By Maksym Misichenko · CNBC ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panelists debate the implications of S&P 500's refusal to fast-track SpaceX, with some arguing it preserves index quality and others warning about potential outflows and rule-bending under performance pressure.
Risk: Grok's 'compounding AUM migration risk' and Claude's 'rule-bending precedent' under performance pressure.
Opportunity: Gemini's 'institutional inertia' of passive AUM driven by low-cost, tax-efficient beta.
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 →
Americans have more money invested for retirement in passive S&P 500 Index funds than any other investment. The Vanguard and BlackRock S&P 500 ETFs alone manage nearly $2 trillion in assets, with the Vanguard ETF (VOO) recently passing the $1 trillion mark.
But unlike other mutual funds and ETFs, they won't be managing SpaceX shares any time soon for retail investors who want to get a piece of the action in the stock after Friday's mega-cap IPO, the biggest in the history of the market.
The index committee that oversees the rules for new stock inclusion in the S&P 500 Index said no to the biggest IPO in history, at least for the first year of its public market trading history.
Faced with a new era of mega-cap stocks — with OpenAI and Anthropic expected to follow the SpaceX IPO on Friday with huge offerings pushing them into the territory of the largest publicly traded companies in the U.S. on day one — the index manager was forced to make a call on whether to move up its standard 12-month waiting period for new stocks.
Unlike the S&P, index committees for the Nasdaq and Russell market benchmarks said they would update their rules. In the simplest terms, here's what that means for core U.S. market index fund investors.
"If you want SpaceX, you're not buying the S&P 500. You're going to buy the NASDAQ 100 or the Russell 1000," said Strategas Securities chief ETF strategist Todd Sohn on this week's "ETF Edge."
SpaceX is set to begin trading on the Nasdaq Friday, but if you hold an ETF like VOO, or BlackRock's IVV, or the State Street SPDR S&P 500 Trust (SPY), you will be waiting for your SpaceX exposure until mid-2027.
The decision to leave in place the long window before SpaceX ever becomes part of the S&P 500 is not one that sat well with Peter Haynes, TD Securities' head of index and market structure research, supported. "Personally, I didn't agree with the decision," he told "ETF Edge."
Haynes said in the podcast portion of "ETF Edge" that it is "a controversial discussion," but he added, "In my mind, it's a natural extension of what exists already in global benchmarks."
He pointed to the example of Saudi Aramco, which when it went public in 2019 was the largest IPO in history. At that time, both FTSE and MSCI created fast-track models for global benchmarks to add the stock to indexes after 5 to 10 days. "U.S. benchmarks were geared to follow the lead of global benchmarks," he said. "They have a 'Made in the USA' stock that is sizable and belongs in benchmarks," Haynes said.
"What this is doing is setting a precedent that [the] S&P will not add OpenAI and Anthropic when those IPOs happen," Sohn said.
Sohn said the dueling decisions from the index providers could create an "index war" — specifically, performance dispersions between the S&P 500, Nasdaq, and other indexes.
Haynes added it could be longer than a year, "much longer,' he said, before S&P 500 investors get exposure to SpaceX because the index committee also maintained its "profitability test" for stocks, which could exacerbate any performance issues between the S&P 500 and other popular U.S. benchmarks.
SpaceX will have a $1.77 trillion valuation when it begins trading, but it remains a high-risk investment with a net loss in the latest quarter of $4.28 billion. OpenAI and Anthropic are burning through cash at a significant rate and racking up losses while generating a substantial amount of revenue. They can be expected to face the same scrutiny from the S&P 500 that SpaceX just did.
For fund investors, there are other ways to get exposure to SpaceX as a complement to a core portfolio position like an S&P 500 fund. A handful of ETFs, mostly thematic space and tech innovation funds, have already been holding SpaceX through pre-IPO direct stakes. There has been a rush by investors into space stocks and space ETFs in the past few weeks. For example, Tema ETFs' Space Innovators ETF (NASA) launched May 30 and has reached $2.6 billion in assets. It is one of the funds that offered direct access to SpaceX before the IPO.
