First: 5x5 is 25, not 20. So it's 25% rather than 20%
Second: they only have to buy the 25% of the listed shares.
To take your 1 Trillion example: if SpaceX has a total market cap of 1T, but only 500b get listed on NASDAQ, and the free float is 5%, the index will weigh SpaceX at 25% of the listed shares, which means it will be weighted at 500 * 0.25 = 125b.
And also note that index ETFs have tracking errors all the time (that's why arbitrage traders still have business!), and the ETFs themselves could also track the performance of SpaceX via derivatives instead of buying the stock. And I think, there are many investors of SpaceX who would like to sell some shares. Fund managers won't have an issue finding their phone numbers.
It is amazing that you can complain about a simplified example and then both misunderstand it and get literally every single one of your "corrections" wrong.
1. As I made abundantly clear, 20% is the passive ownership of the index. It has no relation to the index weighting which you are mentioning.
2. They have to buy 20% of the weighted value. The actual weight is 5x the float. I chose to use a weight of 100% instead of a multiple of the float as a simplification since any weighting greater than the float could result in a squeeze given a large enough passive/obligated ownership pool. However, since I was expecting this sort of "correction", I chose 20% passive ownership of the index (i.e. 1/5) so that they would have to buy 20% of the 25% which is 5%, the same amount as the 5% float. This would result in the passive investors having to purchase all of publicly traded stock which is the divide by zero point that spikes the stock. So, even if your correction was not wrong, I also already countered it.
3. Tracking errors are distinct from intentionally not tracking the index you are contractually obligated to match. You are insinuating that the target of these financial manipulations will defend their clients by ignoring their legal obligations and blaming it on "tracking error". While that is possible, I see no reason to assume that will be the case upfront or to do anything other than apply blame to the entity attempting to financially manipulate retirement accounts into lining their own pockets.
4. Yes, there are other insiders with shares. I used a simplified example where there is a single insider, the founder, to highlight the power that the insiders have over the pricing in such a squeeze. However, you also got this wrong because insiders usually have lockup periods after the IPO that are longer than the 15-days expected for index inclusion. As such, the fund managers would not be able to purchase any shares other than the public shares until after the first rebalance.
Also, I would be a lot more pessimistic of the index tracking fund managers’ ability or willingness to find extra shares: their goal is to match the index, not beat it. If the index includes the new firm at a blown-up price because everyone sent their buy orders at the same closing auction, then all the index-tracking funds still track their underlying index. They do not care that after that closing auction, the price of the new firm—and likely the index itself—is going to drop.
I recommend the NDX proposal from February which the whole discussion is based upon:
"To balance index integrity and investability, Nasdaq proposes a new approach for including and weighting low-float securities (those below 20% free float). Each low-float security’s weight will be adjusted to five times its free float percentage, capped at 100%. Securities with more than 20% free float will continue to be weighted at full, eligible listed market capitalization, while those below 20% free float will be weighted proportionally to preserve investability."
The document includes a scenario with the rules applied to SpaceX. "Company C" in the table is SpaceX (with some estimated numbers).
> also note that index ETFs have tracking errors all the time (that's why arbitrage traders still have business!)
I call bullshit. We are talking about tracking errors in single basis points for well structured ETFs with good liquidity. This spread is still (at least!) 10x less than what a normie retail trader could achieve on their own -- trading the basket manually.
I didn't mention retail traders anywhere. With arbitrage traders I mean those companies who do hft all the time and are directly connected to exchanges. They still do business.
WSL2 distributions share the same Linux kernel. They only get their own root filesystem with a Linux userland (/bin, /usr, /lib etc), and some WSL config meta data. This is then stored as a virtual disk image (which is probably where your belief comes from). But the kernel runs in a single utility VM. The distros share that kernel instance and they are separated via namespaces only.
This makes running multiple WSL2 distributions in parallel very performant btw, as there is no world switch.
I stand corrected. It makes sense that it is a chroot/rootfs rather than fully independent VMs.
re: side-by-side running, I always get socket and/port port problems when doing that. Without having looked into it at all I figure it is NAT collisions.
Every accepted PR for supporting insecure phones eventually becomes a maintenance burden, and potentially a security vulnerability. If they don't want to spend time on it, it's okay to decline such PRs.
2) why could they not just up the prices for new deployments, like they did with their dedicated servers? I think that would be fairer to existing customers
If you have a company, I can recommend leaseweb for cheap hosting. I host my personal stuff like my email and my ente.io instance there. They are cheaper than Hetzner (already before the new price increase) if you don't need managed k8s.
You don't even need to do requests if you are the owner of the URL. Robot.txt changes are applied in retrospect, which means you can disallow crawls to /abc, request a re-crawl, and all snapshots from the past which match this new rule will be removed.
I prefer archive.today because the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine allows retrospective removals of archived pages. If a URL has already been crawled and archived, the site owner can later add that URL to robots.txt and request a re-crawl. Once the crawler detects the updated robots.txt, previously stored snapshots of that page can become inaccessible, even if they were captured before the rule was added.
Unfortunately this happens more often than one would expect.
I found this out when I preserved my very first homepage I made as a child on a free hosting service. I archived it on archive.org, and thought it would stay there forever. Then, in 2017 the free host changed the robots.txt, closed all services, and my treasured memory was forever gone from the internet. ;(
Any idea when that changed? I've been unable to access historical sites in the past because someone parked the domain and had a very restrictive robots.txt on it.
reply