[Pooge]

What? Absolutely not. They are doing what the President is telling them to do.

The customers of indexes are providers of funds (Vanguard, BlackRock, ...). In turn, people like you and me are clients of those providers.

Indexes are changing the rules thanks to lobbies by the world's richest people so they can get even richer by dumping their overvalued stocks.

If you are not a SpaceX investor, you are losing money. Including pension funds.

[l23k4]

>What? Absolutely not. They are doing what the President is telling them to do.

This is a paranoid delusion.

These rules were never on particularly solid ground, it's only natural to see them gone when you have significant upcoming IPOs changing the structure of the market. It is the job of these indices to keep up with that.

[Pooge]

I'm sorry but you're very naive. The rules were changed because it was advantageous to SpaceX and the richest man on Earth.

Those rules were implemented to protect the index from being skewed when an IPO happens because the IPO is exactly the moment where the stock may be overvalued and very volatile (compared to all the other stocks that are in the index). We especially don't know at IPO time if the company is changing the structure of the market because it's too soon. And in fact, we won't know for a couple more weeks or even years; but by that time the price will have stabilized.

The index is supposed to be slow at rebalancing to minimize costs and make it practical for providers as well.

And as I write this comment, I've just read that they cancelled the changes[1]. Which completely proves your last sentence wrong.

[1]: https://press.spglobal.com/2026-06-04-S-P-Dow-Jones-Indices-...

[l23k4]

>I'm sorry but you're very naive. The rules were changed because it was advantageous to SpaceX and the richest man on Earth.

The rules were changed in the mid-90s because of a significant amount of big IPOs which did not have a reasonable path to profitability. That's not even close to the situation we're in right now. Both OpenAI and Anthropic are clearly solid businesses.

> We especially don't know at IPO time if the company is changing the structure of the market because it's too soon. And in fact, we won't know for a couple more weeks or even years; but by that time the price will have stabilized.

This is largely magical thinking. How many more weeks should I wait before $TSLA will stabilize?

>And as I write this comment, I've just read that they cancelled the changes[1]. Which completely proves your last sentence wrong.

Or maybe deranged Americans just turned this non-political issue into a political one, and S&P global thought this was not a hill worth literally getting shot in their office for? I don't know, that'd certainly be my primary concern in their place. Wouldn't it be yours?

[Pooge]

> The rules were changed in the mid-90s because of a significant amount of big IPOs which did not have a reasonable path to profitability.

Could you give me a link to read up on that?

> Both OpenAI and Anthropic are clearly solid businesses

Maybe you're an insider so you have more information than me; I'm not so I don't know.

> How many more weeks should I wait before $TSLA will stabilize?

TSLA is mature enough since their IPO to be included in an index.

> Or maybe deranged Americans just turned this non-political issue into a political one, and S&P global thought this was not a hill worth literally getting shot in their office for?

No, it's probably because major fund providers and other market participants (including retail) saw through the subterfuge. Indexes and providers and retail investors have nothing to gain from the former proposed changes. It was very obviously a play by SpaceX to force passive investors to buy into the stock, therefore pumping the price up.