upvote

points

by fourside12 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby frankacter12 hours ago|
next
[-]
>Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules?

They don't, while timing certainly benefits, and potentially was triggered by them and OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs, these rules are not specific to only apply to SpaceX.

FTSE Russell (Russell 1000/2000 etc.) Adopted "fast entry" for large IPOs. Eligible companies (investable market cap above Russell Top 500 cutoff) can join after 5 trading days (previously quarterly rebalances). Also eased float rules with carve-outs.

https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-rus...

Nasdaq (Nasdaq-100): Effective May 1, 2026, top ~40 market-cap companies can enter after 15 trading days (previously 3+ months). Adjusted low-float handling.

https://spotgamma.com/spacex-ipo-index-changes-spotgamma/

S&P Dow Jones (S&P 500): Reducing seasoning from 12 months to 6 months for megacaps and waiving the 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement for large issuers.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/stock-indexes-are-contort...

reply
upvoteby lostlogin10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> >Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules? They don't, while timing certainly benefits, and potentially was triggered by them

So the question remains, why do they warrant a rule change?

reply
upvoteby frankacter9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The answer remains, these rules do not specifically apply to only SpaceX, they apply to a range of companies that fit specific profiles. Timing happens to favor SpaceX, but will equally favor OpenAI, Anthropic and others within the same qualifiers.

The links above provide specifics as to the what's and the why.

reply
upvoteby baobabKoodaa8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The rules were changed with these 3 specific companies in mind. Stop weaseling about it.
reply
upvoteby lanstin3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And prior to that Elon did float the idea of IPOing on a non-NYC exchange, some Texas exchange. So a bit of a stick and some honey in the IPO fees and early access.
reply
upvoteby dboreham5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because the people who can decide the rule change were bribed.
reply
upvoteby s1artibartfast1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What is a Bribe? These indexes are all for profit companies with no obligation to you.
reply
upvoteby otikik1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"Bought" is probably more correct, but honestly discussing semantics is just distracting from the main issue.
reply
upvoteby gwerbin6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
This is not a "why".
reply
upvoteby skeptic_ai10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
We all know they get paid by musk to load up on overvalued stocks so musk can get some cash from pension funds, the pay off a bit Russell’s for bending the rules. No one in their right mind would change rules to buy space x. What profit must have to compensate the valuation?
reply
upvoteby 21asdffdsa1212 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Because this time we did learn our lesson is almost 15 years ago? Its a good time to get out of the ride
reply
upvoteby jjav9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules?

It does not, of course, but when oligarch corruption runs supreme, it is whatever they want.

reply
upvoteby rvba9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Because twitter helped elect those who set the rules now.
reply
upvoteby toasty22812 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby camillomiller11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Stop downvoting the only person that talks reason. We have reached a point where Musk and its tech pals must be stopped with all means possible, because government oversight, democratic processes, and the judicial process clearly do not apply to them anymore.
reply
upvoteby toasty22811 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sadly that's what happens when people have a "high" technological culture with absolutely zero political nor ethical education. They see all the cool gadgets while being completely blind to the political and social side effects
reply
upvoteby 3form11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not only a question of _ethical_ education; the magical claims should also be refuted on rational grounds. Seems that's difficult, too.
reply
upvoteby camillomiller11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This is a good point. It's like a strange form of selective magical thinking, or maybe it's really just a global psychosis. Tech people without a background in humanities (not academic, even just because of personal interest) are the most prone to this in my experience.
reply