This seems a sensible thing to do. If you change the rules on how things end up on your index, you force everyone using that index to reevaluate it. Your index is now perceived as more volatile (and probably is), and all the finance people need to reevaluate the risk of their index funds and decide if it is now 'growth', 'high growth' or whatever bucket it belongs in based on the new risk profile. And then all the portfolios need to be rebalanced. Which all takes time, more time than was being proposed. The sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules.
> sensible thing to do is to create a new index with the new rules
It depends. Indices aren’t funds. They aren’t meant to balance investor interests. They’re meant to communicate some metric about the market.
The S&P tells you how big companies are doing in an index optimized to balance representation against trading cost. So in 2005, float was taken into account for weighting (versus just market cap). This made sense. Also, since the start, the S&P 500 has been a committee-based index. Not rule based. This has made it successful; if you want stable and unchanging, you never went for the S&P 500.
The S&P 500 may not be a fund itself, but Standard & Poor's is a business whose ability to sell services is correlated with the continued relevance of the S&P 500. It absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis.
It seems entirely reasonable to say: "if we make a certain decision, we correlate both our reputation and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy with the whims of one of the most volatile personalities in industry, and we should likely pay attention to this trial balloon that shows such anticipatory fear of the decision that we might lose our reputation as an index altogether."
> absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis
As a business, sure. As a committee, it’s still a deeply technical process. I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.
> and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy
This vastly overstates the amount of assets tied to the S&P 500. It’s a lot. But it’s a strong minority of equity exposures.
> I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.
How can you possibly know that? Do the people on that committee have a cast-iron tenure guarantee?
> How can you possibly know that?
I know folks who have been on these. They don’t have tenure. But they’re basically emeritus. If S&P wanted to do something that would cause chaos, it would be fucking with those folks because they made a decision that looks bad.
It’s a public benchmark fund that has much of its value based on its decisions being publicly stable and publicly consistent.
Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided? If your statement is accurate it sounds like moving out of such a fund would be prudent. I feel like it’s not accurate since they are sticking to their guns and not changing the rules to benefit oligarchs like Musk such as Nasdaq is doing.
> Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided?
There are lots of rules-based funds. S&P is transparently committee based. It’s why dual-class new entrants are banned, but Google and Berkshire are grandfathered in.
There is a genuine debate on rules versus committees in the index world. But S&P has stuck to its guns as a bastion of the latter. And it works. Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.
> Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.
I'm fairly confident most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default. And that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation.
> most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default
A lot of retail goes into S&P lookalikes. And at the end of the day, they've consistently picked one over the other.
> that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation
Unlikely. Nobody has dropped NASDAQ 100-tracking funds. If anything, these guys will see long-term net inflows due to this move. S&P probably would have if they’d changed rules—this was an econometric, not business, decision.
Just a FYI, S&P rolled back the dual-class rule. It was in place from 2017 to 2023.
There's overlap between strong minority and nontrivial, so not sure how it can be vastly overstated. Do you have numbers you can add to this, or any explanation of equity exposure etc?
Indexes are not funds, correct.
However, the SP500 index is one of the few indices that is strongly represented in 401K plan options.
That changes its role from "communicate some metric about the market" to forced buying of the metric.
which makes changing the metric, especially in such a drastic way, consequential.
an etf that tracks the S&P 500 is what then?
This is a big win for many S&P 500 etf holders
Exactly. The S&P 500 isn't a fund, but let's not pretend that inclusion in the index doesn't mean real money is at stake.
> let's not pretend that inclusion in the index doesn't mean real money is at stake
Straw man. Nobody claims this. The point is (a) the state of decisionmaking was misrepresented for clicks and (b) the effects of a decision one way or the other way way overblown.
Hating on Musk sells subs. That's fair and, frankly, deserved. It doesn't mean we need to get misled chasing that high.
> They’re meant to communicate some metric about the market.
Is that why people spend time, money and effort creating and maintaining them? They're just broadcasters? That seems dubious.
> Is that why people spend time, money and effort creating and maintaining them? They're just broadcasters?
