There is a mad rush to get these IPOs out the door before the market sneezes.
The most recent change was the NASDAQ adopting the "fast change rule" which allows newly IPO'd companies to be listed in the index after only 15 days of trading. This rule was decided March 30, 2026 and only came into effect May 1, 2026.
The plan is to rapidly drive these prices up in the first 15 days, get the companies listed in the NASDAQ so funds are forced to purchase them at higher prices, then leave retirement accounts holding the bag.
Official justification, and other changes besides timeframe, e.g.:
> First, eligibility and company size. As multi‑class share structures have become more common, we now consider both listed and unlisted shares when determining eligibility and ranking. This allows the index to reflect a company's full economic size, while index weighting remains based solely on listed shares. This change affects who qualifies for inclusion, not how constituents are weighted.
* https://www.nasdaq.com/newsroom/nasdaq100-index-methodology-...
> A new method to calculate the market capitalization of companies to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the index. It involves adding listed stock and unlisted shares that are part of different share classes. Scrapping a rule that requires companies to float a minimum 10% of their shares. Companies with a low float will receive a lower weighting on the index. […]
* https://www.reuters.com/business/new-nasdaq-rules-include-fa...
I know SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI will probably be a drop in the bucket in terms of scale of these funds, (free float % etc). But, is it realistic to take the money out of index funds for a bit until the price of these new stocks come crashing eventually?
Likely the government would step in and inject cash directly into the markets to support them in such a scenario, because a broad-index stock market crash is the modern-day bank run. Retirees carry the bulk of their savings in the form of stocks; if it disappears, we'd likely face revolt.
Pretty sure most people just sit in the default requirement 20XX year funds, which heavily weight away from equities once people are retirement age.
In any case, I’m not sure that large enough numbers of ETF holders are sitting close enough “to the button” to hit sell in the event of a sharp downturn occurring over the space of even a week or two. And a lot of them would see it as an opportunity to DCA into the dip anyway.
However, most ETFs are also setup such that they can create or destroy shares in response to large shifts in demand. In this case, if enough people hit sell, the ETF itself will buy back shares and use the proceeds to sell the underlying assets, in a transaction that mechanically should be market-neutral and just propagate the supply/demand of the fund down to the individual stocks.
With Vanguard specifically, it's even more complicated, because VTI is not a separate ETF. It's a share class of the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. But the mechanism is largely the same - it has the same Authorized Participant system to mint new shares in case of high demand and redeem shares if everybody sells, and then passes these requests on to the underlying mutual fund, which can then piggyback on some of the tax efficiency benefits of the ETF.
The bottom is going to fall out of the market and it's going to take years to recover, I don't see any reason to suffer through that (and neither do my retirement-age relatives).
I'm after steady gains in an approximately efficient market, not a wildly unsustainable speculative boondoggle, thanks.
Somebody is going to have to explain the business case for Micron trading like it’s Google. We all know that fabs are a low-margin capital intensive business, right?
https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-ipo...
VTI in turn is the primary holding of most of Vanguard's Target Date retirement funds, which are widely held in 401ks.
Other indexes do not have these multipliers, and are much larger. The exposure for e.g. VTI is far, far less.
> CRSP indexes were also recently changed to better accommodate fast entry. New IPOs are eligible for CRSP's suite of indexes after five trading days, provided they pass the index's eligibility and investability screens. Previously, these screens included having at least 10% of shares qualifying as freely tradeable (known as float shares outstanding, or FSO). However, in April the methodology changed to allow stocks with either 10% FSO or approximately $3.3 billion in float-adjusted market capitalization to be eligible for index inclusion. The weighting of stocks in CRSP indexes is also based on free float, which should help address the investability challenges associated with thinly traded stocks.
* https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/some-indexes-accelerate-e...
I would have less of an issue if the inclusion in major indexes was delayed 6-12months but we are looking at inclusion within like 5 days for some of these indexes.
There's no way they could have done that without telling those investors the S-1 was prepared and awaiting their signature on the round before they hit Submit, so to speak.
> Stocks would become eligible for the index after six months rather than 12 months. The requirement to have a minimum Investable Weight Factor of 0.10 (roughly at least 10% of shares publicly floated) would be dropped. Companies would not be required to demonstrate profitability.
* https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/some-indexes-accelerate-e...
Though:
> Still, S&P Dow Jones reminds market participants that the proposed changes would apply only to index eligibility. The actual inclusion of new constituents remains entirely at the discretion of the index committee.
What they might do is trade bespoke instruments like a credit default swap on datacenter construction deals. Stays underneath the radar of politicians and tech insiders who are invested in a particular outcome.
Dumb question: why couldn't retirement accounts simply not purchase these?
Or one that just imposes a reasonable waiting period on adding newly-IPO’d listings.
If they really are a scam, their value will drop and they will be kicked out of the index. I still don’t understand how this means people will be “holding the bag”.
Additionally if you really believe that they are a scam and their price will fall you can just short the stock to completely neutralize their effect on your 401k.
