Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules?


>Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules?

They don't, while timing certainly benefits, and potentially was triggered by them and OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs, these rules are not specific to only apply to SpaceX.

FTSE Russell (Russell 1000/2000 etc.) Adopted "fast entry" for large IPOs. Eligible companies (investable market cap above Russell Top 500 cutoff) can join after 5 trading days (previously quarterly rebalances). Also eased float rules with carve-outs.

https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-rus...

Nasdaq (Nasdaq-100): Effective May 1, 2026, top ~40 market-cap companies can enter after 15 trading days (previously 3+ months). Adjusted low-float handling.

https://spotgamma.com/spacex-ipo-index-changes-spotgamma/

S&P Dow Jones (S&P 500): Reducing seasoning from 12 months to 6 months for megacaps and waiving the 4-quarter GAAP profitability requirement for large issuers.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/stock-indexes-are-contort...


> >Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules? They don't, while timing certainly benefits, and potentially was triggered by them

So the question remains, why do they warrant a rule change?


The answer remains, these rules do not specifically apply to only SpaceX, they apply to a range of companies that fit specific profiles. Timing happens to favor SpaceX, but will equally favor OpenAI, Anthropic and others within the same qualifiers.

The links above provide specifics as to the what's and the why.


The rules were changed with these 3 specific companies in mind. Stop weaseling about it.


And prior to that Elon did float the idea of IPOing on a non-NYC exchange, some Texas exchange. So a bit of a stick and some honey in the IPO fees and early access.


Because the people who can decide the rule change were bribed.


What is a Bribe? These indexes are all for profit companies with no obligation to you.


Steal from everyone and shove their faces in the dirt and the social contract breaks down further


What exactly do people think they are entitled to here? Free money guranteed with no risk? "gimmi gimmi gimmi" is not a social contract.


Yeah ultimately who wouldnt want that? (Strawman btw) The other extreme is, what exactly do the power hungry cretins want? Godlike worship form all other humans.

Reality will be whatever happens (capital and corportism wins through the monopoly of violence and the oligarchic capture)

One example of legible demands: Americademands.com

There are many people with many unmet needs. Everyone has played a part and continues to do so every day with their choices.


"Bought" is probably more correct, but honestly discussing semantics is just distracting from the main issue.


This is not a "why".


We all know they get paid by musk to load up on overvalued stocks so musk can get some cash from pension funds, the pay off a bit Russell’s for bending the rules. No one in their right mind would change rules to buy space x. What profit must have to compensate the valuation?


Because this time we did learn our lesson is almost 15 years ago? Its a good time to get out of the ride


Because twitter helped elect those who set the rules now.


> Why does SpaceX warrant a change of existing trading rules?

It does not, of course, but when oligarch corruption runs supreme, it is whatever they want.


[flagged]


Stop downvoting the only person that talks reason. We have reached a point where Musk and its tech pals must be stopped with all means possible, because government oversight, democratic processes, and the judicial process clearly do not apply to them anymore.


Sadly that's what happens when people have a "high" technological culture with absolutely zero political nor ethical education. They see all the cool gadgets while being completely blind to the political and social side effects


It's not only a question of _ethical_ education; the magical claims should also be refuted on rational grounds. Seems that's difficult, too.


This is a good point. It's like a strange form of selective magical thinking, or maybe it's really just a global psychosis. Tech people without a background in humanities (not academic, even just because of personal interest) are the most prone to this in my experience.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: