undefined

points

[-]

Seasoning and profitability rules are why S&P does not have as steep of a drawdown or as long as a recovery as Nasdaq over the last 30 years of market performance.

The S&P recovered from Dotcom bottom in ~7 years while the Nasdaq-100 took 15 years. Likewise Nasdaq took 3.5 years and the AI hype to recover back to its COVID highs in 2024 while S&P had the same recovery in about 2 years.

This is the downside to Nasdaq having higher returns in tech bull markets.

So the indices have a very different volatility profile by design, we should be happy to have the choice rather than have them all converge to the same product.

by londons_explore9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

My personal photography blogging business has a market cap of a trillion dollars too.

I have 1 trillion shares, and I sold 1 to a mate for a dollar.

Total company revenue is like 50 bucks a month and profits are nil.

Can I be in the S&P 500 too?

by matwood8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Anthropic has raised $130B. It's a bit more than selling a share to your mate for $1.

by Matl8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, it's like selling a share to a group of mates who hear from their mates that AI is hot so they want in. Still does nothing for the profit not being there to pay those investors back in any other way than via new investors (ie pension funds).

by dfedbeef5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There should be a word for paying investors with money from other investors

by codechicago2774 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Seems structurally sound, kind of like a pyramid.

by jfyi53 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Depends a lot on which end is pointing down.

by kmbfjr5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Is it when X is clearly engaging in creative financial engineering with a goal of maximizing their value.

by MikeNotThePope10 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It’s a list of the 500 largest profitable companies. Gotta make some bottom line $$$ to be included. At least that’s how it’s worked in the past.

by matwood9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It also used to require 15 railroads, but the market moved on. They held tight on the profitability requirement with TSLA and missed a huge part of the growth. They may continue to hold the line on that going forward. But, if the AI companies grow their market caps, it's going to be hard to point to the S&P 500 as representing the most significant companies in the US market when trillions in market cap end up no represented.

Of course this all becomes moot if all the companies crash out. I don't think enough people are asking what if these companies don't crash out though.

by tialaramex8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It becomes moot if even some of the companies crash. If you try to say it works if some of them crash because some of them didn't you actually get that XKCD "Nobody has won the US Presidential Election without..." silliness. "OK, the rule should be you have to be profitable OR have an HQ in a city with two vowels in its name".

Did it really used to require that you own "15 railroads" ?

by antasvara7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The commenter is likely referring to the original S&P 90, which mandated a certain number of stocks in different sectors. At the time those numbers were 50 industrials, 20 utilities, and 15 railroads. The breakdown shifted as the economy changed until the 80's when they did away with sector quotas in favor of rules closer to today (basing allocation on market cap).

Regardless, the S&P 500 also excludes a company like Microstrategy (the company that holds Bitcoin) from their index, had excluded Robinhood for a wile due to missing the profit requirements, and so on. It was never "meant" to cover the 500 largest companies by market cap, and has generally resisted pressure to change that.

by matwood2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Thank you for explaining. People talk about the S&P rules like they are written in stone. There's so much emotion around these exact companies and not the structural shifts that may cause the S&P to adjust its rules. For example, for a time they banned dual class share companies, which would have banned Google from entering today (they were grandfathered on). A ban which they reversed 5ish years later.

They have resisted that pressure historically, and remained fairly conservative. But if these companies stay in the 1T+ range, that's an amount of pressure they have not had in the past. You also missed one of the largest exclusions for a time for profit reasons that's also relevant here - TSLA.

by tialaramex5 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Oh! That explanation makes a lot more sense, thanks.