If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark.
Fast tracking means that the market likely wont have enough time to find the settled price (especially with the knowledge that passive funds are about to buy), and including a mispriced thing does not necessarily make the benchmark more accurate.
SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI are all giga-caps preparing to IPO, and none of them will be eligible for S&P inclusion because of the 12-month profitability requirement. At current valuations, all are part of the top 20 largest companies in the US. These companies may be excluded from the S&P500 for potentially years, until they reach 12 months of profitability.
And you are vastly overstating the effect of S&P500 fast track inclusion, the plan was to reduce it from 12 months to 6 months; which is more than enough time for the market to find a price.
> And you are vastly overstating the effect of S&P500 fast tracking, the plan was to reduce it from 12 months to 6 months; which is more than enough time for the market to find a price.
They might never reach 6 months of profitability, let alone 12 months.
The price markets find would still inevitably be influence by the knowledge that the demand would increase massively in a few months.
> inclusion criteria reward companies that prioritize profit over growth
Or stable and sustainable growth. Whatever else SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic valuations are price in extremely optimistic growth. But yeah, I do see a point that including adequately priced growth stocks could be a net benefit but of course accouting for the actual valuation would turn index funds into managed ones.
Thankfully its not an issue at all since there is Nasdaq 100.
What's the downside for the average pension holder with a 30 year horizon if they miss 6 months of Elon's newest scheme?
So what's the reason for fast entry specifically? If it's a significant portion of the market and will remain so, it doesn't need an accelerated entry. A benchmark should be conservative about new entrants so that it doesn't turn from a market benchmark to a trend/fad benchmark.
If time validates the valuations the entry will come in time, just like for previous entries.
Inclusion in as many indexes as possible is basically the definition of "too big to fail." It's the ultimate de-risk to know that if you fuck up badly enough the government will just give you everyone's money.
In the coming few months, multiple giga-cap companies (SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic) are all planning to IPO. These companies will likely never meet S&P profitability inclusion criteria for the next 5 years. These are not bad companies, but because the S&P inclusion criteria were written for old GAAP profitable companies, and not high-growth companies that invest their cashflow into company growth over profits. Excluding some of the most civilization changing companies from the benchmark means the benchmark is doing a terrible job.
Also the S&P criteria have been revised multiple times, it's not some sacred unchangeable document.
Here I once again agree with you in part, and disagree in part.
The S&P 500 should reflect the actual market. That is, the actual market of publicly-traded companies with legal requirements for transparent accounting and reasonable expectations of future positive cash flows.
As you wrote yourself (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48408363), "These [mega-cap IPO] companies will likely never meet S&P profitability inclusion criteria for the next 5 years."
At this point in time, I don't think it's reasonable to expect future positive cash flows from SpaceX or Anthropic. There are indeed some reasons to suspect that there won't be future positive cash flows from them.
The purpose of the S&P 500 is to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities". That's direct from their website. I never dispute this.
I dispute the fact they claim to be the best benchmark of large-cap U.S. equities, yet have rules that (currently) exclude large-cap equities like SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic.
But at a fundamental level, the S&P500 index exists to track the market. It was created decades before passive investing even existed. These companies are all large enough to qualify as major members of the index. If S&P started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find uninvestable, then that's compromising the integrity of the index, and defeats the purpose of the index entirely.
Reading this thread, there is so much confusion happening.
But they haven't started arbitrarily excluding parts of the market they find investable: on the contrary you are demanding they start arbitrarily change a long established and pretty basic rule to arbitrarily include pre-profit companies. Criteria on non market cap factors including positive earnings and liquidity are defined explicitly on their website along with the subjective "best gauge", which is entirely compatible with the idea it's a better gauge of large market cap company performance if it only includes companies whose market cap is supported by having given the bare minimum indication their business model can be financially sustained, not the ventures whose potential is most hyped[1]
[1]which obviously applies to OpenAI and Anthropic to a greater extent than SpaceX which actually achieved positive earnings as a private company before it pivoted to a model which bankrolls other Elon ventures and ambitions and needed to IPO as a result.