Yes. There are more indices than there are stocks. Publishing an index is, business wise, a game of getting funds to license them.
Once you have an index, you can offer all sorts of products around it.
-You can offer a return swap to an investor so he can "invest" in the index. You can alternatively build a whole list of derivatives and products around it and offer them to investors instead (think Itraxx,Vix,etc)
-A fund manager can use it as his benchmark and you get to see if he is good or not.
-If its a factor index you can now use it for risk management and return attribution.
The key thing today is that creating a new index that isn't a fad is very hard. There has also been a lot of consolidation of indices into few players (SP, MSCI, Bloomberg) as it's obviously an economies of scale business.
I mean, they get paid for it, sometimes quite a lot, for this "broadcasting". $100mm of AUM gets you like $200k profit/yr. (Like $500k minus fees)
The market cap of the S&P 500 according to Google is ~$65T. Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia. That's a big deal.
The rules around index inclusion exist for a reason. Too much control in one person's hands (which SpaceX has), too small a float (so you don't get price discovery), lack of a history of financial performance and minimal trading days just don't give investors confidence and, like it or not, investment decisions are made based on the index. If you want to argue against passive investment, well, good luck with that.
I think a lot of people have this weird idea that what we need is some theoretically unfettered market for "true" price discovery when it's actually regulations like this that create markets. It's like a libertarian brain worm.
I don't think anybody wants these mega-companies out of the index, specifically. They just don't see why rules that exist for a reason should be suspended when the net effect of that is that investors have less information and there is a lot of forced purchasing. If you have confidence in your IPO, let the market decide what it's worth without trying to fix the price because what they seem to want is for insider lock-ups to end about the time we'd otherwise be getting normal price discovery. Kinda weird.
Investor confidence needfs to be managed by creating a stable, regulated market.
> Anthropic, OpenAI and SpaceX could well amount to $4T+ in market cap. That's ~6% of the entire index. It's like adding another NVidia.
This is a common misconception. The S&P 500 weights allocation by float-adjusted market cap, not by total market cap. In the case of SpaceX, they are planning to float ~4% of shares at IPO. Even if SpaceX was added to the index, its index weight would be based on that tiny float, and at a $1.75T valuation it would be treated as roughly a $70 billion company.
SpaceX weight would be ~0.125% of the index, not ~2.5% as you imply.
Nasdaq "solved" that problem by including a 5x float multiplier for stocks with less than 20% of shares available to the public...
That's misleading.
Before the changes, the Nasdaq-100 index was total market cap-weighted not float-weighted. Once a company crossed 10% floated shares, the company was added to the index at full weight.
Nasdaq's new system is a hybrid of float-weighted and cap-weighted. If a company has below 33.3% float, its weighting is 3x float. Above that, it's cap weighted. This allows a gradual fade-in of the company into the index.
It's a better system than the previous one, and in Nasdaq's own words, more conservative.
For the Nasdaq-100, SpaceX at 4% float gets 3 x 4% = 12% of its market cap counted, which is $210B not $1.75T. Still <1% of the index.
Also, the multiplier is 3x, not 5x. Nasdaq proposed 5x, but after feedback, this was reduced to 3x. The new thresholds are 3x and 33%, not 5x and 20%.
https://www.nasdaq.com/newsroom/nasdaq100-index-methodology-...
I stand corrected, I was not aware of the full mechanism, and I was still stuck at the proposed multiplier and not the actual one.
SoaceX plans to continually unlock float for the first six months of being listed. So the percentage of the index would continue to rise.
except $4T is a made up number, a complete fantasy not rooted in any reality. it us more like $750bn (this is also made up number) :)
All valuations are “made up” numbers.
Some are more made up than others though!
Price discovery isn’t “making up” a number it’s discovering a number that meets a specific criteria.
Critically it’s not simply averaging a bunch of made up numbers. I may think gold is worth 1,000$/kg but if nobody is willing to sell me gold at that price then my “made up” number has zero effect on the market price.
The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation. It's not made up from the ether based on nothing. You can disagree with their reasoning and come to a different number, but you need to show your work if you want anyone to give a shit about your made up number. How many satellites have you launched this year? What's the going rate for a kilogram to LEO? Who are the competitors and what do they charge? Things like that which aren't magic made up numbers.
