back
11 comments
Am i wrong about this or does the passive fund changes not actually mean much in SpaceX's case?

A very small share of SpaceX stock is actually publicly traded for the first 90 days after IPO. It'll become much, much larger after half a year or so, and therefore so will the amount that index funds will put into the stock.

In this case, shouldn't the impact of a passive fund going into SpaceX be small to begin with in the first 90 days anyway, compared to the long-run amount of money going into these stocks? So even if the average investor takes a loss, it should be limited in impact compared to the counterfactual where the rule change never happened.

>> So even if the average investor takes a loss, it should be limited in impact

You are also ignoring the fact the in another incredibly rare and unusual move they are not allowing for any price discovery, and have fixed the price.

You know its bad when even Cramer...of all people...is panicking about what will happen to retail investors: https://youtu.be/8St2zNop9vs?t=125

sorry, cramer is a garbage can; whatever his opnion is, it's not worth anything of value
It’s generally a good idea to bet against that guy
I have heard some reports which say that some parts of the rule changes imply that SpaceX stock will be weighted something like 3x higher than the amount of shares available would otherwise mean, but I'm not sure exactly what the details are.

Either way, knowing that there is a large buyer at the market price at known time intervals does still allow for some games being played in manipulating that price.

“Every index fund is different.”

Say that to yourself over and over until it sinks in. Some funds were dumb ideas last year, and will be even dumber ideas next month. You can change which one you have.

50 years ago the S&P500 updated every 15 minutes, because it took that long to calculate. And that level was what it was 15 minutes ago. Would you be surprised that we can now calculate the level of very complicated indexes in real-time? You shouldn’t be: you could probably even do it on your smartphone. The idea that we need to have indexes with exactly n stocks is antiquated. The idea that we need to have indexes with simplistic rules that don’t actually mirror the ways that the markets work is antiquated.

Profitability was an index rule removing it adds garbage to the portfolio
A long time ago, 500 was about the largest nice round number that could be calculated in a reasonable amount of time.

No longer. But it has an extremely valuable brand - did you know S&P has hundreds of indexes? Do any others readily come to mind?

It was originally supposed to be “close enough” to the entire market. We don’t need to do that anymore. But they want to, to milk that valuable brand. Profitability is an arbitrary rule for an antiquated index. Let it die.

There are other s&p indexes. You can get total market index of you want. If you go too large you pick up companies that are too small you might as well pick the Russel or similar. The 500 is/was a good balance. Companies big enough to have government influence but not just the bloated top.
And Goldman Sachs the lead underwriter for SpaceX IPO is back at their criminal activities:

"Goldman Sachs expects SpaceX’s AI revenue to increase 100-fold by 2030" - https://www.ft.com/content/516cd0e5-a402-4b6c-8035-d688dc5f0...

Reminder what these guys are all about: https://youtu.be/jS9r1Dk-Zg8

I'm sure this time will be different...ahahaha