Amazon is infamous for having positive cash-flow yet running near-zero GAAP earnings for nearly two decades, because they reinvested absolutely all profits into the business. They were famously unprofitable, by choice of Jeff Bezos, and he created one of the most successful businesses ever. Under your logic, Amazon didn't belong in the index for most of its most important growth years. Only when it became GAAP profitable, it was allowed to enter.
SpaceX is cash-flow positive in its core launch business. OpenAI and Anthropic have tens of billions in revenue. These companies have found product-market-fit, and clearly demonstrate working business models. But neither of these companies satisfy one specific accounting metric that the S&P 500 requires for inclusion, so they get shafted.
The market has already priced these companies at giga-cap levels, these are some of the largest companies ever created, and that is a clear signal of something. The benchmark index should include these companies in some form, rather than gate them behind an antiquated metric.
Sure, some companies which vastly outspent competitors on growth became very successful profitable midcaps and joined the relevant indices when they did, but everyone else waited their turn (including the ones that never became profitable midcaps because the money tap was their moat)
The benchmark has much more use than just a list of stocks passive investors should blindly follow.
No, it exists to track a subset of the market based on specific criteria and weights. It's not even based on the market cap of included companies directly.
'S&P Total Market Index' exists to track the market.
> qualify as major members of the index
Not based on the inclusion criteria.
AND even if that were changed they wouldn't be near the top anyway, despite the trillion dollar valuations initially they wouldn't even be in the top 20 by weight.
> and defeats the purpose of the index entirely.
The index has operated based on specific rules defining inclusion criteria for a while. Can we just conclude that it did not become the most popular index despite never being designed to track the full market or be based directly on total market caps.
After all it's the people advocating the inclusion of these companies are advocating an arbitrary modification to the rules just to get them in.
On your claim that these companies "wouldn't be in the top 20 by weight": as I addressed to you other times in this thread, SpaceX float 1 year after IPO would be 50%, giving it an index weight of $800 billion. That places it easily in the top 20 large-cap U.S. companies. The article linked has a chart of forecast free float. Your claim is false.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/06/01/c...
On "arbitrary modification" of rules: every criterion in the index was itself added or revised at some point. The profitability requirement, the float threshold, the dual-class share exclusion then reinclusion. All these rules were modified. If all rule changes are "arbitrary," so are the existing rules. The only meaningful standard for evaluating a rule change is whether it better serves the index's stated purpose.
The stated purpose of the S&P500 is to be the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities." A company with a $1.75T market cap that ranks in the top 5 by size in the US is, by definition, large-cap. Excluding such a large company is contrary to the stated purpose of the index.
Right here:
> Because the index needs accuracy. If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap and not included in the index, then the index is wrong right now.
If it's not a total US market index, then why is the index wrong to not include it?
Edit: and then again here:
> But at a fundamental level, the S&P500 index exists to track the market.
The S&P 500 isn't either of those. It has a list of criteria for inclusion, one of which is profitability. They are sticking with that criteria. If you don't like it, sell your VOO and buy VTI instead.
1: It is essentially impossible to build an index that tracks the DJIA because, since it was done on pencil and paper, it isn't actually market-cap weighted, but is share price weighted, with a correction factor for each stock to account for splits, one stock replacing another, etc. Because of that nature, the weights of the DJIA change minute by minute, so someone attempting to track it would be subject to enormous error.
So you are saying that S&P 500 should be merged with Russell 2000 or rather just become a fully market index to be more "accurate". You do know that's something that exists already, having different indexes makes perfect sense and consumers can pick the ones they want based on their risk profile and preferences.
> most civilization changing companies from the benchmark
It took Google 2 years to get into S&P 500. For Microslop it was 8 years (!). So what's new?
I dispute this claim, because the (current) rules for S&P500 inclusion exclude companies like SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI. All of these companies are planning to IPO this year, and even if these companies maintain their present valuation for a year, none are eligible for S&P 500. Due to profitability requirements.
Yet these are all U.S. large-cap companies, among the top 20 largest in the U.S., and by S&P's description of the index, should be included. Not including these companies makes the index inaccurate.
> [Google and Microsoft took years go get into the index], so what's new?
