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?

>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.

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.

Here's Matt Levine from Bloomberg saying something along the lines of "lol, obviously the indices have to do this, they'll look like fools if they don't because these will be the biggest companies on the market". He famously spends much of his time making fun of Musk, but seems to reject the idea of his influence here.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind...

Perhaps you can provide a single counterpoint? I can't find the columns you refer to.

Criticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg.

This is just silly. HN rewards comments people agree with, not "engagement".

Engagement farming works on social media platforms that reward engagement. Posting engagement bait in HN comments would just result in downvotes.

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.

Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory?

How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?

Why "unwilling"? That's a weird wording. S&P Dow Jones Indices decided to not go through with their rule change after it became a political issue. Obviously they were willing, the proposed rule change originated from them!

They became effective last month.

> Im just saying that its ironic the person I was replying to used the word "supposed" like it may malfunction.

I think you've simply misunderstood what "ironic" means.

Would approximately 30 years not have been a long enough time horizon to move on this, or what?

Who cares? Only people who are willing to give their DNA samples to meta and google can access those links anyway.

Of course, they'd also have to be willing to consume the content in the least efficient format imaginable.

I certainly am not. The only positive thing I have to say about those two is that SpaceX has cool rocketry tech.

>Why post anything online?

Typically people post things on HN for different reasons than they do on reddit or bsky, but your post seems like a much better fit for reddit or bsky. These types of factually nonsensical ideological signaling posts are popular on those websites, but are generally considered to be in poor form on this website.

Why did you feel the need to post this comment?

Why is that set of rules particularly good?

Why didn't it occur to someone without occurring to someone first?

>I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things

Because this is how the rulemaking processes for these indices have always worked?

Why are you suddenly making this argument now, and weren't complaining about previous rule changes?

Ah, so you'd like the passive broad market index which contains the 500 biggest good companies?

Do tell us if you find one I guess.

>I'm sorry but you're very naive. The rules were changed because it was advantageous to SpaceX and the richest man on Earth.

The rules were changed in the mid-90s because of a significant amount of big IPOs which did not have a reasonable path to profitability. That's not even close to the situation we're in right now. Both OpenAI and Anthropic are clearly solid businesses.

> We especially don't know at IPO time if the company is changing the structure of the market because it's too soon. And in fact, we won't know for a couple more weeks or even years; but by that time the price will have stabilized.

This is largely magical thinking. How many more weeks should I wait before $TSLA will stabilize?

>And as I write this comment, I've just read that they cancelled the changes[1]. Which completely proves your last sentence wrong.

Or maybe deranged Americans just turned this non-political issue into a political one, and S&P global thought this was not a hill worth literally getting shot in their office for? I don't know, that'd certainly be my primary concern in their place. Wouldn't it be yours?

It's still not thievery by any definition of the word.

It's perfectly legitimate for me to reject outright the idea that anything Nasdaq-100 does matters.

Why do you think anything that Nasdaq-100 does would matter?

That's the Nasdaq-100 lol who cares? Are you buying it? It is literally just an arbitrary bucket of stocks.

And how do you suppose these rules were originally introduced? Do you believe that the reasoning was particularly solid then, and is it directly applicable in the current situation?

>What? Absolutely not. They are doing what the President is telling them to do.

This is a paranoid delusion.

These rules were never on particularly solid ground, it's only natural to see them gone when you have significant upcoming IPOs changing the structure of the market. It is the job of these indices to keep up with that.

Tesla has been able to demonstrate significant growth which Toyota hasn't.

>Do you think that Kathie Woods trying to memestock Tesla to 2000USD/share is normal?

Frankly, I don't see why any sane adult would care enough to have an opinion.

>Or do you think that promises like 20 million cars / year within 2030 while having extremely limited amount of models were ever achievable?

I doubt the timeline was, I don't see why the model range would really be an issue.

>I feel that what this article is telling me is that passive funds are becoming active funds by way of manipulating the index itself.

It's wrong. They're undoing a previous manipulation and making the index more accurately reflect the market.

Pension funds are perfectly capable of switching to a different product if they don't want index funds that reflect the market. But they do want index funds that actually reflect the market, so they want these rule changes.

The management of those indices is just doing exactly what the vast majority of their customers want.

How exactly do those numbers add up in your mind?

At around $60B valuation sometime in 2018, how was TeslaQ spot on?

Are you maybe claiming that Tesla is lying in their current disclosures?