Probably finding an ESG-focused ETF would do it. ESG basically meant "good governance, we follow laws" which translated into better governed public companies that therefore had better returns, as one would expect. Really weird how it was politicized into something entirely different...
P.S. Here's an example of S&P500 without the magnificent 7 https://www.defianceetfs.com/xmag/
You can just short SpaceX of an amount equivalent to its share of your SP500 holdings. You will have to pay borrowing costs though, but on something that liquid it will be very small.
So eliminating SpaceX exposure will cost you $100 per million of your SP500 ETF per year, or so.
Also there is no liquidity issue, we're talking SP500 names here, you'll pay GC, which should be around 25bps as the other comment mentions.
I think most people trade synthetic, just because it's faster and you don't have to wait for settlements, but maybe that is different if you trade onshore (I am a foreign investor).
Anyway if you are synthetic your margin is most likely shared between shorts and long on the same instrument, so no, you wouldn't be called.
Personally I would still probably go with the long put strategy unless the price difference is exorbitant.
The ETF is this case follows the index, so there's really no surprise.
> I would still probably go with the long put strategy
Just, don't. There is a world of complexity between a simple short, and entering an option contract with non linear pnl.
You are not entering a contract with a long put. You are buying a contract that, if you want, you can just let expire with no obligation to do anything. It's effectively simple insurance (as opposed to a short position, which is an actual liability, which will eat you alive in exceptional circumstances).
Yes you are, and options are complicated. Actually, the mere fact that you think they are "simple insurance" is enough proof to me that you probably don't understand it enough to safely buy one.
> You are buying a contract
Oh right, you've bought a PUT, now the fun part: you have to manage your position/exposure, could you enlighten me how you do that?
Could you explain me why buying a SpaceX PUT in a high IV regime (e.g. soon after IPO) will have it drop 40% when the IV decreases after 1 month, even though price moved in my favor? It should be simple, it's just a simple insurance product right?
Seriously. Someone, likely not super financially literate, ask a simple question about how to neutralize a stock exposure, and your answer is to advise buying options? Just stop.
Look, I think you're missing my point a little bit. Let's simplify it to risk, since that's what kicked off this conversation.
Your pension or whatever holds an ETF that (soon) contains some SpaceX shares. You buy a put option on SpaceX direct. What's the absolute worst thing that could happen?
Your pension or whatever holds an ETF that (soon) contains some SpaceX shares. You short sell a SpaceX share. What's the absolute worst thing that could happen?
I think it's less complicated than you'd think.. just buy LEAPS puts proportional to your exposure.
I'm very interested in seeing how the market prices these options after the IPO.
Sure you can make a lot of money but only if you know when to get out before the crash. And that's something that doesn't gel well with long term investment.
Long term dollar cost averaging is not about hype and fomo. Overall pricing in equities does vary according to alternative investment routes, which is why I'm diversified into those as well.
Stonks go up. Stonks go down. Averaging over decades, ownership is about owning a share of productive output of a large portion of our entire economy, an amazing restructuring of social relations that presents an amazing opportunity for the common person, unseen throughout the history of humanity.
Personally, a company should be making money before adding it to the index.
And b/c these chinese competitors are open weight, the layer below frontier class AI is totally commoditized.
If there were a recession, the first thing enterprise customers would do is setup Kimi or Deepseek rigs. It would be a race to the bottom and no one would be profitable.
A similar phenomenon happened with rail lines in the 1850s where irrational exuberance led to a massive overbuild of rail lines, followed by a race to the bottom and the bankruptcy of almost all players. In the end, banks ended up absorbing the few companies that survived.
At this point burying money in jars in the back yard and forgetting where some are has a much higher rate of return.
Year Revenue Net income / loss
1998 Not reported
1999 $220k -$6.076M
2000 $19.108M -$14.690M
Do you guys not know what a loss lead is?
I have no problem with money-furnaces trading publicly. If people want to invest in those, fantastic, power to them. But they absolutely should not be included in vehicles like pensions and indexes.
We don't know which of today's companies will be successful and/or highly-valued in N years' time.
Check Cisco's valuation on March 27, 2000; it was briefly the most valuable publically traded company in the world. Almost everyone believed it was worth it. Then it fell 88% over two years.
Full disclosure: some of us are old enough to have held stocks during the dot-com boom. Fortunately I was still a student and therefore too poor to have had any significant amount of money to lose :)
Every startup goes through a phase where they aren't profitable... For most of of them that ends when they go bankrupt.
