[l23k4]

It is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say, so the burden of proof to prove otherwise must fall on you.

And anyway, the rule change is truly the only reasonable way they can react to the current situation.

It will absolutely be untenable to keep Anthropic , OpenAI and SpaceX off the S&P 500 with them also being the highest valued companies on the market.

[bombcar]

If I were the DJI I would have proposed the change, simply so that we could get some outrage flowing and shut it down.

Without the proposal, you'd have outrage out the other side that it wasn't included (especially if it shoots off like, well, a rocket).

[l23k4]

But why? Won't that just make it far more awkward when they're inevitably forced to go through with very similar changes in the end?

[bombcar]

Because now they can say "we considered it, there was strong opposition, and we didn't change the rules and what happened happened".

And if they miss out on part of a runup, and the companies later enter the index, what is the long term "harm" if any??

But if they're "right" it makes the competing indices look weak.

[nullstyle]

Quatsch. The indices will say whatever benefits their power the most, regardless of truth. The fact that they are bending now to pressure is proof enough for me.

We live in an age proving that valuation is just a manipulation.

This whole story is just like the BaM situation: the people with more money feel emboldened to pull every dastardly trick they can to tilt the table towards their pockets, away from the honest participants. SpaceX and the AI IPOs are just the latest and most grand scheme. I’m guessing you were surprised by the collapse of lehman brothers back in the day.

[l23k4]

So you don't actually have any evidence to support your claim? This just seems like a matter of faith at this point, that's fine.

[lostlogin]

I don’t think you have either?

It’s and interesting point. I’ve done a bit of searching and am also empty handed.

[l23k4]

>I don’t think you have either?

I don't know how I could? The indices have already provided their reasoning for these rule changes, but that's just summarily rejected by the conspiracy-minded.

To laymen this appears to be a grand conspiracy. Rules are being changed to accommodate big companies, that's usually bad.

To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli. The indices exist to reflect the market, these IPOs are going to be big enough that the 90s-era rules will/would result in untenable divergence.

[trhway]

the explanation what i heard from some financial analytics is that small float with large valuation would create a dog pile/short squeeze type situation among the funds trying to reflect the SpaceX valuation vs. the whole index valuation - 1.8T vs 70T ratio would be 50B of float vs. 2T where is total of index funds is much larger than 2T, and that is even without accounting for retail investors and other, non-index funds, who will buy a part of float too thus reducing further the float available to the index funds. Such squeeze situation would lead to stock price rise leading to valuation rise, ....

>To people in the financial industry, it's fait accompli.

of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them.

>to reflect the market

the described above squeeze is hardly a way to reflect the market

[l23k4]

>of course, they've engineered a new way of making even more money. The pile of passive money in ver low expenses index funds obviously have been a fat target for them.

Are you planning to substantiate this conspiracy theory in any way?

[worik]

> It will absolutely be untenable to keep Anthropic , OpenAI and SpaceX off the S&P 500 with them also being the highest valued companies on the market.

Following the rules of passive indexes is the whole point.

Mēh! The passive indexes (biased to a momentum strategy, so not really passive - they are too big) may have had their day. The blatantly corrupt move to change the rules was clearly an attempt to game them, and even with out the rule change they will squeeze themselves through the rule gate with financial engineering

This will always be the trend in finance, the powerful manipulate the system to their benefit, the rest of us do what we can to survive....

[l23k4]

>Following the rules of passive indexes is the whole point.

The whole point of these indices is to represent the market, the rules are unsustainable if they cause too big of a divergence from that goal.

> The blatantly corrupt move to change the rules

Why do you think nobody in the financial press is reporting on this blatant corruption? Is it because this conspiracy also includes all of the news media?

[matwood]

There’s too much anti AI/Elon emotion to have discussions around this issue at this point. HN is usually pretty good about rational discussions, but AI has really triggered people on both sides.

For example, yesterday I posted a link to the Nasdaq faq about the change, and my comment was flagged hah!

[l23k4]

Yep, almost all of my comments questioning this conspiracy theory have been flagged, with many being set [dead] by them moderators.

[worik]

> Why do you think nobody in the financial press is reporting on this blatant corruption?

They are

[l23k4]

Why is nobody able to link this reporting? Google doesn't find it either.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say

No it isn’t. They put rules out for consultation and declined adopting them. Nobody was responding to political anything. If management had a say, they would have probably pushed to adopt the changes.

Then a bunch of influencers turned the whole thing into a conspiracy theory and a shocking number of smart people bought the pitch and churned their retirement accounts.