You protect yourself by understanding that this is one infinitesimally small cost (expressed as a fraction of your portfolio returns) that doesn't overcome the benefits of maximum diversification and the ultra-low fees of broad-based ETFs.
Buy MSCI World, enjoy the 0.04% p.a. fees and minimal idiosyncratic risk, and relax.
Index rebalance traders will reduce your annual returns by less (probably much less) than 0.1%, but there is no better alternative for you at this moment in time.
I broadly agree. Though I'm less pessimistic: lots of people will pay lots of attention to SpaceX and friends, and with short selling in public markets being possible, an accurate price will be established very quickly.
Remember also: index funds are some of the participants most keen to lend out their shares to short sellers. It's one of the rare ways they can boost returns above the raw index they follow.
> and with short selling in public markets being possible, an accurate price will be established very quickly.
I know very little about markets, but: aren't the short-sellers just going to provide liquidity for the big index funds? Like, if the funds HAVE to buy SpaceX, and the funds are enormous, wont every single stock sold short be immediately gobbled up, as well as pretty much anyone else wanting to sell? Even if everyone else is selling like mad, it wont affect price much at all?
Maybe this is naive, but if these enormous funds are more or less forced to buy SpaceX, it seems impossible that "actual price discovery" is going to happen in any reasonable amount of time, and the short-sellers will be screwed.
Most index funds, and essentially all that matter economically, hold stock in proportion to the free float, and not the total market capitalisation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_float
So if SpaceX only sells 1% of shares in the IPO, and the rest are locked up, then these index funds will only try to buy some fraction of this 1%.
For simplicity, let's assume about 25% of stocks by value are held by index funds. In our case, that would mean that index funds would buy 25% of 1% of SpaceX, or about 0.25% of SpaceX's market capitalisation. For simplicity, assume a SpaceX market capitalisation of 2 trillion USD, so that would be 5 billion USD. A big sum for you and me, but not all that much too worry about for the index fund industry and the stock market.
Later on, the lock ups will be lifted. That will increase SpaceX's weight in the relevant indices, but will also make sure that more stock is available to buy for them.
About the impact of short sellers: let me construct an exaggerated cartoon example. Suppose our index fund already has a 100 shares of SpaceX and wants to hold 300 more, but no else who holds SpaceX is currently allowed to sell for another three months.
Well, index funds are really, really keen on lending out shares to get a bit of extra revenue. So the index funds lends out 100 shares. They go to a short seller, who immediately sells them back on the exchange, where the index fund buys them. Now the index fund has exposure to 200 shares. 100 'real' shares it just bought, and 100 shares that the short sellers owes them. Well, the index fund can lend out the 100 real shares again, and repeat the cycle 2 more times, so that at the end they have 300 lend out shares and 100 real shares on their books.
In three months the lockups expire, and the short seller closes out their short position.
The above is an exaggerated stylised cartoon description, but it's not too far off what can happen in principle.
Well, the index fund would lend out the 100 'real' shares they have at the end, too, just to collect a bit of extra borrow fee on another 100 shares. So the index fund has an economic claim to 400 lend out shares, and doesn't currently hold any physical shares.
Other market participants can trade these 100 physical shares back and forth amongst each other (or loan them to each other, too) to help with price discovery.
There's also stock futures, where you trade the right/obligation to transact some shares at specific prices in the future. Economically, entering into a contract today to be obliged to sell shares in the future is equivalent to becoming a short-seller, but for regulatory reason you don't need to borrow the shares when selling futures.
So stock futures are another way to help with price discovery, even when there's scarcely any underlying shares available right now.
> with short selling in public markets being possible, an accurate price will be established very quickly
It'll be virtually impossible to short sell the stock within the first month due to lockups, and it'll take 180 days for all the pools to be available: then, we'll have a more-or-less "accurate" price, as you put it.
Whatever float is available on the market can be made available for short sellers to borrow. That can even happen multiple times: ie short interest can exceed 100% of the float. Or even 100% of the market capitalisation.
With stock futures, you don't even need to borrow the stock to (effectively) short it: anyone with enough collateral can write stock futures, whether they own the underlying stock or not.
Not buy these index funds. If you don’t want to own the entire market, don’t buy funds that seek to own the entire market. Funds like ESGV which exclude companies with poor governance have existed for a very long time - I can’t find a clear answer as to whether or not it will buy SpaceX, but I’m sure you can find funds that cater to your desires.
That ignores the actual issue here, which is the change in rules. Index funds already seek to own the entire market, and when most people chose these index funds there were rules about when newly listed stocks get purchased by the funds. And now those rules are being changed.
Index funds generally try to match the performance of the index, but most are not required to hold the same companies as the index itself does. They typically do, but managers often have choices.
Yes, most index funds don't literally intend to own the entire market for any sufficiently broad interpretation of the word "entire."
But the point is that we have notable index funds which are marketed to customers as having the intention to own segments of the market according to certain rules, and they are changing those rules with relatively short notice and for reasons that seem suspicious to many customers.
