SpaceX IPO Sparks Debate on Index Fund Passive Investment Rules

icon MarsBit
Share
Share IconShare IconShare IconShare IconShare IconShare IconCopy
AI summary iconSummary

expand icon
The upcoming SpaceX IPO has triggered on-chain news regarding potential changes to passive investment rules for index funds. Nasdaq and other major index providers have updated their methodologies to allow high-valuation, pre-profit companies like SpaceX to enter major indices more quickly. This could direct over $30 trillion in passive funds to purchase SpaceX shares at IPO pricing, bypassing traditional valuation and liquidity checks. Some observers are drawing parallels between this trend and evolving cryptocurrency rules surrounding asset inclusion and market access.

Everything You’ve Been Told About Index Funds Is No Longer True: Phil Bak

Original author: Quoth the Raven

Peggy

Let’s talk about what’s happening in the capital markets, especially with index funds. But first, we need to understand what a “fall from grace” actually looks like—and for that, we need to start with Pete Rose.

Pete Rose wasn't just a baseball star—he embodied what every baseball fan imagined a baseball star to be: covered in dirt, playing with relentless effort, tough, and tenacious. Later, he became a player-manager, serving as the face of his team and a symbol of the sport itself.

But during this process, he made some mistakes—mistakes that turned out to be the most serious of his era: betting on the sport he played. Today, this seems ironic, as sports betting is now available on everyone’s phone and bombards viewers with ads across every sporting event. But back then, people still placed greater value on old-fashioned ideals like “integrity.” As a result, the league decided to make an example of Pete Rose.

Fifteen years later, broken Pete Rose had to borrow his last shred of fame to pay the bills, appearing at WrestleMania. Soon, he found himself standing in the ring facing a 400-pound Samoan wrestler, Rikishi.

I must warn you: proceed with caution. Rikishi has a signature move called the "stinkface"—as its name suggests, it’s... distinctive: Rikishi traps his opponent in the corner of the ring, sits down, turns around, and slowly backs his massive buttocks into the opponent’s face, sending the crowd into a frenzy.

You can check for yourself. It’s as bad as it sounds.

When Rikishi rubs his enormous buttocks against Pete Rose’s face, if you look closely, you’ll see something unusual: a certain look in Pete’s eyes—a mixture of sorrow and acceptance. It’s the gaze of someone who has come to realize how far they’ve fallen. His eyes no longer resist or rage against his current reality; instead, they grow distant, weary, and resigned to this new, heartbreaking truth.

John Bogle is no longer with us. I can only imagine the expression he would wear if he saw what is happening to index funds today. I can only imagine it would be the same sorrowful gaze—the same dazed, weary acceptance—that his great invention, once standing so high, is now descending into the sewer of fraud.

If you’ve been reading my articles since early on—especially when I wrote more about stocks and ETFs—you can probably guess what I’m about to say. But if you’re a new reader, let me first bring you up to speed. Here’s how things actually unfolded:

Low-cost investing was once a powerful narrative that positioned ordinary investors against the greed of Wall Street;

This narrative drives capital inflows into passive index funds;

Capital inflows drove performance, causing the market-cap-weighted factor—essentially a combination of the reverse size factor and momentum factor—to outperform all other factors;

Outperforming performance attracts more capital inflow, thus closing the cycle;

Options trading volume has surpassed spot stock trading volume, and derivatives linked to the largest indices are now driving prices more deeply than the index funds themselves;

That's it—valuation no longer matters to the market.

All of this has brought us to today—and to this Rikishi moment we are now facing: the SpaceX IPO.

First, Nasdaq amended the Nasdaq-100 Index rules to make it easier and faster for newly listed mega-cap companies like SpaceX to enter the index. These rule changes appear to weaken traditional index standards around free-float shares, liquidity, investability, and replicability. Time will tell whether this is ultimately beneficial or detrimental to investors. But one thing is certain: it strongly favors Nasdaq in its efforts to secure SpaceX as its primary listing venue.

You can certainly say it’s insane to allocate stocks based on major exchanges. And you’d be absolutely right. I’ve attended those pitch meetings—why a company chooses to list on the NYSE versus Nasdaq has nothing to do with the relative investment value of S&P or QQQ. We’re talking about two completely disconnected worlds.

For example, people think they’re buying tech stocks when they invest in the Nasdaq-100, but it includes Costco, Walmart, and a host of other non-tech companies. They might assume they’re getting Oracle or Uber too, but they aren’t—because those companies chose to list on the NYSE, a decision that has nothing to do with your investment goals. As a result, you miss out on them.

This is insane.

But it has always been this way—and now it’s worse. Because this time, it’s not just about where companies list. All index providers have altered their index methodologies solely to force companies like SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI into their indexes. If valuations still matter, the price levels at which index fund investors will buy these companies will make you sick.

According to Hedgeye, the damage is as follows:

Rule changes surrounding the SpaceX IPO:

The index provider waived the profitability requirement and reduced the post-listing observation period from 90 days to 5 days.

This will force over $30 trillion in passive 401(k) and retirement funds to buy SpaceX at IPO valuation.

Bloomberg Intelligence estimates that S&P 500 funds must absorb 19% of SpaceX's outstanding shares within six months.

The Russell 1000 and Nasdaq-100 funds will account for 24%.

The rules originally designed to protect passive investors:

Since 2002, the S&P 500 has required companies to have a 12-month trading history and to have reported GAAP profitability for four consecutive quarters. Both of these requirements are now waived.

Nasdaq has shortened its inclusion window from 90 trading days to 15 trading days.

FTSE Russell has shortened it to five trading days.

These three benchmark indices are now designed to purchase SpaceX at its IPO pricing level.

This is the moment. The “jumping the shark” moment for index funds. This is the moment when the great Pete Rose stared in despair at Rikishi’s massive buttocks.

Investors are no longer just outsourcing stock selection; they’ve also outsourced asset allocation, IPO discipline, liquidity judgment, valuation discipline, listing location decisions, and prudence. They’ve handed over all active control in their trading to index committees—committees that sway with the wind.

Indices are no longer neutral. They are making active bets—specifically on the most overvalued companies, at the peak of their valuations.

Active management has never had a better entry point. Passive indexing has never been more important. A major shift is finally on the horizon.

Everything you’ve heard in the past about “smart but boring” index funds no longer holds true.

Leave while you still can. Choose your own methodology, select your own factors, pick your own stocks, and reclaim control of your portfolio.

Original link

Disclaimer: The information on this page may have been obtained from third parties and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of KuCoin. This content is provided for general informational purposes only, without any representation or warranty of any kind, nor shall it be construed as financial or investment advice. KuCoin shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any outcomes resulting from the use of this information. Investments in digital assets can be risky. Please carefully evaluate the risks of a product and your risk tolerance based on your own financial circumstances. For more information, please refer to our Terms of Use and Risk Disclosure.