Also, those numbers are multiple orders of magnitude smaller than the AI stuff going on now.
Anthropics expected profitable quarter just happens to be the quarter were their cost is artificially low?
I hate these flippant comments. Similarly, from where I'm sitting it seems you're struggling to disentangle revenue from profit.
<you are here>
By year three I am printing money.
It's not a flippant comment. It's basic math.
The entire business requires massive ongoing investment because getting massive investments is the only thing resembling a competitive advantage that you can get.
The equivalent to anything you can do will be available as an open weight set in six months to a year. Sink or swim.
Hahaha what a fucking bozo.
Log out and dont talk about valuation again.
They’re free-float adjusted so entities like SpaceX are valued only by what’s available on public markets. And Vanguard (and its funds) are owned by its investors, which makes it seem implausible that the rules would be rewritten in a way that would damage investors.
High level, it's concerning to observe this unfold while almost every asset class is at its peak and there is no one willing to purchase (office real estate [1] [2], private equity [3], us equities [4], crypto, etc). Late Stage Capital Markets when you've exhausted greater fools available.
[1] Office Real Estate Is Facing ‘a Year of Reckoning’ in 2025 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-12-18/commercia... | https://archive.today/fTPSY - December 18, 2024
[2] Blackstone Is About to Take a 54% Loss on Iconic Seattle Tower - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-29/blackston... | https://archive.today/fcA8W - May 29, 2026
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47049024 (citations)
[4] BlackRock Scales Back Equities After ‘Generational’ Earnings [Peak S&P] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-29/blackrock... | https://archive.today/lMIcH - May 29th, 2026
I would assume this is not an ETF but sth else?
> Historically index providers were in the business of making these sorts of quality decisions, so that index funds were not forced to buy stocks they didn’t like.
> These rules create some tension between the idea that an index is a list of all the stocks and the idea that an index is a list of all the good stocks. Historically, it didn’t matter all that much: The point of the stock market is to tell you which stocks are good, so a company with a high stock valuation should be a very good company, so it should get a high weighting in both the Index of Good Companies and the Index of All the Companies.
> But SpaceX — and also maybe OpenAI and Anthropic in their coming IPOs — will probably break that link. SpaceX will probably (1) do all sorts of stuff that index funds hate and that index providers have specifically tried to exclude and also (2) be gigantic, because the market loves it.
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-05-26/ind...
These greedy capitalists are after the pension funds + retail investor (ETFs in particular) through IPOs but there's no profitability in sight.
What exactly is the risk to normal investors if that’s the case? If it’s all a big scam then they will trade lower and they’ll naturally be kicked out of the index.
This is a rule that will apply to all new companies. When Anthropic and OpenAI go public they will also benefit from the rule. Do you think the media/public will be just as outraged when they do it?
The goal of the S&P 500 is to keep the index representative of the US market. They have in fact changed rules in the past when market conditions have changed. These mega IPOs are an entirely new market condition, as private companies have never been this big before listing in history. So large that they immediately fall into the top 100 or 500 largest companies in the country.
There’s also the fact that Nasdaq is a private company and it now has competition from the new Texas exchange. SpaceX is actually dual-listing on TXSE and Nasdaq. Nasdaq needs to keep these giant IPO companies happy because if they don’t they will list on the competitor exchange which would be disastrous for Nasdaq (supercharging their competitor).
These things affect each other as well. Nasdaq wants to make sure they get the IPO on their exchange, so they include them in the Nasdaq 100. S&P 500 doesn’t want to be outdated by missing a trillion dollar company from their index, while other exchanges like the Nasdaq 100 include them.
There’s a real case to be made that this is just self interest on the part of the exchange and the other index providers.
It’s based on the total market and not artificially limited to a small number of large companies. Plus it’s free-float adjusted so only the publicly-tradable portion of SpaceX is considered when weighting its inclusion so it will constitute only a small portion of the fund. There is also a (small) mandatory delay period which I don’t recall between it going public and it becoming included in the index which should give time for the SpaceX valuation to stabilize on something notionally realistic.
Thankfully, Vanguard and its member funds are investor-owned so are likely more resilient against someone like Elon trying to change the rules.
> Seeks to track the performance of the CRSP US Total Market Index.
