← Back to context

Comment by tristanj

14 hours ago

No? Where did I say that?

The purpose of the S&P 500 is to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". That's direct from their website. I never dispute this.

I dispute the fact they claim to be the best benchmark of large-cap U.S. equities, yet have rules that (currently) exclude large-cap equities like SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic.

Sure, but then it comes down to your opinion vs the S&P board's opinion. I suspect (given that there's only been a few days of this getting into the public eye) that more people support the S&P's position vs their critics. But the trade flows will show if people get out of SPX (or SPY/VOO) in the coming days.

  • My issue is that so many people have forgotten the purpose of the S&P 500 index (i.e. it's a benchmark to reflect the large-cap U.S. equity market), and instead treat it as a list of approved companies they should blindly invest their 401ks into. These people do not want to invest their retirement funds into the upcoming IPOs of the overpriced & unprofitable (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI), and then are arguing the benchmark index should not include these companies.

    But at a fundamental level, the S&P500 index exists to track the market. It was created decades before passive investing even existed. These companies are all large enough to qualify as major members of the index. If S&P started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find uninvestable, then that's compromising the integrity of the index, and defeats the purpose of the index entirely.

    Reading this thread, there is so much confusion happening.

    • > If S&P started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find uninvestable, then that's compromising the integrity of the index, and defeats the purpose of the index entirely.

      But they haven't started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find investable: on the contrary you are demanding they start arbitrarily change a long established and pretty basic rule to arbitrarily include pre-profit companies. Criteria on non market cap factors including positive earnings and liquidity are defined explicitly on their website along with the subjective "best gauge", which is entirely compatible with the idea it's a better gauge of large market cap company performance if it only includes companies whose market cap is supported by having given the bare minimum indication their business model can be financially sustained, not the ventures whose potential is most hyped[1]

      [1]which obviously applies to OpenAI and Anthropic to a greater extent than SpaceX which actually achieved positive earnings as a private company before it pivoted to a model which bankrolls other Elon ventures and ambitions and needed to IPO as a result.

      3 replies →

    • > But at a fundamental level, the S&P500 index exists to track the market

      No, it exists to track a subset of the market based on specific criteria and weights. It's not even based on the market cap of included companies directly.

      'S&P Total Market Index' exists to track the market.

      > qualify as major members of the index

      Not based on the inclusion criteria.

      AND even if that were changed they wouldn't be near the top anyway, despite the trillion dollar valuations initially they wouldn't even be in the top 20 by weight.

      > and defeats the purpose of the index entirely.

      The index has operated based on specific rules defining inclusion criteria for a while. Can we just conclude that it did not become the most popular index despite never being designed to track the full market or be based directly on total market caps.

      After all it's the people advocating the inclusion of these companies are advocating an arbitrary modification to the rules just to get them in.

      1 reply →

> Where did I say [I want to turn S&P 500 to a total market index]?

Right here:

> Because the index needs accuracy. If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap and not included in the index, then the index is wrong right now.

If it's not a total US market index, then why is the index wrong to not include it?

Edit: and then again here:

> But at a fundamental level, the S&P500 index exists to track the market.