Because SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI are $1T+ companies. Google and Microsoft were much smaller relative to the size of the index when they joined.
To be clear, S&P 500 relies on float, not total US Market Cap, and Space X will have a tiny float.
Even if it was included, SpaceX would not account for 1-2% of the S&P 500 (more like 0.1%), so even if we reason on the basis of a benchmark, it's not a meaningful difference.
SpaceX at its current valuation places it as one of the 5 largest companies by market cap in the US.
It's not S&P's fault this is happening.
There are indices for every little thematic and niche corner or strategy or idea, there are broad-as-possible indices, and there are indices with requirements like listed age and profitability.
This discussion is about if S&P500 actually achieves this benchmark, when it has (antiquated) rules that exclude large-cap US companies of the likes of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI.
No, it doesn't. At least, not the way you are probably defining it.
This sounds to me like you may be trying to use the index for something it's not really meant to be used for.
There is no way you can commit to holding big quantities of these methane bubble swamp gas companies and claim it isn't high risk. You'd have to be certain you could bail at the right moment, and that doing so would not obliterate the market through your giant market move… or commit to being a giant bubble of fraud that can never possibly blow up, forever.
These are not responsible ways to make vast sums of money, not because they're unethical but because they're gambles at very high stakes.
Your risk argument applies to actively managed funds, not to an index whose entire purpose is to represent the U.S. large-cap market.
It aspires to be that way. The market decides, and it hasn’t decided yet.
Am I missing something?
They won't stay gigacaps for 5 years if they don't become profitable. At their size, they can't just keep burning money at that scale under the public's eyes. The funding will divert from VC to shareholder equity and that will quickly see they don't stay gigacaps.
So this is a self correcting problem. Either they'll start making money and hit profitability targets or their market cap will diminish.
Over what time horizon should that number be computed? Every day? Every second? Every month/quarter?
It is not as simple as it seems.
If they're doomed, they're bad companies. You can make the argument they're not doomed, but that's a separate argument.
> Because the index needs accuracy. If a company is 1-2% of the total US market cap and not included in the index, then the index is wrong right now. The longer this company is not in the index, the longer this error compounds. In the coming few months, multiple giga-cap companies (SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic) are all planning to IPO.
I'm nodding vigorously on this part:
> These companies will likely never meet S&P profitability inclusion criteria for the next 5 years.
But here, you lose me…
> These are not bad companies, but because the S&P inclusion criteria were written for old GAAP profitable companies, and not high-growth companies that invest their cashflow into company growth over profits. Excluding some of the most civilization changing companies from the benchmark means the benchmark is doing a terrible job.
The point of investing in a total(ish) index of the public stock market is to invest in companies that have a reasonable expectation of net-positive future cash flows, justified in part by legally-mandated transparent reporting of their finances.
You can't just buy every publicly-traded stock though: for one thing, that would massively incentivize obvious scammers to do the bare minimum to get their stocks included, and drag the index down. Avoiding companies that are illiquid, non-transparent, or lacking in a clear track record is important. The SpaceX IPO bears more than a passing resemblance to a pump-and-dump scheme:
1. SpaceX's line of business* is tremendously unclear.
2. SpaceX doesn't actually need external capital to fund its operations.
3. SpaceX is floating only a tiny fraction of its putative market capitalization.
4. The main purpose of the IPO appears to be to allow insiders to cash out.
5. The way the lion's share of the IPO gets sold is if large index funds and pension-holding companies demand shares, and that only happens with the index-inclusion exceptions we're discussing here.
So, we agree that these "mega cap IPO" companies won't be profitable in the next 5 years. That's a huge period of time. How can public markets accurately value a company that isn't expected to be profitable for such a long period of time; there are so many things that could change their trajectory towards profitability, all the more so if we accept your premise that these companies are "civilization changing."
My conclusion is that it's perfectly fine, even beneficial, for indices like S&P 500 to avoid any special treatment for these companies. If SpaceX is clearly profitable 5 years from now, and has reached 50% free-float, that seems like a good time to start including it in the index.
