Investing Thread

[Jay Bee]

LOL

Following rupar on bluesky is big time BC behavior... but, that quote isn't correct / factual.

Hassett is dumb and his comments were as well, but disturbing to change a quote to 'make it worse'. Shameful.

[Uncle Rico]

Following rupar on bluesky is big time BC behavior... but, that quote isn't correct / factual.

Hassett is dumb and his comments were as well, but disturbing to change a quote to 'make it worse'. Shameful.

ban dis guy ^^

[Uncle Rico]

LOL

Tick tock, tick tock

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Following rupar on bluesky is big time BC behavior... but, that quote isn't correct / factual.

Hassett is dumb and his comments were as well, but disturbing to change a quote to 'make it worse'. Shameful.

It's a summary, Pickles, not a verbatim quote. There's nothing finer that being called a beta cuck by an incel accountant that likes to tell us about the outfits he wears to pickleball.

And yes, Hassett's point was that things are fine because credit card company CEOs are doing great.

We have an economy where the top 10%-20% are doing all the consumer spending while the remainder are forced to pull back -- unsustainable.

We have a stock market where 93% of the gains are due to AI spending -- unsustainable.

We have a jobs market that needs to grow by around 150,000 positions/month to breakeven and which has created a little over 100K/month average over the last 6 months -- unsustainable.

We have consumer sentiment hitting the lowest reading ever recorded in the 74-year history of the survey -- unsustainable.

But by all means, do your little pedantic thing where you complain that "technically, actually" while missing the point.

[Shaka Shart]

It's a summary, Pickles, not a verbatim quote. There's nothing finer that being called a beta cuck by an incel accountant that likes to tell us about the outfits he wears to pickleball.

And yes, Hassett's point was that things are fine because credit card company CEOs are doing great.

We have an economy where the top 10%-20% are doing all the consumer spending while the remainder are forced to pull back -- unsustainable.

We have a stock market where 93% of the gains are due to AI spending -- unsustainable.

We have a jobs market that needs to grow by around 150,000 positions/month to breakeven and which has created a little over 100K/month average over the last 6 months -- unsustainable.

We have consumer sentiment hitting the lowest reading ever recorded in the 74-year history of the survey -- unsustainable.

But by all means, do your little pedantic thing where you complain that "technically, actually" while missing the point.

Consider the source, might have meant "big cock" behavior? Let's wait for clarification during these trying times.

[jesmu84]

Eli5

Is this something to be actually worried about?

[jesmu84]

https://youtu.be/sYA-z0Y8WRQ?si=5Y8eMAY5FZrz0Rlm

?

[jesmu84]

https://www.newsweek.com/how-elon-musks-spacex-ipo-affect-401k-12025579

[Skatastrophy]

https://www.newsweek.com/how-elon-musks-spacex-ipo-affect-401k-12025579

Man, they buried the lede

> With only about 5 percent of SpaceX initially trading, he added that, "inside a broad index fund, it's a tiny piece, not a core holding."

[The Sultan]

Yeah, I have seen this spreading around how Elon is now going to control everyone's 401(k), and it really is nonsense. SpaceX will be a sliver of larger, more diverse index funds. And such index funds are but a portion of what 401(k)'s are invested with.

It is really the chicken-little type story that prevents people from talking about the important stuff.

[jesmu84]

Yeah, I have seen this spreading around how Elon is now going to control everyone's 401(k), and it really is nonsense. SpaceX will be a sliver of larger, more diverse index funds. And such index funds are but a portion of what 401(k)'s are invested with.

It is really the chicken-little type story that prevents people from talking about the important stuff.

So there's no actual fire here regarding the changes that have been made regarding SpaceX forced into index funds?

[The Sultan]

So there's no actual fire here regarding the changes that have been made regarding SpaceX forced into index funds?

I don't believe so no.

[Skatastrophy]

So there's no actual fire here regarding the changes that have been made regarding SpaceX forced into index funds?

