upvote
Do you think it’s more or less likely that they will make the same change as the other benchmarks?
reply
> Do you think it’s more or less likely that they will make the same change as the other benchmarks?

S&P has historically been more conservative. My personal guess is they won't adopt all of the proposals.

reply
But you think they’ll adopt some of these proposals that are in the benefit of these companies IPOing at the expense of large funds?
reply

    > at the expense of large funds
I don't understand what you wrote. It sounds like you are saying this is a zero-sum game of winners and losers -- SpaceX "wins" and the tracking funds "lose". The ETFs and mutual funds that track these indices don't care what stocks are added or removed. They have one job: To track the index as closely as possible with the lowest cost.
reply
SpaceX’s IPO is set at wildly inflated prices. The company just isn’t that profitable, it lacks significant opportunities for growth, worse its facing significant competition in the near future. Trying to short it when index funds are forced to buy vast quantities of stock is a losing proposition, but those indexes are definitely getting hosed over the next decade.

At least that’s the general consensus, nobody would be worried about index funds buying stock if it looked like a good long term investment. Really the expectation that the stock price would tank is why there’s been a push to change the rules.

reply
Not true, they collectively lose investors if they become less attractive. Probably not an overnight thing, but if people are told that index funds are not attractive anymore then increasingly fewer people will put their money in them vs a hand-picked portfolio.
reply
But also to follow the existing rules set in place to protect passive investors, no?
reply
SpaceX will not "win". Its current investors will win by selling at IPO and in following months at inflated prices to unwilling buyers.
reply
If the S&P adopt those rules would there be any index fund that is S&P without the new rules?
reply
An index fund like the S&P500 is not the S&P500. It is stuck competing in a world of low margin pain.

I sincerely hope S&P and Nasdaq rollback the SpaceX-targeted changes, but unfortunately I seriously doubt it.

reply
Dimensional funds have a type of index factor funds that roughly track these indices without strict adherence to S&Ps inclusion rules. That's the only one I'm aware of.
reply
IZZ, or in other words fuck em.
reply
> they’ll adopt some of these proposals that are in the benefit of these companies IPOing at the expense of large funds?

Yes. And I see the argument for it. It’s hard to claim you represent the market if trillions of dollars are outside it for no reason other than newness or capital-structure weirdness. (I agree with excluding unprofitable companies.)

reply
Then why are these changes being made for these companies IPOs?
reply
Moving the goalposts of an index fund for one or 3 IPOs puts the reputation of S&P and Nasdaq in question. The comments in this thread make that clear.
reply
> Moving the goalposts of an index fund for one or 3 IPOs puts the reputation of S&P and Nasdaq in question. The comments in this thread make that clear

These indices have lots of competition. NASDAQ 100 lost basically zero money when they made these changes. If S&P makes them, I'm doubtful anyone will react either.

When S&P was still taking public comment, I put the link on HN. It got like two upvotes. This isn't something materially care about as much as like to get angry about on the internet.

reply
Why do you consider HN upvotes to be more indicative of "materially caring" than HN comments?

Perhaps you got unlucky with the timing of your post, or title didn't grab attention in the /new feed compared to this post's. For all we know, whether or not they saw your HN submission, every critical commenter here may have also submitted a public comment to S&P.

reply
deleted
reply
There's quite a bit of money in, say, the cannabis business; do they have any representation in indices of note?
reply
You clearly have no clue of the marketcap of these cannibas companies.

The minimum marketcap for S&P 500 is ~23 Billion

The highest current marketcap of cannibas companiy is $3 Billion

reply
What was the point of your comment saying

> S&P has not finalized a rule change yet.

If you were responding to someone saying the benchmark indexes were changing their own rules?

Like the actual intent of the comment and not just observing reality like someone saying the sky is blue.

reply
Are you actually optimistic?
reply
> Are you actually optimistic?

Not particularly. When I posted the request for comment to HN it got crickets [1].

Not enough people care about this. And the "safe" option has kind of shifted with the other index providers having moved first. That said, there were a lot of proposals and I'm not expecting all of them to be adopted.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324

reply
There's no obviously correct answer here.
reply
Not changing rules would seem quite obvious and correct at the same time.
reply
A: posted a fact

B: but what about your emotions

Very glad to see HN stereotype being upended :)

reply
A: This has not happened yet. B: Are you actually optimistic that it won't?

That's a request for an opinion, not an emotion.

reply