| |
| ▲ | laughing_man an hour ago | parent [-] | | Those rule changes aren't happening. | | |
| ▲ | a2tech an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | My understanding is that the s&p 500 were the only ones unwilling to change their rules. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Why "unwilling"? That's a weird wording. S&P Dow Jones Indices decided to not go through with their rule change after it became a political issue. Obviously they were willing, the proposed rule change originated from them! | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Please provide some support that the rule changes were proposed from within. Given the fact they tried pulling this nonsense on 3 indices, it seems very unlikely the rules changes originated from within. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say, so the burden of proof to prove otherwise must fall on you. And anyway, the rule change is truly the only reasonable way they can react to the current situation. It will absolutely be untenable to keep Anthropic , OpenAI and SpaceX off the S&P 500 with them also being the highest valued companies on the market. | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Quatsch. The indices will say whatever benefits their power the most, regardless of truth. The fact that they are bending now to pressure is proof enough for me. We live in an age proving that valuation is just a manipulation. This whole story is just like the BaM situation: the people with more money feel emboldened to pull every dastardly trick they can to tilt the table towards their pockets, away from the honest participants. SpaceX and the AI IPOs are just the latest and most grand scheme. I’m guessing you were surprised by the collapse of lehman brothers back in the day. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | So you don't actually have any evidence to support your claim? This just seems like a matter of faith at this point, that's fine. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | They became effective last month. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Passive investors and retirement accounts are heavily in on automatic indexing. This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules. The accusation is that these changes were made so that index funds will buy this stock automatically far earlier than they would have previously. Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >This deal has been pushed hard to be included prematurely in the indexes to the point that Nasdaq changed the rules. Pushed by whom? Can you link some reporting on this topic? > Given the… uh… astronomical asking price, it looks like SPCEX is meant for Elon stans and institutional index investors to be the bag holders. "asking price" lmao, buyers decide the prices they'll buy at. Edit: I wonder, why is pointing out that this apparently massive conspiracy hasn't been covered by a single credible news outlet worthy of so many downvotes? | | |
| ▲ | codechicago277 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s been covered extensively and is common knowledge. One example after a 5 second google: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/may-jobs-report-stock-marke... | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Where does your link describe this supposed external pressure? |
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It has been covered extensively. The change of nasdaq rules has been covered by Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, and most others who have reporters on the Wall Street beat. Columnists at all three of those publications have called it out as a possible play on institutional indexing money. I don’t need to tell you who like it’s some big secret either. It was Elon Musk on behalf of spacex. The changes were openly part of the ipo. I’m not going to cite sources for a major financial news story that is being extensively covered in the financial and general press. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Here's Matt Levine from Bloomberg saying something along the lines of "lol, obviously the indices have to do this, they'll look like fools if they don't because these will be the biggest companies on the market". He famously spends much of his time making fun of Musk, but seems to reject the idea of his influence here. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind... Perhaps you can provide a single counterpoint? I can't find the columns you refer to. | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That is one of the columns. The headline makes my point succinctly. Your paraphrase of the column misses the crucial point. A Nasdaq index fund doesn’t buy a company unless it is in the Nasdaq. Under the old rules SPCEX was ineligible for listing. Now Nasdaq index funds all have to buy. Index funds by nature do not selectively buy stocks, if the stock is in the index, they buy, that’s their mandate. That’s the game, to be included in as many indexes as possible that force institutional investors to buy. That’s hundreds of billions worth of funds that now have to buy in, that previously wouldn’t have had to if it wasn’t listed on the Nasdaq. The SP500 did not waive the rules, and that made above the fold news this week, because it is a major blow to the big IPOs happening this month since they are valued so high. It will be harder for them to move stock if the massive index funds aren’t buying automatically. They didn’t ask them to change long standing rules for shits and giggles. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | Matt Levine makes his point as follows: >They will be fast-tracked into the major stock indexes, because those indexes are designed to reflect the stock market, and reflecting the stock market, in 2027, will absolutely require big allocations to those three companies. I don't know why you're so obsessed with Nasdaq, S&P 500 will quickly follow anyway. They are not going to wait for these companies to hit 4 profitable quarters because that would be absurd. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nullstyle 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You use your back channels and good ole boys club connections to try getting the rules for inclusion changed. Maybe collude would be a better verb than design? Is that your objection? | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory? | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Common sense and rationality says that you cant motivate rules changes simultaneously across 3 independent indices without outside pressure. Can you provide some reasoning why this wouldn’t be the obvious situation? | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Common sense and rationality says this: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind... >index providers will have to decide: Are they in the business of giving passive investors exposure to all the stocks that the market thinks are good, or to all the stocks that the index committee thinks are good? >There’s only one plausible answer. Can you explain why your theory is better than the one widely believed by people who actually work in the financial industry? | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Lol, the dude asking for reporting to justify his oligarch dickriding dismisses patrick boyle in his chat history as just a youtuber while using paywalled links to support his position. My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Criticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg. |
|
| |
| ▲ | AlexCoventry 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Common sense and rationality go out the window in corrupt, unregulated environments with perverse incentives. |
|
|
|
|
