156 pointsby imichael4 hours ago9 comments
  • femto7 minutes ago
    Why can't an index fund compute and track their own objective index, thus ignoring any distortion introduced by the Nasdaq?
  • kleene_op2 hours ago
    Does this only affect money invested after June 15th, or does this also devalues money invested before this date? If you don't invest anymore money in the index during the interim rebalancing period refered to by the author, then one should be alright. Right? It's really expensive to get all your marbles out, I'd rather not do it if I don't have to.
    • konaraddi2 hours ago
      QQQ rebalances on a schedule. Existing holders are affected because the fund’s underlying composition will change.
      • stanislavban hour ago
        This. If you are invested in a Nasdaq index (e.g. QQQ), it will have to sell some of the tail and buy the necessary weighted percentage of Snake Oil. Apart from you buying snake oil, you will realise some extra capital gains/loses due to the rebalancing.
      • sethops1an hour ago
        And to be clear it's not just QQQ; countless retirement target date funds have a Nasdaq component. That's the real target of this grift, your retirement fund.
  • siavosh13 minutes ago
    Anyone know if vanguards VTI is immune from such practices?
  • mcs52803 hours ago
    It's a small club and you ain't in it
  • tartoran2 hours ago
    Obligatory video from Patrick Boyle

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rS3fTbC7TE

    Edit: someone posted it on HN, there's already a thread for it : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47388640

  • paultopia2 hours ago
    Uh, can someone explain this to me like I’m 5, but somehow still have money invested in index funds? It makes me sound like my invested-in-vanguard-total-market-indexes-and-fidelity-target-date-funds money is going to be mechanically dumped into Elon Stock because of FinanceWord FinanceWord FinanceWord gobbledgook FinanceWord but is that the correct reading?
    • nighthawk45436 minutes ago
      Index funds divvy up money into stocks, in this case weighted by market cap. More market cap = bigger slice of the pie.

      SpaceX wants to instantly jump near the top of the pie - capturing tons of the money in index funds for itself, and also therefore taking it away from other companies stocks.

      SpaceX (and others like OpenAI, Anthropic)'s private market cap valuation is so high that if they IPO they would instantly jump to the top of the entire stock market. This has never really happened before. By the rules, funds would have to suddenly start buying a huge weight of SpaceX stock - and sell NVDA/AAPL/GOOGL/everything else - to achieve the new balance.

      Normally there are rules on how fast a new company can get included in the index. You usually have to be on the market for some time, demonstrate consistently high valuation, etc etc. SpaceX wants to skirt this and jump straight onto the index (near the top).

      Further, the rules also usually weight you according to how much of your stock is actually on the market. If you only sell 5% of your company, you only get weighted at 5% of your market cap. SpaceX wants a bonus multiplier so even though they'll only make 5% of their stock available for sale, they want to be weighted in the index as if it was say 15% available. Aka over-bought / boosted price.

      This creates both mechanical forced buying and artificially constrained supply. Likely sending the price to the moon, not based on fundamentals but based on gaming the index rules.

      Then, once insider lock-up periods are over in a few months, SpaceX can choose to release even more shares - say jumping the available shares from 5% to 100% - which will unleash their full market cap (now even further inflated) and thus capturing even more of the money in index funds.

      Index funds being 'passive' guarantees there will be buyers for SpaceX employees and executives to sell their shares to, likely at exorbitantly over-valued prices. At which point they wash their hands of the valuation and your retirement account becomes the new bag holder who has to worry about whether SpaceX is actually worth what you just paid for it.

    • vmbman hour ago
      If you are an index investor, it is probably not worth your time and energy to make any drastic changes because of this particular incident. Space X will comprise a small percentage of the indexes in question, and any impact on your portfolio will likely be imperceptible. And if your holdings are in a taxable account, the tax hit from selling are probably not worth it.

      Longer term, folks should be aware that Wall Street has fully caught on to the normalization of index investing and have been looking at ways to use passive investors as exit liquidity. Private equity and private credit are the two recent high profile examples. There was an executive order recently that directed the federal government to consider allowing these asset classes into 401k's. And these sectors have been increasingly making there way into the public markets in various ways (which is ironic considering the name of the asset class). Same story with crypto.

      In the past, most passive index investors worried about fees and portfolio composition and diversity. But moving forward it is probably worth thinking about index governance as well. For example the S&P500 has a one year waiting period before an public company can be considered.

    • konaraddi2 hours ago
      My understanding: It depends on what index the fund is tracking. QQQ tracks the Nasdaq-100 so QQQ is vulnerable. VT tracks the FTSE Global All Cap Index so VT is not directly affected by Nasdaq’s choices but is still exposed to some extent because spacex is likely going to be in the aforementioned FTSE index, Nasdaq’s actions impact spacex’s market cap, and thus Nasdaq’s actions impact spacex’s position in the aforementioned FTSE index which in turn affects VT’s composition (to a smaller extent than QQQ’s).

