[cheschire]

Buying back shares it sold at a lower price, right? The lifecycle of a share starts with the transfer of money to a company in exchange for a share. It ends with a buy back, ideally at a higher price.

But still, at the beginning it is a transfer into the company’s coffers.

[whall6]

The life cycle of a share starts at IPO. The S&P 500 does not add companies to its index until at least 12 months after IPO.

Also, Meta issued 180 MM new shares at $38/share at IPO. That’s ~$7 Bn. Which is less than 1/4th of what they repurchased just last year.

Between share repurchases and dividends, S&P 500 companies are putting money into the markets, not pulling it out.

[PNewling]

> The S&P 500 does not add companies to its index until at least 12 months after IPO.

Unless you're SpaceX [0], then the rules have exceptions...

[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/elon-musks...

[andsoitis]

Markets can and do change rules from time to time. This rule change would apply to any new listing, not just SpaceX.

[tony69]

Yes, but it was done for spacex and it’s crooked

[andsoitis]

Why is it crooked? Do you understand why the rules are being changed?

[tony69]

I’m not sure what the justification is, but I assume it’s some flavor of “so index fund holders don’t miss out on returns”. It’s crooked because index inclusion drives massive flows at any price. SpaceX understands this and with so much money on the table probably exerted influence (maybe the big AI players contributed too). Passive funds don’t care about price (quite the opposite, they reward higher market caps in a feedback loop). But with an IPO, you’re supposed to let the market have some time to find the right price. Not to mention the changes related to profitability rules etc.