What evidence do you have that 9/11 was not an inside job?
> please justify your position
I'll cite Matt Levine from Bloomberg:
>1. In the next few months, SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI will all probably go public at massive valuations.
>2. They will be fast-tracked into the major stock indexes, because those indexes are designed to reflect the stock market, and reflecting the stock market, in 2027, will absolutely require big allocations to those three companies.
Why did they change the rules for these companies? That's what people want an explanation for. That's what is fishy about all this. I'm not asking you to explain something that seems normal. I'm asking you to explain something that doesn't make sense
The primary purpose of an index is to track the market. If an index excludes a significant part of the market it claims to track, then the index no longer accurately reflects the market, and fails at achieving its purpose.
The S&P 500 tracks the 500 largest large-cap US stocks. All three of the major upcoming IPOs (SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic) are large-cap US stocks. Together these companies comprise ~5% of the total US stock market.
In previous decades, this was not an issue, since companies IPOed much earlier when valued at <0.1% of the market. It was fine to exclude these companies from the index for some time, since they were an insignificant part of the market.
Today we have companies raising enormous amounts of private equity, and going public as significant members of the market. All of (SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI) are within the top 20 largest companies in the US.
This is why many are arguing for fast-track inclusion, so the index can add these companies quickly, and retain its ability to accurately track the market.
History will be the judge.
But using nothing more than Occum's Razor and recent corporate history as a guide the reason that "...many are arguing for fast-track inclusion" is that they are crooked.
It's really hard to believe that you'd be writing this in good faith.
In reality, even without being publicly listed(!), these companies have already managed to become an absolutely massive part of the market. After the IPO? Hah.
I'm sticking to the facts, shove your ideological struggle up your ass or go pollute a different website.
At the end of the day, some RIAs in the Bay Area made bank on folks churning their retirement accounts. Some influencers got clicks. Otherwise, this is a nothing burger.
What evidence do you have that these rule changes are motivated by "creed" or corruption?