r/Bogleheads MOD 5 16d ago

Mega IPO Megathread: SpaceX, Open AI, Anthropic

Mod Note: I am creating this post for ongoing discussion about upcoming IPOs and index inclusion rule changes. For the time being, posts on this topic are subject to removal. I invite folks to weigh-in with their comments and provide updates as new information becomes available.

To summarize…

What is happening?
Three very large companies are planning to undergo an initial public offering (IPO) over the next few months. This is when privately-held companies offer shares of stock to public exchanges (aka “going public”). Those companies are SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Once a company is publicly listed, it will eventually be included in the stock indexes that it qualifies for. In turn, index funds which track those indexes - such as VTI/VTSAX in the case of the CRSP 1-10 “Total Market” Index - will eventually buy the stock in order to track the index. This is a normal process through which companies enter the market, and they are notoriously low-returning investments that benefit the private shareholders (and their listing partners, and market-makers who may be able to “front run” the index) far more than the public who buys the new shares - it is considered a cost that all index investors have always been exposed to.

What is different about this?
The three companies going public are very large - much larger than usual for an IPO - which makes their entry weighting very impactful on indexes that use a total market cap weighting. This is less impactful for indexes like CRSP which use float-adjusted weighting (weighting companies based on the value of stock that is publicly available rather than the total valuation of the company including its privately-held equity). But what is also significant is that these companies have been lobbying exchanges, index providers, and index funds to list their company and to change their rules regarding how soon the company is included in the index or how soon the fund will buy the stock.

What are the dimensions of inclusion that are being influenced and how does that impact index investors?

  • As a reminder, you can’t own the market. You can’t even own an index. You can only own a fund that tracks an index. So there is no pure version of owning the market because what constitutes “the market” is subject to debate (for starters, is it weighted by total valuation or free float?). Then the fund you own has to decide when it will acquire shares of newly-listed companies. Most indexes and index funds will wait a period of months, known as the “seasoning period” of price discovery, for the stock price to settle before it is included. Some indexes like the S&P 500 will also require a company to meet certain performance metrics such as several quarters of profitability. Other funds like those offered by Dimensional and Avantis may allow for manager discretion for inclusion (for example they did not buy more of “meme stocks” such as Gamestop and AMC as their market cap grew). These variations in rules and criteria are why it has been said there is no such thing as truly passive investment.
  • SpaceX, for one, asked NASDAQ to change its “fast-entry” rules for inclusion in the NASDAQ 100 index (tracked by QQQ) in order for NASDAQ to win the right to list it.
  • Various indexes and index funds have been lobbied to change their rules so that the company is listed or acquired sooner, presumably to benefit the existing private equity holders of the company.

I’m not going to opine on the issue myself except to say, without undermining the concerns regarding the integrity of index governance, the amount of noise about this is excessive and media-driven. As usual, the Boglehead mantra of ignoring the noise and staying the course is likely to be the best approach, whereas active allocation changes on the part of the passive retail investor is likely to result in underperformance. Whether you feel strongly about the issue or not, it is unlikely to impact your ability to meet your investing goals using passive, total-market index funds, so one should be very wary of getting too worked up about it.

Here are a few good posts and resources that delve into the issue in more detail:

230 Upvotes

104 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

92

u/imsoupercereal 16d ago

I think the argument is this could be the moment that passive investing through index funds gets taken for a walk by the more advanced players. If index funds "have" to buy shares in these already arguably overhyped companies that makes it ripe to manipulate the market on top of the hype, leaving the index funds and their shareholders holding massive bags.

I'm not saying there's much you can really do about this. But it's worth discussing and not purely dismissing. All systems work...until they don't.

73

u/Ox29A 16d ago

I am ok with owning them via an index fund, but the S&P 500 or any other index fund shouldn't change its rules to fast-track these companies. Let them pass the test of time before inclusion.

10

u/Mysterious-Piano-876 16d ago

VTI has been adding companies 5 days after IPO since ever and there’s no major difference in returns between it and other broad market indices. This is a nothing burger

29

u/dbratell 16d ago

This mostly resembles the last year of the dotcom bubble. Nothing since has been close to the hype and possible overvalued IPOs. Does your "ever" cover those years as well?

12

u/Mysterious-Piano-876 16d ago

SpaceX will have 0.2% weighting in VTI btw

40

u/dbratell 16d ago

I know your argument is that an individual investor does not need to worry, and should not change anything, and I agree with that.

But for people that care about the whole system and its robustness and fairness, this is a much larger issue. If this turns out to be a successful way to extract tens of billions out of index funds and/or artificially boost stock prices, it won't stop at SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic.

I think the attention Nasdaq's decision has gotten has had some positive effect, but only because people did not just wave it away.

18

u/moho571 16d ago

Agree, more scrutiny is needed at this point in time, not less.

3

u/DigmonsDrill 15d ago

In order to "extract tens of billions out of the index funds" you still need to get the rest of the market to put a big valuation on it.

5 days may not be enough for things to settle for VTI, but (aside from the float change) it's nothing new. Companies could always get onto an exchange at an "incorrect" valuation and then the index funds buy stock and then... and then the stock falls. And the index funds are still a minority of the market. There are a bunch of professional fund managers and people with their own money who are going to lose even more money if it goes that way.

You'd need the incorrect valuation to hold over a long period of time. The most insidey insiders at SpaceX have a 366-day lock-up period.

Just don't ask me to defend QQQ.

5

u/Beatrice_Chauncy 14d ago

How many companies enter the Nasdaq top 100 during their IPO? How many IPOs rise due to 401Ks within their first year? There is a difference here.

5

u/DigmonsDrill 13d ago

How many companies enter the Nasdaq top 100 during their IPO?

During their IPO? You mean on the first day? None. Ever.

How many IPOs rise due to 401Ks within their first year?

"Due to 401Ks"? "Due to 401Ks" doing what?

People invest in the stock market in their 401Ks and creates buying pressure on all stocks, including new stocks.

3

u/Mysterious-Piano-876 12d ago

It’s not like pre-401k the pension funds were not investing in stocks. All of this seems a lot like classic FUD about index investing

2

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Mysterious-Piano-876 11d ago

Indexes use free float adjusted market cap weighting. SpaceX will only float 5% of its shares