---
* Nearly all of its revenue comes from launching satellites and running a satellite-based communications network, but much of its putative valuation comes from a hastily glommed-in also-ran AI company, and its association with a person who is famous for running other businesses and for political connections.
These companies want special exceptions. If you are an exception why should you be included in a benchmark? At best they should have an asterisk against their name like Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire if they are not following the same rules.
The profitability requirement is something made up by the S&P committee. If that rule ends up excluding trillions in market cap, the rule has defeated its own purpose. The 12 months of profitability requirement punishes high-growth companies that invest their FCF into growing the business vs taking profits.
It excludes companies like Amazon, which when ran by Bezos, was famously unprofitable and invested all free cash flow into growing the business and never turned a significant profit until >20 years after its founding.
> The profitability requirement is something made up by the S&P committee.
Those are both equally made up. In this case the rules are being changed for new entrants into the market such as SpaceX for the Nasdaq and other benchmarks that are allowing it for that none of the previous companies in said index were allowed to get in under.
And since it’s 15 days and I know most companies have lockout terms on the order of months for various levels of stock, I’m hesitant to believe this won’t modify the benchmarks beyond what has happened with previous inclusions.
`JumpCrisscross’s reply to one of my other comments on this thread in regards to the S&P being a committee based decision actually has had me pause to think, but your argument that the rules are arbitrary so it can’t be cheating like my baseball analogy fails to land.
And calling out how the rules are being changed for new entrants into the market such as SpaceX on Nasdaq proves my point. Index providers are already quietly admitting their criteria are too rigid.
Even S&P adjusted their rules to allow SpaceX into the index, although only for the total market index.
https://press.spglobal.com/2026-06-04-S-P-Dow-Jones-Indices-...
Claiming to have the "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities", yet having rules that exclude three of the top 20 largest U.S large-cap equities which make up ~5% of the total market cap of the U.S. stock market, means your benchmark is inaccurate by my book.
Create your own benchmark, and you can say it is a subset of "U.S. large-cap equities" and "best single gauge of U.S. large-cap equities" and let the market decide who does a better job.
> The S&P rules exist so the index can accurately reflect the market.
I personally believe that accurately reflecting a market involves not allowing cheating. I personally believe that getting to change the rules so that your IPO gets included before the general market can discern your value because of your connections to the benchmarks is cheating.
If you want to disagree with me on these points then please do so, but understand why I am claiming that this behavior is cheating.
I disagree with you because you are vastly exaggerating the scope and effects of the proposed rule change. S&P was going to decrease their minimum index inclusion time from 12 months to 6 months. 6 months is far more than enough time for the market to decide a fair price of an equity. The rule change never ended up happening, hence this post.
There is zero "cheating", I don't understand why you keep harping on that.
I disagree.
> The rule change never ended up happening, hence this post. There is zero "cheating", I don't understand why you keep harping on that.
The S&P ended up not making the change. Other benchmarks like the Nasdaq did, and they went way faster than 6 months. The Nasdaq specifically is going to allow these firms to be included after 15 days.
6 months from when? The IPO with its minimal float?
Define what that means? The weights are based on the value of shares available publicly, not market cap. So even if included SpaceX wouldn't even be in the top 20 and have a lower weight than Johson & Johson.
A lot of what people are saying here seems to be based on a misconception of what S&P 500 is supposed to be. Maybe it became the most popular index because of those rigid rules?
Where did you find that? Link?
I ask because common understanding is that the index is a stable tracker of the market, specifically to exclude volatility.
IOW, it reflects a smoothed market, not a point-in-time-with-daily-granularity market. I would really like to know where you read what you read.
All three companies are in the top 10 largest companies in the US by market cap, based on their current valuations. If these companies maintain their valuations over the next year, they'd still be ineligible under current rules. Because none of them are GAAP, they're all heavily reinvesting cash-flow into growth. These companies may be excluded from the S&P500 for potentially years, until they reach 12 months of profitability.
A benchmark of the U.S. stock market that excludes multiple of the 10 largest U.S. companies cannot be taken seriously.
https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/brochure/article/sp-500-br...
Post IPO they wouldn’t immediately be included. Every benchmark I am aware of doesn’t immediately include companies because there is a decent amount of volatility shortly after, especially due to all the internal stockholders who have restrictions on how quickly they can sell their stock and routinely dump their stock en masse the second those restrictions are lifted.
All the hubbub about benchmarks like Nasdaq right now is because they are altering their rules for these companies in particular and including them much earlier and before what are standard restrictions for employees to sell their stock.
The fear is that massive pension funds whose rules have them rebalance into these benchmarks will be buying up these stocks before that dump and the public’s retirement funds will be made into bagholders.
> Because none of them are GAAP, they're all heavily reinvesting cash-flow into growth. > A benchmark of the U.S. stock market that excludes multiple of the 10 largest U.S. companies cannot be taken seriously.
Ok, now I know not to take you seriously if you can recognize companies aren’t following GAAP but think it’s wrong to not treat them the same. I don’t even know if it’s true that they aren’t following GAAP, but everytime a company tries to argue why they aren’t following GAAP but instead their own magic formula that shows how successful they are, we get another Enron or Theranos.
Okay, but isn't that gauge measured over a specific timeframe? Since investors in this index have timeframes in years/decades not days, why would you expect the index to have a ranularity of days?
> That language implies they act as a benchmark, which I find questionable, given that based on their current eligibility requirements, it would exclude all three of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI.
Sure, but it excludes lots of companies. This specific index is risk-averse and caters to risk-averse investors; regardless of whether the company is SpaceX, Anthropic or OpenAI, rick-averse investors are going to shy away from any share that hasn't been traded long enough for price-discovery to kick in.
Do you think their valuations wouldn't fall dramatically if they were willing to float a significant proportion of their shares on the market anytime soon.
Based on previous IPOs, SpaceX will grow to ~40% float by 12 months, thus if it keeps its current valuation unchanged, will remain near the top 10 spot.
Amongst other thing weights are based on the value of shares that are traded publicly, not market cap.
If you change a benchmark whenever you think it'll be 'wrong', then it becomes a measure of the heuristics you use to predict what'll impact the benchmark rather than a benchmark in its own right.
The market decides what the large-cap U.S. equities are, not S&P. If S&P excludes some of the largest U.S. companies, which based on their current rules, will exclude all of Anthropic, SpaceX, and OpenAI; then they do a poor job reflecting the benchmark they claim to follow.
It's not S&P's fault that market conditions have changed.
Sure, but right now they don't know how the market will react, so changing the index rules before there's any data would be a measure of their heuristics (e.g. what they believe the market will do), not a measure of what the market is actually doing.
Given these large-cap companies currently represent ~5% of the U.S. stock market capitalization, it's difficult to justify why these companies are excluded from a large-cap index.
It's not outside the realms of possibility that the price of the shares post-launch could collapse if the market decides they're over-priced. Shares in companies have been known to settle on valuations far below the IPO price in the past. At that point they won't represent ~5% of the total. Changing the index rules immediately before finding out what's going to happen feels like putting the cart before the horse.
Your "wait and see" argument doesn't apply, because (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI) are excluded from the index for profitability reasons, not valuation reasons. These companies are deliberately reinvesting free-cash-flow into growth rather than booking GAAP profits. That's not going to change 6 months after IPO, and likely not for 3-5 years.
At the current pace, three of the ten largest US companies will not be included in the S&P 500, for probably 5 years after IPO.
The question still remains: should a benchmark that claims to represent large-cap US equities exclude companies that are demonstrably large-cap, just because they allocate their capital towards growing the company instead of generating profits?
Index criteria have also changed many times over the years, and they are changing again to deal with later stage companies coming to the market with already huge valuations.
All three companies are large enough by market cap ($1T+) to qualify for the S&P 500 benchmark, which claims to track the top 500 largest U.S. large-cap equities.
They have a point (not wanting to invest in overpriced equities), but if you don't like the companies that surface through passive investing then don't be a passive investor. It sounds like these people want active investing instead. If that's your position, just buy actively invested funds, not ruin the benchmark for everyone.
S&P is caught in a bind, because if they add these companies to the index, it would aggravate millions of passive investors.