The valuation is actually mostly about AI. Satellites, like electric cars, don’t have quite the growth story (and I do mean “story”).
https://bsky.app/profile/patigallardo.bsky.social/post/3mnhc...
That’s total addressable market. It’s claiming that AI products they could build could be that amount. It assumes they gain 100% of the market which techbros are basically claiming is most current human effort. It’s stupid, but not what’s actually driving the price.
They are making more revenue off satellites than nearly every current AI subscription today put together. The launch capacity and growth in space based applications are the real company, everything else is to line Musks pockets and have markets subsidize his dumber projects.
It’s a shell game. I believe in their Space based products, but I’m not touching those investments until the market levels out.
> The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation
That's tangential. The valuation is based on supply and demand, nothing else.
Amongst other things the supply part of the equation will be low because all these companies are only to make a very small proportion of their shares available on the public markets.
409As are absolutely made-up numbers. Management writes a number on a sheet and a 409A consultant signs it.
You do realize SpaceX valuation is completely detached from the space business at this point?
Their S1 cites (by memory) a 370B addressable market for space stuff and a 27 trillion for AI.
And for AI they counted all Twitter accounts as grok users.
The Spaces eXploration company was a cool company, but it's not what's being sold to the market now.
Closer to 1.7 trillion for space. You’re quoting launch but discounting satellites and broadband.
The AI stuff is dumb and just subsidize Elons prior dumber investments.
Oh come on. They absolutely have to target a valuation that's profitable for previous rounds, any reasoning is subservient to that imperative.
> The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation.
Wow, you should educate yourself on what 409A is and how it gets created before writing something like that, you'd find it in the dictionary under the definition for what my original comment was :)
Sp500 is not passive. Keeps updating the rules every few years. https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1tvuhgy/sp500_100_y...
See top relevant changes in 100 years
Fyi reddit is now consistently authwalled on mobile (at least for me). You may want to extract any meaningfully information and rehost it.
They have to be rebalanced every quarter regardless. And I'm not sure how many people would actually sell due to the inclusion of a single company. They're very loud about it, but no evidence that this is causing a significant amount of selling.
Because it hasn't happened yet, and now, won't.
So by that metric the very loud people succeeded: these new IPOs will enter the index under the established rules and time-frames.
At a fundamental level, an index is supposed to reflect the market. If the current market is IPO-ing unprofitable companies at absurd multipliers, the index should reflect that. Because that is the market.
The longer major indexes exclude these companies, the further the index strays from representing the market, and the worse they do their core job of tracking it.
It's not the index's fault that market is pushing out overpriced and unprofitable companies.
Indices are supposed to reflect a part of the market. That's why you have all of S&P500, the Dow, NYSE Composite, and Nasdaq Composite (and several others) in the US — They each reflect different attributes of the market as a whole.
As it stands, it's clear that the users of S&P500 are not interested in the performance of the parts of the market made up of overpriced (and potentially highly volatile) IPOs.
The problem with your framing of "users of S&P500 are not interested overpriced IPOs" is that it conflates two fundamentally different things: what an index describes vs what investors prefer. The moment you start filtering out parts of the market based on investor appetite vs market reality, you stop building an index and instead start creating an actively managed product. That's active investing. It's no longer an index.
The S&P 500 is used as the benchmark of the market by practically everyone. Journalists, policymakers, investment managers, politicians, regular investors, everyone I know. If the benchmark that everyone uses as a market proxy is systematically excluding a substantial part of the market, then the gap betweeen "the index" and "the market" has real consequences.
You can't have it both ways: Either the S&P 500 is a market proxy, in which excluding parts of the market is a problem; or it's a curated slice, in which everyone needs to stop it as the default benchmarket for the market.
An index is an index. It works fine as an index if it excludes one or two stocks. People seem to forget as well that this is a question of waiting a single year before it including the stock. It is literally just long enough to make sure the price settles, it's not some catastrophic thing.
> it excludes one or two stocks.
