Is spaceX absolutely vital for the US national security through Starlink as well as the launch of military satellites? Yes, and as a matter of fact this is also true for NATO allies, Japan, Taiwan, SK, etc in any future conflict for at least the next 5 to 10 years, just as it has been for the past 4 years in Ukraine. In addition to land based infrastructure that can be targeted in any future war -undersea cables are now under constant threat around the world (Baltic Sea, Straight of Hormuz, Red Sea, South China Sea, and the Taiwan Straight, etc). Which leaves Starlink as the last resort option should shit hit the fan.

Note the tide has changed considerably in the Ukraine war in Ukraine's favor once Starlink locked down access - this proves how vital internet access it was to both sides, as once Russia could no longer use stolen terminals their manpower advantage became moot.

So I simply don't get this manufactured outrage - the vast majority of US retirement savings are already tied to the military sector (RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman) via index funds. I personally would have more concern with those laggards in the new age of drone warfare vs the likes of SpaceX and Anduril (when they ipo).

If SpaceX succeeds, the gains will go to the same people who will bear the losses if it doesn’t. Both the gains and losses are privatized.

The consumer/ad tech bias of HN is really showing. The app I use to share photos of my kids with my elderly relatives is worth $1.45 trillion, but somehow companies that make freaking EVs, robots, and rocket ships, and AI can’t possibly be worth that much? I’ve been in HN for 16 years and heard so much breathless cheerleading for web apps “changing the world” but now we have companies that really might change the world and it’s a scam?

The SP500 (the index the article is using for their example) literally requires profitability. Tesla wasn't includes for years and years because of it.

Moving to have 401ks investing in it when 5% of the stock is publicly available versus 30-40%+ that would have been available on the previous timelines seems like it could have pretty dramatic effects on its price.

Without rapid purchasing by indexes SpaceX’s stock would likely to tank as ever more people would be able to sell over the first year.

It’s a 24 year old company with a current high flying stock price based on very questionable numbers.

Depends, they've gone to pains to ensure the indexes will buy as share lockups end. It's dodgy no matter how you look at.

The one saving grace is s&p isnt changing anything, and they were by far the biggest index.

Plus if AI is indeed a bubble, investors are already up to the neck in it. Think of all the key stocks of the S&P and Nasdaq that are lifted by AI: nvidia, microsoft, amazon, oracle, micron, intel, amd, etc. And add their lenders and the whole datacenter supply chain.

They probably won't be on the S&P for years, because of profitability requirements.

Bubbles always blow. Maybe not in 3 months but eventually someone will figure that those trillions can't possibly be made back ever again.

And then the fall down is hard.

I got a good investment vehicle for you. How would you like to purchase shares in the Brooklyn bridge? You could see returns in the form of tolls.

China enters the chat https://spacenews.com/china-conducts-4-launches-in-3-days-bu...

> It’s not like SpaceX is going to tank in the next 3 months and they’ll be left holding the bag.

A stock's value can disappear in a matter of days to a degree it leads to a complete collapse. It has happened before, see Enron or Wirecard.

> It’s not like it wasn’t going to end up in every index in a year.

Sure, but it's still not wise to let unripe stocks into most American and RoW retirement funds. There's a reason why many complex software projects keep some sort of "staging" tree, and the stock markets should do so as well.

The problem isn’t that you’re invested in the index. The problem is that the index decided it wanted to change its rules to include companies that are not profitable. I still remember the days when you needed to be profitable for x quarters and have a minimum amount of float to be listed in an index. That changed overnight and we all know why.

Yeah but Matt Levine is wrong.

1) Index funds and ETFs are highly active.

They're just low-cost due to largely algorithmic decisions but at all of the edge cases manual _active_ decisions are made.

IIRC, in this podcast Vanguard goes into detail about all of the active decisions they do [1]. It's long because uh, they do a lot.

2) You're in the index fund game because "you liked that index". There are literally thousands of ETFs. Saying "you want the market" is just wrong, you wanted a specific slice of the market and if the ETF changes the slice under you then that feels like a bait and switch.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQVz_VGJNnY

Okay then why is SPCX going to be weighted 3x its actual float in the Nasdaq? A rule made just for SPCX.

To the same point I also don't want the index itself picking and choosing which companies to apply which rules to.

TIL about float for stock, thanks.

The vast majority of American employees are not maxing out every tax advantaged retirement account instrument, and putting everything in a 401(k) past the employer match level is not advisable exactly because of the limited investment choices.

Shorting SpaceX when you own the same amount of SpaceX in an ETF doesn't require any derivatives and is a fairly safe play. The amount of interest you have to pay will vary a little bit, but it should cost a very small amount net.

The biggest issues are the effort and tax implications of balancing the SpaceX short.

You can buy the companies making up the index instead of the index itself.

It was proven to be a good strategy on the SP500 [1, 2]

With 500 companies, it's work. But you can probably approximate it with a top 100.

[1] https://rodneywhitecenter.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploa...

[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0015198X.2023.2...

S&P 500 didn’t change their rules but other indexes have.

https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/2026_May_NDX_Changes_FAQ....

Q: What is the purpose of modifying the liquidity and seasoning requirements? Could this change result in the inclusion of illiquid securities in the index?

A: Most indexes require a liquidity threshold for new constituents, often as a minimum share count or average daily trading value. For the Nasdaq-100®, securities must have a three-month average daily traded value of at least $5 million. Since only very large companies – typically with full market capitalizations over $100 billion as of March 2026 – would have qualified for fast entry, they are expected to easily and quickly meet this requirement. However, an average daily traded value of at least $5 million from the time of listing will still be required for fast entry candidates. Many indexes have included seasoning requirements to ensure that traditional IPOs undergo price discovery and stabilization before being included. These requirements were originally intended to prevent small or little-known companies from entering too soon. However, there is now a trend toward IPOs being larger and more mature than in the past. Companies expected to meet the fast entry threshold are likely to be among the world’s most significant and well-known firms. High investor interest and trading volumes should accelerate price discovery, further supporting a shorter seasoning period. Note that the seasoning period for companies outside of the Top 40 remains at three months.

Several indexes have changed not just Nasdaq, but it’s one more people have heard about.

S&P 500 has not therefore the index funds tracking it are not going to put money on it. But nasdaq has, that means the ETFs tracking are pouring money into spcx. On top of that, all 401k target funds are total market funds, that track all of the market regardless of what the indices do. They own trillions in capital from people’s retirement, and by their own investment rules, a listing with that kind of market cap forces a bunch of money to flow into the company.

CRSP publishes the index used by VTI. They changed their rules to lower the float requirement.

Less informed journalists heard about it after we did and then decided to publish what they learned on twitter.

Rage bait article or the author is just misinformed

Firms or funds, don’t care, want to put money in anyway…

Unfortunately most people won't do that, either from ignorance or fear of missing out. Sometime in the next few years the chickens are going to come home to roost on the infinibubble, and I'm not really sure if the US financial system will weather it.

> exposed to the tech bubble

Aside, I think many people forget to account for their own job/career when thinking about diversification.

Just working "in tech" means that industry is already an oversized part of my financial future by default, even before talking about investment stuff.

Regardless of what you think of his politics, SpaceX is waaaay overvalued.

Just a year ago the two were feuding. They're both lying conman with nothing to contribute.

"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!"