most egregious part of all. I can partly see the rationale - existing stockholders will want to ditch their stock ASAP to cash in on the artificially elevated prices, and so there's a good chance the free float will increase quicker than the index can capture it, but this rule change will be driving those sales. It's all a scam. I'm glad a good chunk of my US holdings are in S&P tracked ETFs because they won't include SpaceX until it's ready, but another 25% of my funds are in funds tracking FTSE global indices (so equivalent to about another 15% in US), and I haven't yet found a good alternative to those. I might end up having to switch to separate UK, S&P 500 and global ex-US, but making that switch would probably cost me as much as just sucking it up and being forced to buy SpaceX.
	▲	Dylan16807 14 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> #2 is _much_ closer to #1 than #3 (let alone #4) Even with linear scaling, being one third of the way between two numbers is not what I would call underlined-much closer. But zero punches above its weight here. Those extra orders of magnitude should make some impact on the scale.

▲

kortilla 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

▲

gizajob 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mostly owned by Elon who has 84% of the voting rights. Completely his entity and it can’t be denied that the value of an interesting space business has been massively inflated by tacking a worthless AI business onto it.

	▲	kortilla 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Again, voting rights don’t really matter. Google famously split shares to hold control while going to the market.

▲

m-i-l an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "Amazon famously remained unprofitable due to reinvestment and waiting for them to become profitable before investing was a bad bet."

Amazon wasn't profitable because it reinvested earnings into growth, while SpaceX is funding it's growth by taking on very significant levels of debt (which will take a big chunk of future earnings just to service). These aren't comparable from a risk perspective.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Amazon wasn't profitable because it reinvested earnings into growth Was this obvious early on?

▲

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

> 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.

Sure, but we the only thing we know about the company is the current S1 filing. Need to time to see what all of that looks like. Fast tracking it and essentially forcing other people to buy without scrutinizing is the problem. They may very well be worth the money they claim, but we won't know until after they've proven it. That's what the rules are there for.

▲

Marazan 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Amazon met profitability requirements and went into the SP500 at around $2.40 in November 2005. Two years before it was $2.70. Six Years before it was $4.40.

Two years _after_ listing it was $4.50. Six years after it was ~$10.

Waiting for profitability seems like it was a good bet.

▲

muadddib 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So is spacex growing like Amazon was? There is no evidence of growth. And no, Google renting them infra grom then is not growth. If it waa, AllBirds is the next unicorn

	▲	JumpCrisscross 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> There is no evidence of growth There is plenty of evidence of growth. The problem is SpaceX as it is is a conglomerate recently cobbled together, and so estimating what it is and what it's going to do is challenging.

▲

SkiFire13 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

Is it really owned by them if Elon retains most of the voting rights anyway?

	▲	JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Is it really owned by them if Elon retains most of the voting rights anyway? Owned by various folks. Controlled by Elon. Granted, I don't know how Texas law deals with minority rights.