It's more than that. None of SpaceX, OpenAI, nor Anthropic will meet the criteria, and they will make up a significant part of the US stock market. Each of these companies is heavily investing their cashflow into growing the company and are unlikely to be profitable many years.
The inclusion criteria prioritizes companies that extract their cashflow into profit, and excludes companies that invest their cashflow into growing the company. For example, when Jeff Bezos ran Amazon he described his company as "famously unprofitable, And that is a conscious strategy and an investment decision." Amazon only joined the index in 2005, nearly 8 years after IPO, even though it was a significant member of the stock market at the time.
"The inclusion criteria prioritizes companies that extract their cashflow into profit", in almost all cases, yes. But if you want to buy into these newer stocks there are various high growth indices you can buy, no one is stopping you. If you want to buy into only one or two of those stocks then you can. It's a free market for stocks and it's a free market for indices. There's no regulation that says the S&P has to include certain stocks.
The issue is a contradiction with what S&P 500 claims to do vs what they actually do. S&P 500 claims to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". But if they exclude high-growth no-profit large-cap equities such as (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX) from their index, then S&P is doing a poor job at what they claim to benchmark.
It's not not an insignificant oversight. The valuations of (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX) total to ~5% of the total US stock market.
> S&P 500 claims to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities"
Right...
> But if they exclude high-growth no-profit large-cap equities such as (Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceX) from their index, then S&P is doing a poor job at what they claim to benchmark.
So it comes down to a difference of opinion between Standard and Poor's and tristanj. Go make the Tristanj500, include these companies, and make the same claim - "the actual best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". No one's stopping you.
And that approach famously hurt investors, the economy, and/or Amazon in what specific ways, exactly?
It meant that during this time, the S&P 500 index less accurately tracked the large-cap U.S. market.
It doesn't conflate anything. The inclusion rules weren't given to us by God, they were created by humans because they thought, rightfully, that people will be interested in that as a product ("prefer"). As the market changes, the product can be adjusted.
Lastly, there's no such a thing as a real "market proxy", except the whole market. If you scope any subset of it, you're making some inclusion and exclusion rules.
The S&P 500 is primarily a benchmark index, not a list of approved stocks to invest your 401k into. The GP is conflating the two. GP is claiming there's a subset of stocks that people don't want to invest in, and these should not be included in the S&P 500. Sure. But, per the S&P website, the S&P500 was created as a benchmark of U.S. large-cap equities. On their website, S&P advertises it as "the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities".
The S&P 500 index was created in 1957. It was created decades before the first index fund (by Vanguard), which copied the index in 1976.
The index is intended to follow the all of the largest large-cap U.S. equities, not pick and choose which ones to invest in. GP is arguing that many passive investors, who blindly follow the S&P500 index, don't want to invest in these upcoming unprofitable mega-caps. That's not how the index investing works, that's picking and choosing approved sectors of the market, which is active investing. If you want active investing, buy an active investing product, don't buy a fund that copies the benchmark index.
> The index is intended to follow the all of the largest large-cap U.S. equities, not pick and choose which ones to invest in.
This particular piece is incorrect. S&P has preexisting rules to pick and choose which large-cap equities to follow. They had a discussion about whether to drop those rules in order to become a more accurate benchmark, and they chose to stick with what they had been doing.
Regardless of what they say they were doing (or what they’re trying to do), the fact that they changed nothing means that what they had been doing is the same as what they are doing now, ie, picking and choosing stocks at the risk of diminishing their benchmark capabilities.
> what an index describes vs what investors prefer
What makes you think S&P 500 did not become the most popular index (instead of full market ones) because of the rigid entry criteria and and rules for weights.
Amongst other things the weighting is not even based on the market cap.
No, an index reflects a specifically defined subset of the market. The S&P 500 is very much not trying to include the entire stock market. There are more than 500 public companies...
Why do index inclusion rules exist in the first place….?
Go do a google search
I feel like a lot of people discussing here have no clue what they're talking about, they just have an opinion - which, combining both, most likely means it's an opinion they did not form themselves.
The rules for index inclusion absolutely make sense in many ways.
[dead]