Shorting (itself being a bad idea for regular investors) also breaks the mantra of passive investing, 401k or otherwise. It’s almost impossible to short right after IPO because of low float and high margin risk.
These mega IPOs are just using passive investors as backstop.
And there are plenty of ways to manipulate the price, such as issuing a low float to a hyper hyped stock..
And yes often a falling knife
This is pretty predictably wall street & federal regulators scamming normal people, retirement funds, etc, taking their fees and exit window at everyone else's expense
Where are you getting this timeline from?
- The initial pop is known to be manufactured by banks, so mostly benefits insiders, so good time to diversify. I'm conservative so sold to cover effective basis or whatever risk strategy :)
- The lockup period (6mo) is a similarly known artificial event, and studies show that
- Tech companies take ~8 quarters of prep for the IPO as they do financial engineering to transition from VC growth-at-all-costs to public $, and I'd expect the same for whatever nonsense they pulled to juice numbers to shake out. And that's not including oddballs like the Musk alternate universe, just normal tech companies covering up EBITDA and low interest rate madness.
- Tech is especially volatile as an industry, so even more skepticism here. Eg, the latest IPO I was involved in was a successful professional social network play, and chatgpt killed it.
Most/all of these are googleable things
Lock-up expiry is a real effect. Everything else you mention is Reddit stuff—trading the pop is practically a gamble.
Maybe the confusing point was my involvement is (discounted) pre-IPO shares, which almost by definition, is not an activity accessible to retail investors.
Meanwhile some of these companies are also lobbying to be able to only have to submit annual or biannual earnings reports, too.
Everyone is looking for multiple ways to leave the dumb money holding the bag.
It makes sense. They intend to track the market as it is.
Though, you can definitely make the case that the popularization of index funds has allowed their holders to essentially become patsies to hype IPOs.
Even with the CRSP indexes this was recently changed to make fast-tracking for these IPOs easier.[0]
> CRSP indexes were also recently changed to better accommodate fast entry . . . Previously, these screens included having at least 10% of shares qualifying as freely tradeable (known as float shares outstanding, or FSO). However, in April the methodology changed to allow stocks with either 10% FSO or approximately $3.3 billion in float-adjusted market capitalization to be eligible for index inclusion.
That change is notable because both Anthropic and SpaceX are planning to IPO at well under that old 10% requirement.[1] Neither would have qualified for fast-track inclusion before, but both are virtually guaranteed to clear the absolute valuation bar.
[0]https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/some-indexes-accelerate-e...
[1]https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/06/01/c...
The float requirement changes are directly due to these huge IPOs only placing small amounts of float on the market. Their goal seems to be tracking the market and making this change prevents them from excluding two notable companies from their indexes.
IIRC CRSP indexes are float-weighted so they aren't going to attempt buying a ton of these IPOs anyway due to that low float.
Again. Would I have made the change? No because placing that little float on the market isn't kosher IMO.
https://indexes.morningstar.com/insights/analysis/bltcd8e699...
These IPOs will have minuscule impact on the indexes initially. They will have a big impact if they can maintain share price in the first ranking/reconstitution after the lockup period expires.
I'd like to know how the CRSP/Morningstar folks feel about the interesting lock-up period rules that Elon has inserted into the SpaceX IPO and how that jives with their analysis.
This particular one, the CRSP total market - which Vanguard uses for VTI - has a “modern” methodology that is thought to be very good. Once every three months they re-rank the entire market and assign weights based on the market as of a particular point in time. Then, a randomly-chosen number of days later, the fund (Vanguard) begins a weeklong reconstitution process in which they buy and sell stocks to reflect the new weights. It is intentionally a weeklong process so that the market is setting prices and not Vanguard with the size of their orders.
The lockup expiry happens, the market reacts, the market is re-weighted, the index reconstitutes. In that order. The price of the stock has to survive the increased float to force the index fund to buy lots more shares.
CRSP has recently changed their rules:
> CRSP indexes were also recently changed to better accommodate fast entry. New IPOs are eligible for CRSP's suite of indexes after five trading days, provided they pass the index's eligibility and investability screens. Previously, these screens included having at least 10% of shares qualifying as freely tradeable (known as float shares outstanding, or FSO). However, in April the methodology changed to allow stocks with either 10% FSO or approximately $3.3 billion in float-adjusted market capitalization to be eligible for index inclusion. The weighting of stocks in CRSP indexes is also based on free float, which should help address the investability challenges associated with thinly traded stocks.
* https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/some-indexes-accelerate-e...
The extremely small float of these offerings will make index weights a rounding error.
Ask your LLM of choice to compare the likely value of shares to be held by index funds with the market cap of each of these companies.
Diversification doesn’t work if you throw in low quality investments you wouldn’t consider on their own. It just lowers returns.
Saying you as in any random person can protect themself from a group of dedicated experts who also have access to levers the common person can’t pull, is kind of not believable on its face.
There's maybe, at best, 1% of the country even aware that this might be a problem.
If you're really worried and want to be conservative tell the portal you want to retire in 2030. That will allocate your investments to something conservative and you'll be more protected from a downturn. On the other hand, you'll also be equally protected from an upswing.
