| |
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Where does your link describe this claimed external pressure? |
| |
| ▲ | ambicapter 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > buyers decide the prices they'll buy at. Not if they're index funds. They buy at the price it is, until they've satisfied their holdings represent the appropriate share of the market. Which, pre-IPO and early-days-after-IPO, is likely to not be accurate to the long-term price. | | | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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. The big IPOs this month are asking for prices that demand hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars of liquidity. Index funds are automatic liquidity, but only if you are on the index. They didn’t ask them to change long standing rules for shits and giggles. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour ago | parent [-] | | >They didn’t ask them to change long standing rules for shits and giggles. Who are "They"? Did you maybe forget the ((())) or are we just supposed to guess? I don't know if you intended it that way, but using the vague nudge-nudge wink-wink "they" like this sure comes across as an antisemitic dog whistle. > That is one of the columns. The headline makes my point succinctly Regardless of how you choose to interpret the headline, the actual column seems to say the very opposite of what you claim. | | |
| ▲ | timeflex a few seconds ago | parent | next [-] | | No where did they say anything antisemitic, but you further diminishing the meaning of that word—just like BB has already—only enables actual antisemitism. I frequently see that label being weaponized, especially against other Jews. I see it be used when people merely report on what the President has said, or against the Pope calling for peace. At some point, I'm inclined to believe people constantly making these false accusations do so knowing it delegitimizes the word. | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the context of my message it is very clear that they is SpaceX. This isn’t a secret. Nasdaq has said that they are changing the rules specifically for this listing. It’s clear you aren’t interested in a good faith conversation. Thanks for the discourse either way. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The idea that SpaceX would have to ask Nasdaq for anything is preposterous. Also, you're getting the most basic details wrong. Nasdaq didn't change their listing requirements. SpaceX has been eligible for listing under their rules for years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | l23k4 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory? | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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 an hour 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. | | |
| ▲ | nullstyle2 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | newly created alt because apparently my main account has hurt too many feefees to allow me to respond to a discussion I'm having. "posting too fast" my swingin dick... I'm not criticizing bloomberg, i'm criticizing you for posting paywalled links to support your position in an open discussion. Given I'm bailing on this convo now because hackers news is a shite application getting in the way of people trying to talk, let me respond to our sibling thread with the closet thing my opinion has to evidence: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH. IMO we remain at an all time high of financial flimflammery as a portion of our GDP and there have been a number of recessions triggered by the financial sectors malfeasance during my lifetime because of it. | | |
| ▲ | l23k4 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You assume far too much competence from the supposed conspirators. If what you're claiming was truly happening, it would have been leaked and widely reported. Yet, somehow, no journo covering the world's leakiest industry has been able to break this massive-if-true story. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlexCoventry an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Common sense and rationality go out the window in corrupt, unregulated environments with perverse incentives. |
|
|
|