Passive investors did not "backtrack", on the contrary their preference on this matter is that index rules should remain unchanged. Conversely, it seems fully consistent for a passive investor to criticize Nasdaq-100 for actively amending their rules to achieve a specific result.
So I find it rather unfair to conclude that "these people want active investing instead". As far as I know, these people are reacting to "active" decisions (such as Nasdaq-100's) and cheering actual passivity (such as S&P500's decision).
Now, one can argue that there are good and legitimate arguments for the inclusion rules to evolve, but by definition amending the rules is an active decision.
How can S&P justify excluding these three companies from an index of large-cap US companies, which when combined together, consist of 5% of the total market capitalization of entire stock market of the United States?
If the rules are not changed, then the S&P 500 will exclude a significant part of the US stock large-cap market, which defeats the entire purpose of it being a benchmark index.
If the S&P 500 was only used as a benchmark as it is originally intended, there will be no debate to adjust the rules to include these companies.
Yet because today there's trillions of dollars tied up to this benchmark, inclusion and exclusion becomes a financial issue.
S&P is under immense political pressure to not adjust their index because asset managers and the general populous don't actually want passive investing.
I was specifically not discussing whether S&P would be right to change the rules. As I said, there can be good and legitimate reasons for such change; I'm not disputing it.
The point of your previous comment was a critic against individual passive investors, accused of backtracking and betraying their own credo. This is what I was reacting to.
The unjustifiable thing is changing rules for them.
And even if it was added to the index immediately after IPO, index weighting in S&P is float weighted, SpaceX at IPO will have minimal float, and SpaceX would be ~0.125% of the index at IPO. Not much to matter.
Should S&P really adjust the rules for such a small portion of the index?
There are three IPOs coming this year that meet this criteria.
People were falling over themselves to invest in these AI companies and SpaceX not that long ago. 75B worth of SpaceX now has to get sold to IPO investors to hit the desired valuation. People say a lot (especially on the internet), but when the rubber meets the road we'll see what people do with their money.
The other bind the S&P is caught in is if these AI stocks IPO and then moonshot before they get added. The question will then be is the S&P an antiquated index? How do multiple trillion dollar companies in the market not end up in the S&P 500 sooner? No one thinks of that case because everyone is so sure they are all going to zero.
And if you need a second, different index to function as the true market benchmark because the S&P 500 no longer reflects the actual market, then you just agreed the S&P 500 is no longer an adequate benchmark. You just agreed with my point.
If you're comfortable with this notion of what the S&P does, then you ought to be comfortable with S&P applying the same methodology they've always used. There are other indexes you can reference if this particular sampling of the market isn't to your personal liking.
That's not true any more. Today we have multiple giga-caps (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI) vying to IPO, all of which potentially in the top 20 largest companies in the US market, all ineligible for S&P 500 inclusion because of the 12-month profitability rule.
You claim S&P can "apply the same methodology they've always used" but this is just factually wrong. The inclusion criteria are not sacred rules set in stone and S&P has rewrote them multiple times. For example, they banned dual-class share structures in 2017 to stop SNAP from joining the index, but reversed it in 2023 because they excluded too many companies. The rules get rewritten when the market changes, and it's clear the current market environment has changed.
Meanwhile, Nasdaq changed their rules to handle this situation. And S&P changed the inclusion criteria for the S&P Total Market Index so SpaceX would be included.
It's clear these inclusion rules are changing.
So Space X, OpenAI, Anthropic? Those are perfect examples.
It's unlikely their valuations could survive the IPO if their float wasn't extremely low.
> top 20 largest companies in the US market
You do know that S&P weights are based on the free float and not the market cap. So based on that SpaceX etc. will not be in the top 20. The total value of shares of Johnson & Johnson available on the public market will be much higher than that of SpaceX/etc. based on their current valuations.
You believe in brand power over numbers. Which is your prerogative. But it's not how the S&P is managed.
Well it was never intended to reflect the full "actual market".
> no longer an adequate benchmark
According to your definition it never was. However there were and are plenty of other index benchmarks which serve different purpose. Its just that S&P 500 managed to become the most popular one, why did it happen if it was always inherently flawed?
Like they didn't even add Microslop for 8 years...