/not a financial advisor
[1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/anthropics-profitability-swindle...
This is just to pump their numbers for the IPO, profitability is nowhere close until we see the real numbers.
The reason you are seeing a boom in IPOs versus 2023-25 is because a large portion of funds that are from the 2016-20 vintage are about to hit the 10 year mark when LPs need to be made whole.
This means you need to exit your investments either with an additional round, an acquisition, or (the most common approach for growth equity which is what series D and later rounds are) IPO.
So what could happen, any number of things. An obvious near term issue might be inflation increases dramatically in the US (on account of the oil shock), causing interest rates to increase - maybe dramatically - , which causes the stock market to retract. Also, the housing market is pretty much toast at the moment and an increase in interest rates might finish it off too causing a contraction there. So many ways things can break.
But honestly, I'll tell you after it happens and it will happen. Having lived through a few of these now when everyone tells you it's a sure thing and prices go up for ever you get an inkling you are near the pop.
Yes sure, but that statement contains zero information -- why do you believe it will end in a time short enough for the "market bubble" comments to even make sense?
External shocks -- sure of course. Inflation problems in US -- absolutely, it's a ticking time bomb with a debt crisis looming. Housing market I don't really know anything about but I'll take your word for it.
But all of this has been true for awhile, and could have been stated with equal veracity over the course of the last 5 years at least. Your beliefs shape your actions; so why does this belief shape actions any differently than it has earlier?
> ut honestly, I'll tell you after it happens and it will happen. Having lived through a few of these now when everyone tells you it's a sure thing and prices go up for ever you get an inkling you are near the pop.
Again totally true, I have also lived through them and expect more. But "these companies are IPO'ing because they know the market will pop" is kind of the thing that I was trying to address. For all the signals of market danger, there are plenty of optimistic signals all over the data. Growth is pretty robust across all sectors today.
Yes agreed. Coding is a pretty big industry though in and of itself. Same with healthcare, legal, etc etc etc. Of course we have zero model today that can seriously kill an industry, but if you look at (1) how good things are today (insanely fast and rapid adoption) and (2) robust performance trends from many complimentary sources, it's kind of inevitable and I haven't really heard a coherent steel man argument for why "killing whole industries" is somehow a far-fetched idea.
> still not profitable enough to make up for the costs of either training or the investments gifted away until it became profitable.
Regardless of the weeds of the economics today, you have a clearly valuable asset that at the very least already a must-have for enterprise and will become even more essential over time. There is token economics that either already do or will make sense. You will have some sort of marginal cost + profit margin that things will stabilize at. You can pay a premium for high quality frontier models. "But it costs more in R&D to fund this!" ok but then token costs will increase. Why is this some sort of death knell?
They don't only require "good enough to kill industries" (which is doubtful but certainly feasible), that's just step one. I think about it in terms of potential failure modes:
- if models don't reach worker-substitution levels, they fail
- if models reach that level, but it's too expensive to run and a worker's still cheaper, they fail
- if models reach that level, but the resulting tech is cheap enough to use, they fail (since open models can compete)
- If the models work but there's social rejection leading to regulation (due to mass unemployment for example), they fail
- if the models work but there are significant deal breakers (like a fundamental inability to keep them safeish to use) they fail.
So it's not really a single AI killer reason, it's more that the success case requires things to land in a very specific future where models work, and they're cheap enough, and expensive enough, and valuable enough, and exclusive enough, and safe enough, and...
Each "and" is a multiplier reducing their chances, and there's a ton or factors. Not imposible, but not where I'd put my money.
This also negates this whole like “you have to completely replace a human” fallacy. Why do you need to replace a human? Why not just increase the value each human brings you?
The model of open weights has been around for awhile. You have frontier labs releasing them. They are powerful and capable and track yet lag frontier models. Without massive government subsidies from probably China who did something similar with manufacturing I don’t get the idea of OSS somehow toppling the entire industry of frontier models. How would this happen? Did demand for frontier models drop after GPT-4? GPT-5? Because the cost of GPT-4 perf is maybe 100x cheaper today. You can always pay a premium for a better model (more data spend with proprietary data sources, more compute for training, more thinking budgets), and in the end, things will either go to a monopoly or prices will stabilize around the marginal costs.
Also safeguards are always important. They are thorny fundamental horrific problems and I can tell you there will be a hellscape of pain as people figure out the trivial ways to do bad things with some of the worst security practices we’ve seen. But I don’t get why this is a dealbreaker, we are using these systems everywhere and in loads bearing environments, today, and reliability and hallucination rates continue to increase / decrease.
0.15B is the full actively employed population of the US. 0.2 extra for the full EU, and we're barely making a third of the needed numbers, and this is assuming that the guy cleaning the street or the plumber will have a 100 bucks subscription just because - not to mention that a hundred bucks is 10-20% of median monthly income in many countries, even some EU ones.
You're asking for 3x Netflix subscribers at 4-10x Netflix price and with the whole world standardized at American prices (without American income).
Then add that this would very likely be a commodity market with competitors, so the billion, if existing, would be a market rather than a specific company's income.