25 Comments
User's avatar
Ocelot's avatar

A new Keubiko substack article is a damn good way to start a Tuesday.

A Noisy Corax's avatar

Been saying it for awhile: NASDAQ is just OTC+

Stocks that I Own's avatar

You are insulting the OTC

Keubiko's avatar

OTCM stock is interesting. DYODD. The bagholder casino with no capital requirement.

jefke's avatar

Welcome back

Seneca909's avatar

Golden age of grift, let's

face it Elon owns this game.

Keenan's avatar

You’re greatly missed on Xitter, my friend.

Don Cowie's avatar

How about drop NAZDAQ from its inclusion in index allocation. prefer close substites instead. In order to change behaviour you need to change the incentives. Other options?

Dan Stringer's avatar

QQQ option play for December? Good to see you at it.

Mitch's avatar

Keubiko, you've always been one of the good ones. Great work here.

Jason's avatar

Thank you for writing and sharing this.

I don't know as much about this is you all, but what's the defense against this? Cashing out index and other funds invested in NaSpaceXDaq? Vanguard liquidating funds and returning investments? Index funds changing their criteria to eliminate corruption? I understand the problem, but not sure what society should do, sadly.

Mitch's avatar

Short the stock after the lockup expires.

Clarke Pitts's avatar

This has happened before. NTT (Japan's equivalent of ATT) had a mobile telephony subsidiary called NTT Docomo. Eventually that became more valuable than the parent and they listed a stub. Again the index publishers tinkered with the seasoning rules and free float to include it. This was in 1998.

Not as catastrophic as the rebalance in 2000 when the Nikkei 225 underperformed the very similar TOPIX by over 10% in a week.

Debra Douglas's avatar

Love your disclaimer—and the work! Weirdly, I read disclaimers.

Buddy's avatar

Listen, Ernst Stavro Blauvelt, ah-hem…I mean Elon Musk, can’t possibly rule the galaxy AND be free from our central government overlords without enormous sums of money, can he? Trust the process and get in early!

Ken Davies's avatar

The world would be a lot cleaner without Musk being in it

Aaron Songer's avatar

So, the NASDAQ 100 has a market cap of $33 trillion. At an 'as adjusted' basis market cap of $438 billion, that's 1.3% of the index. The largest index fund (QQQ) holds $400 billion in assets, so they'll need to buy $5.3 billion on a free float of $87 billion in your example.

Interesting.

Zachary Ibrahim's avatar

The companies getting sold are screwed especially the one the board decides to expelled from the index.

Aaron Songer's avatar

I had thought the same and then did some more math. At 1.3% of the index, that means that needs to be taken from the 99 other companies. (Actually there are currently 101 companies in the NASDAQ 100, so there are another 100.). In the case above, QQQ has to cumulatively sell $5.3bn from companies worth $33 trillion. Not that big of a deal.

The 100/101st companies, which happen to be Atlassian and CoStar, I suppose would take a knock once they are replaced in the index. Kind of like relegation in European soccer. Probably not as painful though.

Mezzanotte's avatar

If the borrow isn't too expensive, short SpaceX against the proportion in your QQQ. And be ready for serious volatility.