I don't like that they made the change for SpaceX because it's a crapty biz, but...

Companies are staying private for WAY longer these days. You're seeing trillion-dollar market cap companies IPO these days, which is wild. Companies that are 10+ years old. I can see why they would discuss making changes to index fund entry requirements.

I'd still rather they wait a year post-IPO for acceptance. See a few 10-Qs come out, wait for the lockup period to expire, etcetera. So many companies pop, then dip post-IPO.

[MuggsyB]

Nm

[JWags85]

So there's no actual fire here regarding the changes that have been made regarding SpaceX forced into index funds?

I don't like that they made the change for SpaceX because it's a crapty biz, but...

Companies are staying private for WAY longer these days. You're seeing trillion-dollar market cap companies IPO these days, which is wild. Companies that are 10+ years old. I can see why they would discuss making changes to index fund entry requirements.

I'd still rather they wait a year post-IPO for acceptance. See a few 10-Qs come out, wait for the lockup period to expire, etcetera. So many companies pop, then dip post-IPO.

Right.  And this sort of stuff happens all the time.  There were a variety of rule changes that happened when Google split into GOOG and GOOGL.  If Cargill went public, you'd likely see something similar.  Stripe for that matter as well, IMO

And the whole point of indicies and broad index funds is the exposure/influence of singular names are limited.  The vast majority of fear mongering done around individual stock names or SpaceX is done by people with limited understand of publicly traded securities or what it actual entails for the general public.

There is plenty of legitimate criticism and cynicism towards the IPO (Ive expressed some of it myself despite not being a hater of the company and/or Musk), but this is not one of them.

[jesmu84]

Right.  And this sort of stuff happens all the time.  There were a variety of rule changes that happened when Google split into GOOG and GOOGL.  If Cargill went public, you'd likely see something similar.  Stripe for that matter as well, IMO

And the whole point of indicies and broad index funds is the exposure/influence of singular names are limited.  The vast majority of fear mongering done around individual stock names or SpaceX is done by people with limited understand of publicly traded securities or what it actual entails for the general public.

There is plenty of legitimate criticism and cynicism towards the IPO (Ive expressed some of it myself despite not being a hater of the company and/or Musk), but this is not one of them.

Personally, I wasn't aware of prior changes. Probably because I was too young earlier to know/care and probably because there were less headlines/media around those changes.

That said, were those prior changes for the better? Are these changes for the better?

[Shaka Shart]

I think it's more impactful that this IPO is happening around the same time they're eliminating the $25k day trader rule and this company as owns a large influential social media network.


VC's with insane amounts of capital in spaceX (hence the relevance of the company's oldness when IPOing) need their exit liquidity somehow!

[Skatastrophy]

Good news, S&P 5decided not to change their rules around IPOs for these megacaps.  https://press.spglobal.com/2026-06-04-S-P-Dow-Jones-Indices-Consultation-on-Treatment-of-MegaCap-Companies-Results

Still 12 month seasoning time (as it should be) before considering inclusion

IWF not waived (so companies like SpaceX only offering ~5% of their float to the public won't be included)

GAAP positive income requirement not waived (so companies need to be profitable for inclusion)

[rocky_warrior]

Good news, the S&P 500 decided not to change their rules around IPOs for these megacaps.

As expected.  A little extra detail.
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/asts-rklb-rdw-sidu-slip-020226655.html

SpaceX's S&P 500 Setback
S&P Dow Jones Indices said on Thursday that "no changes" would be made to the eligibility criteria for the S&P 500, S&P MidCap 400 and S&P SmallCap 600 after its consultation on the treatment of newly listed megacap firms. The index provider said that financial viability requirements, IPO seasoning periods, and minimum investable weight-factor rules would remain unchanged.