The index that is changing its rules is the NASDAQ100, commonly referred to as the NASDAQ, although NASDAQ is also the name of the exchange.
Morningstar said its CRSP Market Indexes will "undergo enhancements to introduce an alternative liquidity screen", making it possible to add SpaceX and other giant IPOs to these benchmarks more rapidly. The funds that use the CRSP indexes as a portfolio benchmark include Vanguard's $607 billion Total Stock Market ETF.
And most index funds including Vanguard track an external index. So when the index changes the rules, Vanguard changes what it buys. Vanguard is also famous for always siding with the management, they take the activist side of any debate approximately 0% of the time, so don't expect them to be fighting this for you.
It's not a "scam" in the traditionnal sense, it's riding the bubble while it's there, stock value is "supposed" to be about the company performance and potential but technically it doesn't have to be, it's about what some people are willing to pay for it (the stock, not the product the company sells) and that's all. That's also why tesla has such a valuation.
You can see it in the comments even here and other thread about this IPO, some people read the numbers, and some have just religious sounding comments about it being the biggest revolution ever or making the history book etc ...
And that's also why they need to keep elon as CEO because in the scenario where they remove it and get the best car company CEO and become a great regular car company that works and ships lots of great car ... Their valuation would be reduced a factor of ten
That's with falling sales, with no new product in sight and their latest release a big dud (despite SpaceX ordering massive amount of it to prop it up), and with a pricing and thus margin that is going to be massively lowered or beaten by Chinese ev. Protectionism by the US can only go so far, the US alone doesn't have a trillion dollar worthy car market.
They're also losing the race in self driving, and the biggest innovation in EV (semi instant charging) is coming from China not from them.
They had a lead and a massively advantageous legal situation and they squandered it, now you add the association of Elon to the brand making it toxic in many places and it's not looking rosy, the brand can be fine but it's valuation at one point or another will have a wake up day.
the piece explains how modern finance is de facto built on the shoulders of the privatization of the welfare state. i find it particularly relevant here: the finance class - in this case musk - wants pensioners money via mutual funds, even modifying the rules of indexing...
it’s not a great sight tbh.
Tesla was a great ride if you got in early but long-term from this point on if you had any significant amount of money, why would you buy them now? Unless you like sleepless nights…
And that's basically what SpaceX is right now after you account for xAI and twitter in the mix.
So I'd love to own a piece of the SpaceX from a decade ago - but the current offering smells pretty bad.
Combined with the fact that at this point, Musk clearly isn't opposed to running a business with dramatically inflated valuations based on vaporware, lies, & hype (cough - Tesla - cough) it just makes me far more skeptical than I might otherwise be.
I think caution is warranted here.
Essentially - I want to own the SpaceX that could have been if we didn't end up with the shoddy k-hole version of musk in charge of things.
I don't think anyone is really arguing these particular points.
>And they are just now picking up steam. American Airlines just signed onto Starlink just last week. This company is most likely gonna be the Coca-Cola of transportation between celestial bodies in solar system for the next 500 years but people on here are arguing over peanuts. On HN of all places.
This is speculation based on SpaceX's trajectory to this point, however we've seen Musk make some decisions that bring the long term future prospects of SpaceX into question. While Musk remains unbeholden to anyone else, which an IPO doesn't change, he's the biggest risk factor in the equation - and that's not speculation, it's an objective assessment of what's possible within the corporate structure of SpaceX.
What's subjective is whether you anticipate Musk will add more trash to the pile. Was the Twitter/xAI acquisition by SpaceX, with it's stupidly obvious fraudulent valuations, an outlier of some kind? Or was it a predictor of future actions that put similar economic strain on SpaceX, and would affect it's future stability and economic viability? Since Musk is capable of crashing and burning the whole of SpaceX by himself, without anyone legally capable of vetoing his decisions, it's a valid line of questioning.
Personally I feel I've seen enough of how Musk operates that I can be confident he'll make similar decisions in the future, and that makes me consider SpaceX a high risk investment. I'm also far from alone in this assessment, and there's a valid concern from investors of those index funds about being railroaded into adding SpaceX to their mix.
This brief dalliance in private enterprise in space will not last long-term.
(not to say that isn't a huge risk if it disappeared, it's just far from "completely dependent")
It's variable though, and if DoD decides it wants a bunch of spy satellites or whatnot in orbit, you could see the percentage growing, along with their total revenue ofc.
