[JumpCrisscross]

Most assets don’t follow those funds. And NASDAQ 100 is explicitly tech focused, I support them making the change.

The doomsaying was around most retirement assets. Which don’t follow any single index. But to the extent they do, follow the S&P 500.

The market wasn’t pricing in any rebalancing. Commenters were screaming bloody murder about it. In the middle, I’m sure some numpties generated trading and management fees by switching target funds.

[throw0101a]

> The doomsaying was around most retirement assets. Which don’t follow any single index. But to the extent they do, follow the S&P 500.

Yes, which is why the news that S&P isn't changing their rules is kind of notable. Vanguard's S&P 500, $VOO, just hit US$ 1 trillion AUM; the next biggest, $IVV, is just over $800B; $SPY is just under $800B.

* https://etfdb.com/compare/market-cap/

* https://www.tradingview.com/markets/etfs/funds-largest/

That's about USD 2.5T.

[willis936]

As they should have. The rules were in flight with a layover time measured in days on assets that are managed on the timescale of years. There was a legitimate reason to act urgently. It's easy to make claims in hindsight but the information on hand it was 100% the right call to protect your investments.

This is not misinformation. Misinformation is saying the proposed rule change and their proximity to trillion dollar IPOs introduced no risk. Please do not spread such misinformation.

[lokar]

VTI uses crsp and is very large

[throw0101a]

Fourth largest, after three S&P 500 ETFs:

* https://etfdb.com/compare/market-cap/

[lokar]

and I think they have a non-ETF branch as a mutual fund that is larger