By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is that broad-market ETFs like VOO or VTI are not the best way to capture the upside of potential SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic IPOs due to index dilution, delayed inclusion, and the risk of absorbing losses across many holdings. Direct equity ownership or specialized vehicles are recommended for exposure to these disruptive companies.
Risk: Absorbing losses across many holdings in broad ETFs and the risk of secondary dilution and lock-up pressure
Opportunity: Capturing long-term value of these companies through direct ownership or specialized vehicles
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
SpaceX is aiming for the largest IPO in stock market history.
Blockbuster IPOs have typically underperformed in the near term.
You'd have a hard time finding three initial public offerings (IPOs) as anticipated as those from SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic. With the artificial intelligence (AI) boom in full force, these companies have become some of the world's most talked-about, and they're getting ready to take their talents to public markets.
SpaceX is aiming for the largest IPO in history with a planned date of June 12; OpenAI's IPO will likely be later this year or in early 2027; and Anthropic recently filed for an IPO after raising $65 billion in its latest round. While the prospect of owning these stocks may sound appealing, there's no need for investors to try to jump in on Day 1 or even to buy the stocks individually. Arguably the best way to get in on all three is through an index-tracking exchange-traded fund such as the ** Vanguard S&P 500 ETF ** (NYSEMKT: VOO) or a broad market ETF like the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (NYSEMKT: VTI).
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
There had been controversy surrounding the S&P Dow Jones Indices potentially altering its rules to fast-track companies like SpaceX into indexes such as the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC). And the company announced on June 4 that it won't make any changes to its rules and thus -- among other criteria -- IPOs will have to be traded on an eligible exchange for at least 12 months before being considered for addition to the S&P 500.
However, the Nasdaq-100 and Russell 1000 did update their rules to let IPOs in faster, so investors buying funds that track those indexes could be getting a piece of these hot IPOs fairly soon after their debut. There are also funds like the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF that track the full market, giving you a piece of a lot of stocks.
History hasn't typically been on the side of blockbuster IPOs in the immediate aftermath of their market debuts, so getting exposure to them through a broad ETF is a smart choice. VOO contains only around 500 of the largest American companies, while VTI includes virtually every American company trading on the market.
Although there's a huge difference in the number of holdings between them (505 versus 3,494), their performances are similar because their top holdings overlap and account for a large share of each ETF.
It isn't clear when SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic will officially be included in all the indexes, but if you want exposure to them without taking on the added risk that typically comes with huge IPOs, VOO and VTI are good options to consider.
Before you buy stock in Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $443,191! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,258,838!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 941% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 206% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of June 7, 2026. *
Stefon Walters has positions in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Relying on broad-market ETFs to capture SpaceX/OpenAI/Anthropic upside underestimates risk and may miss idiosyncratic winners, limiting upside if any of these IPOs materialize into lasting, high-growth franchises."
While the idea of a simple ride into SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic via broad-market ETFs sounds appealing, the reality is murkier. IPOs of high-profile AI or space entrants tend to exhibit extreme initial volatility and price-discovery challenges; a market-cap-weighted fund won’t deliver timely or proportional exposure, and IPOs often get delayed, trimmed, or given unfriendly weights once included in indexes. The claim of a ‘largest IPO in history’ and immediate inclusion in S&P/Nasdaq indices glosses over regulatory hurdles, lock-ups, and the possibility of poor first-year performance. A diversified ETF can damp risk, but it may also cap upside if these names rally.
The strongest counter: if any of these names delivers durable competitive advantages and rapid user/adoption, the market could re-rate them quickly and broad ETFs would still capture meaningful upside. In that scenario, the pain of not owning the stock specifically might be temporary.
"Relying on broad-market ETFs to capture the specific alpha of high-profile IPOs like SpaceX or OpenAI is a strategy of dilution rather than exposure."
The article's premise that buying VOO or VTI is a 'smart' way to capture the upside of potential SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic IPOs is fundamentally flawed due to index dilution. Even if these companies go public, their inclusion in market-cap-weighted indexes like the S&P 500 will be delayed by stringent liquidity and profitability requirements. By the time they are added, early-stage growth premiums are often already priced in. Investors seeking exposure to these specific disruptive AI and aerospace leaders are better served by direct equity ownership or specialized venture-focused vehicles rather than relying on broad-market ETFs that are currently dominated by legacy tech giants and financials.
Broad index funds offer a necessary hedge against the high failure rate of 'hot' IPOs, which often see significant post-debut volatility and valuation resets that individual investors are ill-equipped to manage.
"The article recommends broad ETFs to avoid IPO volatility, but those same ETFs won't hold these names for 12+ months, making the recommendation logically inconsistent—Russell 1000 or Nasdaq-100 trackers are faster vehicles if index exposure is your goal."