It's just far from "completely dependent" which was my only objection.
Starlink obviously a huge part - $11½b revenue in 2025.
If anything - as an investor I'd call those core concerns about how I'll make my money back.
Further... this company isn't actually making ANY DAMN MONEY. Of the bundled orgs, only Starlink is profitable, and not profitable enough to offset the losses on spaceX and xAI/Grok. (starlink +4b, spacex -700mm, xAI -6b = -2.7b..., with 30b in debt).
So... no... right now this company is not "Coca-Cola". And that delusional comparison is part of why I think it's correct to be wary right now. On a scale between Enron and Coke... I'd wager we're closer to Enron.
I'll pick up some shares by default given the ETFs I'm in anyways, and that's enough for me...
They didn't say they didn't want to own it, they said they wanted to own it at a : "90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction."
It is possible for a company to be both technically impressive and horrifically overvalued.
Something about finding out who's swimming naked once the tide goes out
The funny part of all this is that SpaceX has achieved a lot but what might break them, or at least weigh them down heavily, is the impulsive and forced purchase of Twitter. Before anyone claims it was some kind of master plan, Elon went to court to get out of it but was forced into it [1].
What happened? Mass firings, pushing his own tweets because his fragile ego couldn't handle Joe Biden getting more likes [2] and Twitter opened the floodgates for hate speech [3] and worse [4]. Advertisers fled. Fidelity (who foolishly was part of the acquisition) massively wrote down the value [5]. Elon had used Tesla shares as collateral and was possibly facing a margin call.
How did he get out of it? Well, in 2023 Elon founded xAI to challenge OpenAI. People invested in this for some reason. And by 2025, Elon merged Twitter with xAI, overvaluing Twitter at $33 billion (which is still down 25% from the purchase) [6].
Now, I imagine the xAI investors were unhappy with Elon using xAI to bail out himself so what did he do? Easy. Make SpaceX acquire xAI of course [7].
Thing is, xAI and Twitter/Grok are a massive drain on SpaceX's finances, losing more than $10 billion annually allegedly [8].
Twitter did not have to end up as part of SpaceX. SpaceX would've been a better company without it. SpaceX already faces headwinds from the incredibly expensive and behind-schedule Starship program. Part of all of this regulatory fixing is to make sure the insiders (and Elon himself) get bailed out.
It's also not the first time [9].
[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/elon-musk-offers-to-end...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/15/elon-musk...
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-s...
[4]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter...
[5]: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/29/fidelity-twitter-x-value-el...
[6]: https://www.fintechweekly.com/magazine/articles/xai-acquires...
[7]: https://www.reuters.com/business/musks-spacex-merge-with-xai...
[8]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/musk-s-xa...
[9]: https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/21/13698314/tesla-completes...
Yeah, for all the technical excellence by Shotwell and the team ... I don't want my ETF's and pensions buying into that piece of shit CEO and his corrupt 'at a whim' entity manipulation.
Sorry, fuck SpaceX
1. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/letter-to-spacex-re-ipo-...
It's classic third worldism, made possible by a low-information electorate that not only can't do the math, but lacks instinctual skepticism of the idea of a free lunch. Chicago went down the same path, and found that these gimmicks work until they don't.
Their names are known and are part of history now. Maybe not famous but certainly better than being a forgotten weathered tomb stone after 5 centuries.
> The deal, with SpaceX, is that Elon Musk runs it however he wants, and he does weird stuff, and you have to trust him, and if you don’t like it you can’t complain.
> When SpaceX acquired xAI a few months ago, did a special committee of independent directors approve the transaction? Did Musk recuse himself from negotiations? Was the price set by independent valuation experts using a rigorous process? Did outside shareholders sue to block the deal? Stop. Musk wanted SpaceX to buy xAI, so it did.
> [...] Surely SpaceX has created all that shareholder value more because Musk does what he wants than in spite of Musk doing what he wants; it is hard to accidentally create $1.75 trillion of value. SpaceX’s shareholders signed up for this deal — letting Musk cook — and have been rewarded;
E.g. SpaceX buying up large numbers of Cybertrucks Tesla couldn't sell at MSRP, not even negotiating a good fleet sale deal.
Similarly I don't understand why indicies are rushing to change their rules to allow SpaceX in. People accept a certain risk tolerance and changing the rules to ramp up the risk seems questionable at best.