      EDIT: to be clear the above are just examples with two funds (QQQ and VT)

      • mpercival5312 hours ago
        FTSE Russell is proposing changes similar to Nasdaq, with the consultation ending 18 March.
      • the__alchemistan hour ago
        VIFAX?
        • konaraddi5 minutes ago
          I think it’d be a rinse and repeat of the line of thinking for VT but more exposure than VT.

          From VIFAX fund’s description on vanguard:

          > The fund offers exposure to 500 of the largest U.S. companies

    • tptacek2 hours ago
      The claim is that Nasdaq is going to artificially admit SpaceX to the Nasdaq-100, an index they control, in order to win their business away from NYSE. If the index you invest in is derived from the Nasdaq-100, that's problematic.

      It seems kind of likely that SpaceX would make it into most of the major indices on the merits, relatively quickly (the S&P has a 1-year waiting period), just based on its likely size and liquidity.

      • an hour ago
        undefined
    • willis9362 hours ago
      Yeah the ETFs have sold off their trust quite a bit in the past year. No longer can anyone with skin in the game trust the stewardship of the fiduciaries. They are simply showing that they are bad at what they do and people should not entrust their future to them.

      Pull your money out of the target date funds and into a responsible mix of indexes.

      • the_biotan hour ago
        I think you have it backwards. Many (most?) funds underperform the market as a whole, showing they really don't know anything. ETFs that mirror indexes exist exactly because of this... their managers don't make trades based on their insight of the market, they are contractually obligated to mirror the index, period.

        The article shows that at least some ETFs -- NASDAQ index funds -- will now be undermined by this SpaceX scam using those contractual obligations to extract money from ETF investors.

    • skybrian2 hours ago
      Good question. I don't know, but I'll point out that different indexes have different rules, so someone would need to check if a change to the rules for Nasdaq indexes affects the others you mention. (Perhaps they follow what Nasdaq does somehow?)
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • readthenotes13 hours ago
    Two things I learned in this article:

    1. Garage 2. Buy SpaceX on Day 1.

    • zug_zug3 hours ago
      I learned: sell all my Nasdaq etfs prior to June.
      • tartoran2 hours ago
        The problem is that it's very hard to avoid if you have a pension plan, and millions of Americans will subsidize Elon Musk without knowing. This is really messed up.
    • Groxx3 hours ago
      Garage -> Gavage?
      • tartoran2 hours ago
        Yes, probably a typo.

        gavage American [guh-vahzh, ga-vazh] / gəˈvɑʒ, gaˈvaʒ /

        forced feeding, as by a flexible tube and a force pump.

  • yieldcrvan hour ago
    Transparent enough, just trade it based on the new weightings and price direction of the underlying SpaceX

    The index will have cheaper options contracts than SpaceX while disproportionately subject to the same volatility

    That’s the biggest and most egalitarian wealth creation engine in history, aside from some government moves this administration with the currency and commodities

    This is only controversial because

    A) you’re too married to indexing and told too many people to do it

    B) you consider indexing to be sacrosanct for some reason, and consider inclusion to be a reward when it means nothing. this is a symptom of prosperity preaching

  • paseante2 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • 0xsn3k2 hours ago
      this account is obviously an LLM...
      • deauxan hour ago
        The comment is indeed, the account as a whole hasnt seemed to be in the past.
        • InitialLastName31 minutes ago
          There's a big difference between the first chunk of this account's history and their posting over the last ~2 hours. Either they suddenly adopted a very different and, frankly, dramatically more literate-but-vapid writing style, or they're running an LLM responder.

          On the one hand:

          > 11 comments in the last two hours, each 3-4 3-sentence paragraphs expounding essentially very polished summaries of the text with no added context

          On the other:

          > paseante 74 days ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: Efficient method to capture carbon dioxide from th...

          > That's the first thing I thought when I read the title. Hey we have already efficient systems for eliminating CO2 from the athmosphere: trees!. The joke tells itself.

          > It seems like we have not yet done the full circle, but we are close.

    • nly2 hours ago
      Simple solution is to not invest in funds that track NASDAQ indices.

      There are plenty of other funds out there that track other indices from other providers.

      • mlyle2 hours ago
        Diversifying away from NASDAQ-tracking index as a component of my investments will be extremely tax costly. Maybe more costly than the gavage (as the NASDAQ/SpaceX folks seem to be betting).

        And most people won't even be informed that this is happening.

        Large markets need to be run in the public interest...

      • donkyrfan hour ago
        This is not a simple solution if one purchased QQQ a decade or two ago.