| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > SpaceX has been engineered such that all kinds of passive investment funds (pension funds, ETFs) will buy into it Pension funds are rarely passively run. They tend to be sophisticated investors. For example, several pension funds are already investors in SpaceX. NASDAQ 100 will include SpaceX after a couple weeks. But it's a tech fund. It's strange to complain about buying the largest tech company in a tech fund. Similarly, S&P total market and Russell total market will buy early. But again, those are total-market funds. If you want to actively manage your portfolio, don't buy total-market funds. | |
| ▲ | blourvim 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I heard that the rule changes which would allow SpaceX to be auto bought by those funds has been blocked, previous stock seasoning rules will apply | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the rule changes which would allow SpaceX to be auto bought by those funds has been blocked Nothing was blocked. S&P 500 never adopted them. Influencers misunderstood what a consultation document is and presented a question as a fait accompli. NASDAQ 100 changed its rules, as did S&P and Russell's total-market funds. But for NASDAQ 100 I'm going to go ahead and say this was a brilliant market move, since nobody ever talked about that index before this. | | |
| ▲ | siren2026 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > But for NASDAQ 100 I'm going to go ahead and say this was a brilliant market move, since nobody ever talked about that index before this. Most people know the NASDAQ100 as its ticker QQQ. Also known as the high risk - high reward investment. After reading how Nasdaq changed the rules in order to court all the mega IPOs to list with them, I will never ever consider a Nasdaq fund again. The rule change about the available float is especially shocking. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > After reading how Nasdaq changed the rules in order to court all the mega IPOs to list with them, I will never ever consider a Nasdaq fund again We have zero evidence for that chain of causation. And we have zero evidence of significant outflows for NASDAQ 100 since this rule change. (There is early evidence of inflows, but I suspect that's just because nobody talked about the NASDAQ 100 before and this turned out to be a brilliant marketing move.) | | |
| ▲ | siren2026 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with you that this might be a good marketing move overall. And I don't really care about the chain of causation. The change of rules for the available float and the fact those funds will buy based on the market cap and not the float makes it a completely irresponsible investment at this point. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > fact those funds will buy based on the market cap and not the float makes it a completely irresponsible investment at this point It's an index. The conventional way to market weight is to use market cap. The float rules are mostly for technical reasons around transaction costs for very large indices. There is a theoretical argument for float weighting, inasmuch as if you bought the stock market you'd be buying the float, not all of all of the companies. But I haven't seen research to say one way is definitively better than the other. I agree they should have probably paired the float-rule change with a gradual onramp. But again, NASDAQ 100 isn't big enough to really need to care about this. (Half a trillion is obviously a lot of money. But not relative to the equity markets, and not when spread across a hundred of the largest names.) | | |
| ▲ | siren2026 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It's an index. The conventional way to market weight is to use market cap. The float rules are mostly for technical reasons around transaction costs for very large indices. No the float rule is to avoid having to buy so much stock compared to the available stock that it would create irrational prices. This is probably going to happen with those IPOs. It's pure offer and demand! To put it differently: Imagine a company is valued at 100B$ but only released 1% of its stock for sale (1B$). The NASDAQ100 includes it in its index based on the market cap only and because of that now needs to own about 100m$ of that stock. You are now trying to buy 100m$ out of only 1B$ available stocks. Prices are going to skyrocket artificially.
If it was weighted on the float, it would only have been required to buy 1m$, which would make way more sense. And an index can be whatever the company behind it wants it to be. The SP500 can decide absolutely whatever they want and every index fund will just have to agree and comply and buy based on those decisions. But as everything if they do something stupid they lose credibility and customers. This is one of those instances in which they changed the rules in a way that made no clear sense and they will be remembered for that. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > No the float rule is to avoid having to buy so much stock compared to the available stock that it would create irrational prices Correct. > this is probably going to happen with those IPOs Not due to any index-following investor. > SP500 can decide absolutely whatever they want Yup, S&P 500 is a committee-based index. > one of those instances in which they changed the rules in a way that made no clear sense and they will be remembered for that S&P never changed the S&P 500's rules. NASDAQ 100 did. But from what I can tell, that was a brilliant piece of marketing. Nobody talked about them before. (QQQQ doesn't appear to have gained or lost net assets in that time, which isn't unexpected, it's a volatile fund.) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kasey_junk 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Crsp changed as well. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Crsp changed as well Yes. For their total-market fund. That makes sense. (CRSP is probably the most-significant index to make the change. But even then, it won't be a significant source of demand. Total market means lots of components.) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dakolli 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | S&P is no longer allowing this, only the NASDAQ. I think the bigger risk would be if they were included in the S&P 100/500. There was too much backlash. These capitalists are taking advantage of the corrupt administration in charge at the moment (not that a blue admin would be that much better), but they can get away with almost everything at the moment. Keep your head on a swivel, the billionaire class knows they don't have to worry about going to jail for the next few years and they'll make sure to screw everyone they possibly can to satisfy their endless greed. Death to the fascist insect that feeds on the blood of the people. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > There was too much backlash There wasn't. A consultation was rejected. It happens all the time. If S&P management had a say, they would have wanted SpaceX included. |
|
|
