The rules changed because it's unprecedented. It's not complicated. If your job is to "track the market" and there is this company that is worth $1+ trillion, you're not doing your job if you don't have exposure to this company.
replyJust be honest with yourself. The only reason you and others have an issue is because of politics. You don't like Musk for whatever reason and now you're very opinionated about the internal workings of index selection, when prior to reading about it in the NYT or something, you had no idea.
You don't care about the arcane byzantine process, you think rocket man is bad. I feel bad for people that get so easy manipulated. It's a hell of a way to live your life, waking up and reading corporate media to tell you what you should be angry about today
Ignoring the moral questions, the issue is that the old waiting period had a purpose. The market *isn't* getting an opportunity to decide here. There's a concern that these are a glorified pump & dump where initial investors extract all the value via the IPO and then the price craters once it's on the open market.
replyIt'd be nice to give the market a period of time to figure out what it *really* values these companies.
> moral questions
replyDo you hear yourself? This is about index inclusion.
I stated that because most of this thread is on that topic and specifically didn't want it involved for this. I'm sorry if you're too biased on the topic to take that into account.
replyDoesn’t matter that it’s unprecedented by value, Whole point of rules is confirm that value isn’t fake by letting the market stabilize after IPO and then if value is there, it’s added to the index. Yes, some money could be lost if value is there but reverse is true as well.
replyHang on, wasn't the market supposed to work it out? How come it's someone's job to fast-track inclusion? Isn't intervening directly in the market a communist policy? Are you a communist by any chance?
reply