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 an hour 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 an hour 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.

▲

bombcar 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

If I were the DJI I would have proposed the change, simply so that we could get some outrage flowing and shut it down.

Without the proposal, you'd have outrage out the other side that it wasn't included (especially if it shoots off like, well, a rocket).

	▲	l23k4 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		But why? Won't that just make it far more awkward when they're inevitably forced to go through with very similar changes in the end?

▲

nullstyle an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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 an hour 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.

▲

lostlogin 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

I don’t think you have either?

It’s and interesting point. I’ve done a bit of searching and am also empty handed.

	▲	l23k4 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>I don’t think you have either? I don't know how I could? The indices have already provided their reasoning for these rule changes, but that's just summarily rejected by the conspiracy-minded. To laymen this appears to be a grand conspiracy. Rules are being changed to accommodate big companies, that's usually bad. To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli. The indices exist to reflect the market, these IPOs are going to be big enough that the 90s-era rules will/would result in untenable divergence.