[JumpCrisscross]

> absolutely does balance interests - namely, its own - beyond simply being an academic vehicle for communication of a stable thesis

As a business, sure. As a committee, it’s still a deeply technical process. I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.

> and a nontrivial portion of the U.S. economy

This vastly overstates the amount of assets tied to the S&P 500. It’s a lot. But it’s a strong minority of equity exposures.

[lmm]

> I can say with a lot of confidence that optics weren’t considered in any of this, possibly to a fault.

How can you possibly know that? Do the people on that committee have a cast-iron tenure guarantee?

[JumpCrisscross]

> How can you possibly know that?

I know folks who have been on these. They don’t have tenure. But they’re basically emeritus. If S&P wanted to do something that would cause chaos, it would be fucking with those folks because they made a decision that looks bad.

[lovich]

It’s a public benchmark fund that has much of its value based on its decisions being publicly stable and publicly consistent.

Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided? If your statement is accurate it sounds like moving out of such a fund would be prudent. I feel like it’s not accurate since they are sticking to their guns and not changing the rules to benefit oligarchs like Musk such as Nasdaq is doing.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Who would want to invest in a benchmark fund with arcane(the literal term as opposed to mundane) rules that were privately decided?

There are lots of rules-based funds. S&P is transparently committee based. It’s why dual-class new entrants are banned, but Google and Berkshire are grandfathered in.

There is a genuine debate on rules versus committees in the index world. But S&P has stuck to its guns as a bastion of the latter. And it works. Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.

[maest]

> Everyone picking the S&P 500 over its competitors chooses that.

I'm fairly confident most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default. And that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation.

[JumpCrisscross]

> most people deciding to allocate to s&p trackers have no idea about rules-based vs committee-based governance. They just pick the default

A lot of retail goes into S&P lookalikes. And at the end of the day, they've consistently picked one over the other.

> that default can quickly change if the S&P starts making weird/unpopular decisions in a highly publicized situation

Unlikely. Nobody has dropped NASDAQ 100-tracking funds. If anything, these guys will see long-term net inflows due to this move. S&P probably would have if they’d changed rules—this was an econometric, not business, decision.

[mandevil]

Just a FYI, S&P rolled back the dual-class rule. It was in place from 2017 to 2023.

[btown]

Doesn't https://advisors.vanguard.com/investments/products/vfiax/van... have $1.7T in AUM alone? That single fund is already a significant part of the $20.8T in AUM across index funds.

https://www.ici.org/research/stats/combined_active_index_042...

[snypher]

There's overlap between strong minority and nontrivial, so not sure how it can be vastly overstated. Do you have numbers you can add to this, or any explanation of equity exposure etc?