Lol, they got told to fuck off for not being profitable.
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2026
768 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
85172 readers
4513 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
While I love the sentiment; I'm reading this decision by S&P as just about not bending their rules. AI is not thriving fast/convincingly enough to break tradition of big finance; I don't think that makes S&P an ally. And I suspect this means they'll just be joining a bit later.
'A bit later' is really all the is required to meet the standard. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/21/tesla-isnt-a-gurantee-for-the-sp-500-even-with-year-of-profits.html
S&P Dow Jones has a history of making companies earn it, including previous Elmo ventures.
I'm not bullish on any of it, and I'm desperately trying to exit AI holdings as swiftly as I'm able, but I am deeply comforted by major indexes requiring companies demonstrate profitability or at least meaningful actual revenue beyond the self-dealing that we've seen between the IPO hopefuls.
Good. Those clowns will trash the index funds that so many depend on for retirement funding if they tank. And AI certainly will, and SpaceX is dependent on the whims of a drug addicted wingnut.
They didn't block them, they just won't buy it until it has been on the market for a while
For those that didn't see the article from yesterday, the relevant rule that they refused to waive was the one that said a company must be profitable.
lol
Lololololol the president of my company went full AI shithead recently and he posted how it was a big deal that they were going public and he was talking about how he see it as a great investment to purchase shares and I asked how it was a great investment to get shares of a company severely in the red and my comment got deleted in a few minutes
Edit: we also got claude code for everyone in the company and they are monitoring token use (as in we need to use a lot) and I asked if they were concerned that the token price would rise if the board of directors of anthropic suddenly wanted to make a profit and that comment also got deleted (this was in a virtual townhall so we can ask stuff, usually they just ignore the ones they don't want to answer but they were actually deleting them this time)
My last company they didn't delete messages. That would be to obvious.
"I am sorry we didn't get around to answering all the questions live. We will respond to the remaining by email"
No more questions were answered.
You know this already but your company management are morons.
is...your company publically traded itself? looking for an easy short
Sounds like they don't want to go along with these sham corporations and their smoke & mirrors accounting. It's like they want the companies in their index to be on sound financial footing or something.
Loooooseeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrs! Demanding fiscal accountability. HA!
The very idea!
I didn't know that the SNP500 had such rules, but I'm so happy they didn't cave.
I hope people sue the indexes for changing the rules. Im not sure its possible but it really makes an index meaningless if its not consistent.
Nasdaq and Russel caved though. I don't know if there is a way to avoid them in our 401k.
You should have the ability to select the investments in your 401k.
I mean, every company I participated in just give a menu of 20 or 40 mutual funds, targeting different maturation points or Industries, and people absolutely are allowed to pick which funds they want there 401K allocated into. It's just going to require an additional 10 minutes of searching to find out how much AI diaper load is riding in your preferred funds, and possibly having to forgo growth funds and total index funds for some number of seasons.
Personally, I just moved to roughly 40% in Int'l funds despite ASML and TSMC being featured prominently, because it is still a net reduction in exposure and because I need the diversification (~10% a S&P 500' value is directly exposed either AI or semiconductor, and roughly 33% of S&P 500 is straight Tech of some flavor).
Every 401k I and my wife have had let us set which index, but would rebalance itself every year because they believe they know better. It’s really annoying, but if you’re familiar with the markets, I would say it’s very necessary. Especially since the default funds will often have fees associated to them.
I actually just went hella heavy on Int'l and value stocks, in order to completely divest from Musk exposure in my retirement accounts.
Which muskless and ai-less indexes u found? I'm working on the same
VTV is value stocks, so minimal exposure. AND Vanguard Healthcare fund has often had consistent performance across Market Cycles. I haven't yet found an anti AI portfolio.
I'm looking ex-us for my growth and blended strategies. VXUS and VEA principally.
Fatwa all those godawful techbros.
Hmmm. Good for them.
Of course, I dumped the S&P 500 awhile back, to eliminate my exposure to the rest of the tech bubble (Amazon, Microsoft and friends betting hard on enshittification), anyway.
So this was both too little and too late, for me.
The only thing I'm gonna try investing in from this AI shitshow is China's CXMT RAM since they have a good chance of shanking both Nvidia and the RAM thug monopoly lol.
Excellent! Fuck Musk.
And while I'm not an AI hater, that is 100% the investors trying to cash out before the industry runs into trouble.
Has the S&P bent this rule before?
Yeah, it really is painfully obvious that the fatcats are trying to cash out on the bubble before it blows.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I've already withdrawn money I had invested in US.
You can't convince me this isn't bubble:
Here's an even more interesting one:
It's the P/E ratio (the ration between the stock Price of a company and it's Earnings) of the Nasdaq vs the Price.
Notice how the Nasdaq price has tracked the P/E, with since at least 2020 the stock prices not increasing because company earnings are going up but rather just from increased speculation hence the rise in the ratio of stock Prices to Earnings.
The P/E (in other words, the company stock prices relative to the actual money a company makes) is now about twice as much as back in 2020.
Wow that's a pretty wild statistic here. Is there historical precedent for this?
Yup I moved mostly out of usd, no stocks listed in the US, no US Treasuries.
I see either default or massive inflation or both in the cards for the US very soon.
Moving your money to overseas markets isn’t going to protect it. Other countries are having similar liquidity and bond issues. When the bubble bursts it’s going to be world wide.
Also fundamentals don’t mean shit when the bubble pops. Everything will come crashing down because everyone is panicking and knows that everyone else is also panicking. It will have a domino effect and even markets that aren’t even part of the bubble will get hit.
Agreed, but they shouldn’t tank as bad and businesses with healthy profits and a history of dividends should bounce back quickly.
It’s just not worth paying capital gains to pull it out of the market.
Yea I don't know why people think that this AI bubble is just in the USA, this is a global race, not just a US thing.
I'm still invested in some US stocks, but I'm switching my US market exposure to an index fund that weights by actual sales, revenue, and other objective factors, rather than market cap. Companies don't even get into the index unless they turn a profit first.
Which index is that?
I'm curious as well!
pls share
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
Oh thank god
Asset allocation funds might still include it. Your Vanguards and BlackRocks.
The very broad funds definitely will - VTI/VTSAX - but at lower weights and under less time pressure than the rigid index funds (VOO/VFIAX). That takes off a lot of the liquidity squeeze and (presumably) reduces their loss.
But you have to remember that people who use these funds intentionally invest in obvious losers and willingly overpay for hyped stocks because they believe, in the long run, that buying obvious losers is more than balanced by also buying the unexpected winners.
SpaceX is just the first time an oligarch tried so obviously to rig the passive investor structure to his favor, and I'm glad the S&P people didn't cave.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›