Risk-oriented investors will also be able to get in on a new wave of leveraged ETFs just launching to offer up to 2x daily performance of SpaceX shares, bullish and bearish bets. ProShares will launch the Ultra SpaceX ETF (SPCF), seeking to get 2x the daily performance of the stock, next Monday. GraniteShares will launch two similar funds: GraniteShares 2x Long SpaceX Daily ETF (SPAL) and GraniteShares 2x Short SpaceX Daily ETF (SNK).
Sohn cautioned that these levered investments come with big boom-and bust cycles and are typically intended for day traders rather than long-term investors seeking diversification. Losses compound rapidly in these investments and expense ratios are relatively high since they are intended as trading vehicles rather than core holdings.
For most investors, the biggest takeaway is that the index they have long relied on to capture the biggest names in the U.S. market is sitting this one out. But expect ETF managers to stay creative with new ideas to meet investors where they aren't — yet. "I would think some of the smaller independent [ETF] issuers will go to another index provider and they will create an 'S&P+SpaceX ... 'large-cap+SpaceX' ... '+Anthropic.' ... There is nothing the ETF industry can't do in terms of creativity," Sohn said.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter that goes beyond the livestream, offering a closer look at the trends and figures shaping the ETF market.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"S&P 500's rule adherence protects against volatility more than it creates missed upside in unprofitable mega-cap IPOs."
S&P 500's refusal to waive its 12-month seasoning and profitability rules for SpaceX (1.77T valuation, yet $4.28B quarterly loss) is a deliberate filter against unprofitable mega-caps, not an oversight. This preserves index quality as OpenAI and Anthropic loom, but it guarantees tracking gaps versus Nasdaq 100 and Russell 1000 that could persist past 2027. Passive holders of VOO, IVV, and SPY will need separate thematic or leveraged vehicles for exposure, increasing complexity and costs. The real test is whether SpaceX's cash burn produces sustained earnings before inclusion criteria are met.
SpaceX and similar AI IPOs could deliver outsized gains in their first 18 months, as prior mega-cap tech names did, leaving S&P 500 investors with material underperformance that the profitability screen cannot offset.
"The real risk to passive exposure isn't a multi-year delay so much as whether SpaceX ever meets profitability thresholds in a way that prompts meaningful index-rule changes—and the article understates how quickly those rules can bend when marquee names drive crowd behavior."
The article frames SpaceX as a ‘miss’ for S&P 500 index funds for years, which could mislead readers into thinking passive exposure is impossible. But the missing context matters: (1) S&P's profitability screen is a real gate; SpaceX would need sustained profits to qualify sooner, (2) even if SpaceX remains out, the market’s mega-cap dynamics can shift index weights and trigger indirect exposure via sector/industry tilts or other benchmarks, (3) the narrative around a long delay may be overstated if marquee IPOs reshape rules or if fast-tracking is politically or structurally favored, and (4) thematic and leveraged products add risk and mispricing that pure cap-weighted funds don’t capture. These dynamics could soften the perceived drag on passive investors.
If SpaceX achieves sustained profitability and dominant market cap growth, the S&P committee could accelerate or adjust thresholds faster than the article suggests; marquee names have influenced rule changes before.
"The S&P 500's strict inclusion criteria provide a necessary 'quality filter' that protects passive investors from the inevitable post-IPO volatility of cash-burning, high-valuation tech giants."
The S&P 500 committee’s refusal to fast-track SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic is a prudent defense of index integrity, not a failure of innovation. By enforcing a 12-month seasoning period and profitability tests, S&P Dow Jones Indices protects passive investors from the extreme volatility and 'hype-cycle' pricing typical of mega-cap IPOs. While Nasdaq and Russell are chasing AUM through inclusion, the S&P 500 is maintaining its status as a benchmark for established, profitable enterprises. Investors should view this divergence as a feature, not a bug; it forces active allocation for those seeking speculative growth rather than forcing that risk onto the millions of retirees holding VOO or SPY.
