Passive index investors about to get hit by NASDAQ consultation paper with 5x multiplier?

Am I understanding the seriousness of this post?

“In February, Nasdaq published a “consultation” proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course.

Just like it’s pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq.

Here’s what they’re proposing:

A new “Fast Entry” rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days.

No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet.

Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they’re eligible for major index inclusion.

That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks.

And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing.

But the Fast Entry rule isn’t even the worst part…

The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier.

Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company’s shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap.

That’s common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy.

Nasdaq’s current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold.

Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely.

Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%.

Do the math on SpaceX:

If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading.

Under Nasdaq’s proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company.

But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market.

You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float.

QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives.

Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates.

On Day 15.

With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it.”

7 Likes

While I could be cynical and say they are looking to get some suckers, I think it is just marketing, they don’t want to be left out of the big SpaceX hype.

But, if true, they are also putting aside the seriousness of their index and risking alienating their existing user base. Sounds like one more reason to consider the US as not a serious place to invest in to me (but I’m biased in that regard).

4 Likes

SP500 is also considering changing the rules for SpaceX.

To be fair it’s a hard one, in both cases (early/late inclusion) index arbitrage actors will have a field day. Index investing didn’t have in mind mega IPO with a fresh company shooting to the top of market cap weighted index directly.

4 Likes

This already seems like a major concern to me. I also wouldn’t consider investing into Nasdaq-100 to be fully passive investing, considering the somewhat arbitrary stock selection.

Indices such as MSCI World/ACWI and FTSE All-World should be much less affected due to the free-float weighting and larger (and less arbitrary) investment universe. $87.5 billion float would be about 0.1% of FTSE All-World. Still an issue in principle, but the effect should be much smaller.

1 Like

Do we have any clue if FTSE and CRSP indices are planning any rules changes wrt spacex?

Do they need changes? They both have fast track entry process (msci does too but might have stricter free float requirement).

AFAIU they do still have free float requirements (and do not use a multiplier as proposed for nasdaq here), no? Just hoping there is no weirdness there to be introduced.

Yes minimum 5% free float (and it’s free float adjusted market cap afaiu).

I believe if S&P and Nasdaq ETFs push more money into SpaceX, it would help sustain its valuation.

1 Like

The S&P500 or SpaceX? :stuck_out_tongue:

This sounds like…engineered exit liquidity on a…cosmic scale (pun intended).

2 Likes

VT and chill suddenly became less chill, all it seems to take for the supposed gurus (and dividend irrelevance fedoras) is a 2% drop or a blatant grift :slight_smile:

4 Likes

Hello fellow Mustachians!

I just watched this video and I wanted to understand your opinion on it and how this might affect my VIAC 3a investments? I currently run 5 “Global 100” ETFs since almost 10 years and getting concerned about the “dynamics” of US…the Global 100 Portfolios currently have 51% exposure to “Industrieländer” of which ~ 32% are in “UBS US - Pension Fund” (ISIN CH0030849712) - ie. around 16% of my 3rd Pillar is part of a fund potentially getting rug pulled?

Thoughts? Am I misunderstanding the premise? Thanks in advance for your insights!

Unless you invest in a nasdaq ETF you shouldn’t care about it.

Decent index are free float weighted and will work as they’re supposed to (the free float will grow over months).

(Nasdaq ETFs have much more stupid rules)

5 Likes

I haven’t watched the video, I suspect it is about free float market cap.

SpaceX will have only something like 5-10% of its shares available on the open market. The rest will be held by insiders. Most indexes use free float market capitalisation. That is that they only take into account the value of the 5-10% of the shares held by the public to calculate the weighting of the company in the index.

My understanding is that the Nasdaq indexes don’t use free float market capitalisation weighting but instead count all of the shares outstanding (the full 100%) for the weighting of the company in the index, with adjustments aiming at not having mega cap companies hoard all of the weight.

With only 5% shares on the open markets, supply is pretty limited. If demand is high, this can push the price of a share higher, increasing the market cap of the company. My expectation of the video content is that it worries that SpaceX will then be a very big part of the Nasdaq indexes, that passive investors will have to buy.

That doesn’t apply to indexes using free float market cap weighting. It may make SpaceX an overvalued company but it should still only represent a very small percentage of the funds you hold, so that you shouldn’t bear a big brunt if it corrects.

The US stocks in the VIAC 3a global strategies follow the MSCI USA Index, which applies a free float market cap weighting methodology. On a purely financial level, you will be fine and are not exposed to the Nasdaq shenanigans (you are somewhat exposed in that the share price fluctuations do apply but it is a very very small effect for a single company like SpaceX).

If, like me, you are just disgusted by the financial engineering going on and want to avoid exposure to SpaceX or other companies for ideological reasons, you would have to adjust your strategy and forgo parts of the market to do so. In this case, you would have to forgo US stocks in your VIAC 3a account. This brings in added complexity.

If you are after simplicity and getting market returns day in and day out, I would not bother with it and keep living my merry life. The financial engineering behind SpaceX IPO’s has a huge impact for SpaceX and Elon Musk. It is negligible for free float market cap weighted passive investors.

2 Likes

So for fast tracked inclusion into VT, there’s also the consideration of Voting Rights. [1] At least 5% of all voting rights need to be unrestricted (as in free float).

There are two share classes (A and B, the latter carrying 10x votes) and Musk owns 85.1% of all votes (via his 93% ownership of class B shares). Other directors named in the S-1 [2] own 1.2%, with 13.7% of votes unaccounted for in public filings.

There would have to be a sizable number of new Class A shares issued to have it fast-tracked for inclusion into the index underlying VT, FTSE Global All Cap Index.

Personally I’d be more worried about index inclusion after lockup expiration and insider sales.

[1] https://www.lseg.com/content/dam/ftse-russell/en_us/documents/ground-rules/ftse-global-equity-index-series-ground-rules.pdf page 12

[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000162828026036936/spaceexplorationtechnologi.htm

2 Likes