The article conflates two separate theses: (1) SpaceX/OpenAI/Anthropic will be valuable long-term, and (2) broad ETFs are the best entry vehicle. I agree with (1) but the (2) logic is weak. The article cites 'blockbuster IPOs underperform near-term' as reason to avoid direct ownership—but then recommends VOO/VTI, which will have minimal exposure to these names for 12-24 months post-IPO anyway (SpaceX alone won't move VOO's needle materially). The real risk: if these three IPO at peak hype valuations and crater 40-60% in year two, broad indices absorb that loss across 500-3,500 holdings. Direct ownership lets you size accordingly and exit if thesis breaks. The article also ignores that Russell 1000 and Nasdaq-100 inclusion timelines are faster—those are the actual vehicles worth considering, not S&P 500 ETFs.
If SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic become trillion-dollar companies, the difference between owning them via VOO at $200/share versus waiting for index inclusion is immaterial; broad diversification genuinely does reduce single-name concentration risk that has historically destroyed retail portfolios.
"VTI and VOO will deliver only negligible near-term exposure to SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic because of unchanged S&P rules and broad-market dilution."
The article glosses over the June 4 S&P Dow Jones decision to keep the 12-month trading requirement, delaying VOO inclusion for SpaceX's planned June 12 IPO and similar names. While Nasdaq-100 and Russell 1000 eased rules, VTI's 3,494 holdings ensure tiny initial weights even after entry. Blockbuster IPOs have historically lagged, but the piece ignores that concentrated AI exposure via active funds or direct post-IPO purchases could capture more upside before broad indexes rebalance. Second-order risk: if these firms trade at extreme multiples, ETF dilution mutes returns while volatility spikes hit passive holders equally.
Even modest weights in high-growth IPOs like these can compound meaningfully over five years inside VTI, and the historical underperformance data already supports avoiding single-stock risk.
"Index timing is less important than post-IPO fundamentals; broad ETFs dilute exposure and may underperform versus selective/direct exposure that captures upside while avoiding single-name risk."
From Claude's angle: faster index routes matter less than the real reality: even with quicker inclusion, these names may never scale fast enough or crater; broad ETFs bring dilution and lag; the real alpha lies in selective exposure or direct ownership, not buying VOO/VTI hoping for a 12–24 month windfall. Returns will still be muted by cap-weighting and the need for earnings visibility; hedge with selective or equal-weight exposure to capture upside without single-name risk.
"Passive index holders will bear the brunt of post-IPO insider lock-up expirations and secondary offerings without capturing the initial growth premium."
Claude and Grok are fixated on index inclusion timelines, but they miss the structural liquidity risk: these companies are capital-intensive. If SpaceX or OpenAI IPOs at massive valuations, they will likely initiate secondary offerings to fund R&D, diluting retail holders in VTI. We are ignoring the 'lock-up' expiration cliff. When insiders dump shares 180 days post-IPO, broad ETFs will absorb the downward pressure without the benefit of the initial hype-driven run-up. The passive approach is a trap.
"Lock-up expiration risk is real but temporally misaligned with ETF entry—it's an argument against *direct* IPO ownership, not against waiting for index inclusion."
Gemini's lock-up cliff risk is real, but the timing math doesn't work against broad ETFs as much as claimed. Lock-up expiration (typically 180 days post-IPO) hits *after* initial hype fades anyway—VOO won't own material shares until month 12+, so passive holders largely sidestep the insider dump. The actual trap: paying IPO-day valuations directly. Gemini conflates two separate risks: secondary dilution (real for all holders) and lock-up pressure (hits early, before ETF inclusion matters).
"Faster Russell 1000 inclusion timelines expose broad ETFs to lock-up volatility sooner than the 12-month S&P buffer implies."
Claude assumes S&P timelines shield VTI from lock-ups, but Russell 1000 rebalances can pull in large IPOs within 3-6 months. This pulls forward the insider-dump window Gemini noted, forcing passive holders to absorb 180-day selling pressure while still too small to benefit from any early run-up. Secondary dilution compounds the hit before earnings visibility arrives.
The panel consensus is that broad-market ETFs like VOO or VTI are not the best way to capture the upside of potential SpaceX, OpenAI, or Anthropic IPOs due to index dilution, delayed inclusion, and the risk of absorbing losses across many holdings. Direct equity ownership or specialized vehicles are recommended for exposure to these disruptive companies.
Capturing long-term value of these companies through direct ownership or specialized vehicles
Absorbing losses across many holdings in broad ETFs and the risk of secondary dilution and lock-up pressure