> Yes, most index funds don't literally intend to own the entire market for any sufficiently broad interpretation of the word "entire."
I mean that your index doesn't even have to own a segment of the market. Just look at eg how the Dow Jones Industrial Average is constructed. When a company has a stock split, it changes its weight in that index. That has nothing to do with 'the market'. (Stock splits have approximately no influence on your weight in the S&P500.)
Or you could have an index that captures all the stocks whose ticker starts with X minus those that start with Y plus the current temperature in Frankfort, Kentucky, in Rankine degrees.
The problem is I'm already in a S&P500-tracking ETF, for a decently large amount of money. Selling it off would be a big taxable event for me, something I don't want to do.
Could you use a prediction market (or Spread Betting in the UK) to hedge against your ETF loosing money during the period? If the ETF lost value, the hedge would gain it back and vice versa. You wouldn't need to sell the ETF and you'd only be liable for tax on gains from the prediction.
Yes, because when you sell it, you get cash and profit. Profit is taxable, in Germany they tax it with 25% + Solidarity Tax + Church Tax (if you are a member of a church).
After, you can go ahead and buy another fund, but in between you "shed" a significant amount of money.
However they are literally changing the rules of what "the entire market" means to include those companies sooner that they would have been when people bought those indices.
I want to own the whole market AFTER the due process of price discovery. This was always understood as new stocks will have a couple quarters to prove themselves before being included.
There is a ton of research that almost every IPO on average goes down in the first 6 month. That's why they are not included by default.
If you intend to remain a passive investor, keep doing what you’re doing. If you have conviction that AI boom will bust and you want to become an active investor, follow the advice from other comments on how to prevent these companies from being part of your portfolio. If you're going to become an active trader, I suggest thinking about both upside and downside risks and look beyond the local echo chamber.
Here are some options for pre-tax retirement funds (ex. 401k):
1. Exchange your market-cap funds for S&P 500. Afaict, even with their own rules changing, they will wait up to 6 months (as opposed to 12) to let SpaceX in. This is the simplest solution that buys you time without losing other gains in the market, assuming your existing funds were broad market-cap funds. The idea here is to wait for ~5 months and see if you still want/need to exit S&P before they let SpaceX in, or pick another option.
2. Exchange your market-cap funds for RSP, an equal-weight fund. This is also simple and reduces your risk, as SpaceX's allocation of the fund would only be 0.2%.
3. Exchange your market-cap funds for a selection of different funds in order to replicate the previous allocation. Buy small-cap and mid-cap funds, and buy ETFs that cover the market without including tech. This is more complicated, but not really that complicated once you learn how to exchange funds. Still mostly passive, you're just actively managing your allocation into different indexes. Downside is you lose the gains from tech.
4. Exchange all your index funds - temporarily - for a money market fund or other low-risk, low-return investment vehicle, until SpaceX price settles down. This is the absolute simplest option, least risk, least reward. You lose all the gains from the market during this time, but a percentage of your fund doesn't disappear overnight. If you're nervous, it's safe to do this by June 11th and sit on it until July 5th and see what you'd like to do then.
You probably DO NOT want to do this for non-retirement funds, as you will get hit with capital gains taxes. You would have to estimate how much you think your portfolio would drop due to SpaceX's overinflated price falling, and compare that to your potential tax bill from rebalancing. It's almost certain that your tax hit would be higher.
1) You didn't ask 2) The guy who asked didn't say "make sure you don't use any tools to research answers to my questions, I only want unverified human ignorance", in which case I wouldn't have replied 3) The advice is free, you're free to ignore it
You could move your passive investment to an index that includes a great proportion of bonds or move to an entirely bond based index. You reduce the upside potential and downside potential.
I personally have moved my retirement accounts to bonds while being more aggressive with my personal investments.
Here are some factors I would expect to rule out the frothiest stocks:
"Quality Factor ETFs are made up of securities deemed to exhibit strong fundamental characteristics. These ETFs screen for stocks that have healthy balance sheets, encouraging growth prospects, and consistent improvements in their earnings."
"Value-centric ETFs invest in securities deemed to possess value characteristics, including those operating in stable industries with relatively low price-to-earnings ratios."
"Low Volatility ETFs invest in securities with low volatility characteristics. These funds tend to have relatively stable share prices, and higher than average yields."
Be sure to check the expense ratios on smart beta ETFs. Generally, the more sophisticated the stock screening, the more they will charge you in management fees.
Personally, I keep my portfolio extremely conservative. My bet is that if the singularity arrives, we will all either die, or get UBI. I don't particularly care about having more moons than the other guy: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-have-only-x-years-to-es...
That’ll do precisely zero to protect against the effect described. In fact the opposite - the dividend paying stocks will by mathematically necessity be among those ETFs sell down to buy these IPOs
I believe you may have gotten discussion threads mixed up, but in any case: I expect that as SpaceX investors sell their SpaceX stock, they will buy ordinary equities to diversify.