S&P said, "exceptions to the financial viability, seasoning, and IWF requirements should not be granted solely based on market capitalization." The ruling is a hurdle for SpaceX, which posted a $4.94 billion net loss in 2025. S&P 500 constituents must generate positive GAAP earnings in both the latest quarter and the trailing four quarters to qualify for inclusion.

While S&P rejected proposals that could have accelerated SpaceX's entry into the S&P 500, S&P MidCap 400, and S&P SmallCap 600, it did approve changes for its broader S&P Total Market Index, S&P Completion Index, and Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index. Under the revised rules, certain large IPOs can qualify for fast-track inclusion if they meet updated float-adjusted market cap requirements, allowing them to be added with five business days' notice.

[Skatastrophy]

As expected.  A little extra detail.
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/asts-rklb-rdw-sidu-slip-020226655.html

Good clarification. 

Most of my holdings are ITOT (am ETF tracking the S&P total US market index). So if SpaceX releases ~5% more of their shares to the public them I could automatically get some exposure to them. I'm fine with that. 

[JWags85]

Personally, I wasn't aware of prior changes. Probably because I was too young earlier to know/care and probably because there were less headlines/media around those changes.

That said, were those prior changes for the better? Are these changes for the better?

I mean better/worse for something like this is arbitrary, IMO.  There are some rules that were just made for structure and organization to markets/indicies/publicly traded companies/etc..., not as some explicit protection for investors, retail or otherwise.

Even if in the most cynical viewpoints, changing rules about index inclusion/admittance for SpaceX was being done to benefit VCs or big money invested in SpaceX already, I don't really view it being some harmful change.  As I said, these things constantly change as both private and public companies and markets change and the majority of similarly benign changes happen with less media scrutinized companies as the catalyst.  Even with players as controversial and polarizing as Musk and SpaceX, sometimes things can just be neutral in outcome, not a specific good or bad (provided you don't have an overwhelming bias that colors all actions of someone in the same way).

I think it's more impactful that this IPO is happening around the same time they're eliminating the $25k day trader rule and this company as owns a large influential social media network.

To be fair, it was probably well overdue to eliminate the day trading rule.  Even understanding the rational behind it and what is was supposed to protect/limit, in this day and age, there are so many brokers.  When I was at my option trading degeneracy peak, I had 4 different brokerages I regularly used and moved funds between specifically so I could easily get around it.  Many others do the same, its not the early 2000s anymore.

[MU82]

Market rout today - S&P down 2.65%, Nasdaq down 4.18%.

A decent jobs report, combined with continued inflation growth, makes a Fed rate hike more likely than a rate cut.

Also, a rotation seems to be underway the last couple of days. My utilities, health care and staples stocks performed well while tech got hammered.

Broadcom (AVGO), which had been an AI high-flyer, has lost 20%+ the last two days.

[Shaka Shart]

I mean better/worse for something like this is arbitrary, IMO.  There are some rules that were just made for structure and organization to markets/indicies/publicly traded companies/etc..., not as some explicit protection for investors, retail or otherwise.

Even if in the most cynical viewpoints, changing rules about index inclusion/admittance for SpaceX was being done to benefit VCs or big money invested in SpaceX already, I don't really view it being some harmful change.  As I said, these things constantly change as both private and public companies and markets change and the majority of similarly benign changes happen with less media scrutinized companies as the catalyst.  Even with players as controversial and polarizing as Musk and SpaceX, sometimes things can just be neutral in outcome, not a specific good or bad (provided you don't have an overwhelming bias that colors all actions of someone in the same way).

To be fair, it was probably well overdue to eliminate the day trading rule.  Even understanding the rational behind it and what is was supposed to protect/limit, in this day and age, there are so many brokers.  When I was at my option trading degeneracy peak, I had 4 different brokerages I regularly used and moved funds between specifically so I could easily get around it.  Many others do the same, its not the early 2000s anymore.

I think the elimination of the rule in a vacuum is fine. What I'm doubting is the timing and intent based on the upcoming year of IPOs