| ▲ | smilekzs 3 hours ago | |
> 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. | ||