By excluding the most influential companies of the next decade, the S&P 500 risks becoming a 'legacy' index that fails to represent the actual composition of the modern U.S. economy, leading to long-term performance under-tracking.
"The real story isn't SpaceX's exclusion—it's whether performance divergence between S&P 500 and Nasdaq will trigger a structural shift in passive fund flows, making the profitability rule the canary in the coal mine for index rule erosion."
The article frames S&P 500's exclusion of SpaceX as a major miss, but this conflates two separate issues: index rules and investor outcomes. Yes, $2T in VOO/IVV won't hold SpaceX until mid-2027. But the article doesn't examine whether that's actually bad. SpaceX burned $4.28B last quarter on $1.77T valuation—that's a profitability test failure, not arbitrary gatekeeping. The real risk isn't missing SpaceX; it's that Nasdaq inclusion creates a performance mirage. If SpaceX rallies 40% in year one while unprofitable, S&P 500 underperformance becomes a headline, driving flows into Nasdaq-heavy alternatives. That's the precedent being set—not whether SpaceX belongs, but whether index rules bend under performance pressure.
The article's strongest counterargument is the Saudi Aramco precedent: global benchmarks fast-tracked a mega-cap IPO, and U.S. benchmarks look backward by refusing. If SpaceX becomes a trillion-dollar revenue machine in 3 years, the S&P 500's 12-month wait will look quaint, not prudent.
"S&P exclusion risks accelerating passive flows to Nasdaq products via performance chasing, beyond mere mirage effects."
Claude flags the Nasdaq performance mirage but misses the compounding AUM migration risk: if SpaceX IPOs unprofitable and posts 30%+ gains in year one, mandates benchmarked to Nasdaq 100 could pull $50-100B from SPY/VOO within 18 months, not just headlines. The 12-month rule then becomes a self-reinforcing outflow trigger rather than a quality filter, a dynamic Saudi Aramco never tested in U.S. indices.
"The 'self-reinforcing outflow' risk is real but not as likely or deterministic as Grok suggests; liquidity tools and diversified selling pressure dampen a pure outflow spiral."
Responding to Grok: The 'self-reinforcing outflow' risk assumes near-immediate, outsized allocation to Nasdaq-100–tilted products after SpaceX's equity move. In reality, outflows from SPY/VOO would require sustained shifts across many sectors, and many funds employ liquidity tools and offsetting hedges that blunt instantaneous selling pressure. The probability of a pure outflow spiral is lower than the critique implies, though it remains a credible tail risk.
"Institutional inertia and the tax-efficiency of S&P 500 funds will prevent a mass migration of capital regardless of SpaceX's initial post-IPO performance."
Grok’s outflow theory ignores the institutional inertia of the S&P 500. Passive AUM is driven by low-cost, tax-efficient beta, not just chasing a single hot IPO. Even if SpaceX rallies 30%, the tracking error against the broader market remains a rounding error for most institutional mandates. The real risk isn't outflows; it's the S&P 500 committee eventually caving to political pressure to maintain index relevance, which would ironically destroy the very 'quality' filter Gemini defends.
"The S&P 500 committee's rule integrity is more fragile than Gemini's institutional-inertia thesis suggests, especially if Nasdaq outperformance becomes measurable and politically visible."
Gemini's 'institutional inertia' argument underestimates rule-bending precedent. Saudi Aramco wasn't U.S.-domiciled; SpaceX is. If Nasdaq gains 200bps annually versus S&P 500 over 18 months due to SpaceX, political pressure on the committee becomes acute—not abstract. Gemini assumes the committee resists; history suggests mega-cap IPOs reshape criteria faster than we expect. The real question: does the committee bend before or after the performance gap widens?
The panelists debate the implications of S&P 500's refusal to fast-track SpaceX, with some arguing it preserves index quality and others warning about potential outflows and rule-bending under performance pressure.
Gemini's 'institutional inertia' of passive AUM driven by low-cost, tax-efficient beta.
Grok's 'compounding AUM migration risk' and Claude's 'rule-bending precedent' under performance pressure.