Comment by JumpCrisscross
19 hours ago
> S&P wasn't fait accompli, but the NASDAQ 100 was
Sure. Nobody was properly making this distinction in social media, including on HN. Particularly with respect to the differences in scale and purpose between the NASDAQ 100 and S&P 500.
The fact that a fast track was even considered is controversial IMHO. People flipping out, especially if their retirement is tied up with those indices, is to be expected. No one wants to be a bag holder for billionaire insiders.
Every rule change is controversial. This one was less so than almost any prior one I can remember–the dual-class one in 2017 (later reversed) generated far more real press. This one was mostly an influencer thing.
You're making a similar mistake treating it as fait accompli that SpaceX will tank between IPO and some future date, but that isn't a given either.
It's more about sidestepping the waves of market manipulation.
sure it's not a given, but I certainly am not confident enough that it won't happen to bet my money in it, which I would automatically be doing if it was admitted to the SP500
2 replies →
SpaceX is not worth $1 trillion, when most of that valuation is based on xAI being worth far more then their already dominant position in the space launch business.
I would't be surprised if the freak-out reaction to SpaceX being on the nasdaq100 and even being considered for the s&p500 was a strong factor in S&P saying no; if so than the histrionics were worth it.
> would't be surprised if the freak-out reaction to SpaceX being on the nasdaq100 and even being considered for the s&p500 was a strong factor in S&P saying no
I would. I know some of the people. And NASDAQ 100-tracking funds have seen inflows, not outflows, as a result of the flip.
S&P management wanted the flip. The econometricians said no, because they're that sort of folk. The influencers get to entertain and drive some fraction of listeners to churn, which I guess keeps the ecosystem fed through commissions and management fees.