[nixon_why69]

If SpaceX followed the existing rules for index inclusion, after a year and profitable, nobody would have a problem.

They managed to maneuver "immediately and with no profit" and now they're tanking. That's bad, all of us with a 401k are losing money because of it. The people pointing this out are not the problem, SpaceX's (or I should say xAI's performance) is the problem.

[Lerc]

I'm inclined to think that it would have been better that they followed the existing rules for inclusion, but I don't see how this is a cause of performance or an expression of performance.

I understand that investments made during the short lived peak would have lost money and that some amount of 401k will have lost money, but only for the purchases of indexes made during the peak, that may be substantial however, I'm not sure how transitions that add or remove stocks from an index work, there must be some mechanism to soften the impacts of the change, but I'm not an expert in that field.

Is it your contention that if they had have followed the standard path for inclusion, and then went on to have a similar share performance, then you would be OK with it?