Even with the CRSP indexes this was recently changed to make fast-tracking for these IPOs easier.[0]
> CRSP indexes were also recently changed to better accommodate fast entry . . . Previously, these screens included having at least 10% of shares qualifying as freely tradeable (known as float shares outstanding, or FSO). However, in April the methodology changed to allow stocks with either 10% FSO or approximately $3.3 billion in float-adjusted market capitalization to be eligible for index inclusion.
That change is notable because both Anthropic and SpaceX are planning to IPO at well under that old 10% requirement.[1] Neither would have qualified for fast-track inclusion before, but both are virtually guaranteed to clear the absolute valuation bar.
The person I was responding to was speaking to the fast-track concept, which has been a thing in CRSP indexes for a quite a while.
The float requirement changes are directly due to these huge IPOs only placing small amounts of float on the market. Their goal seems to be tracking the market and making this change prevents them from excluding two notable companies from their indexes.
IIRC CRSP indexes are float-weighted so they aren't going to attempt buying a ton of these IPOs anyway due to that low float.
Again. Would I have made the change? No because placing that little float on the market isn't kosher IMO.
These IPOs will have minuscule impact on the indexes initially. They will have a big impact if they can maintain share price in the first ranking/reconstitution after the lockup period expires.
They will have a big impact if they can maintain share price AND the float increases due to the lockout period expiring (ie. pre-IPO owners selling off shares).
I'd like to know how the CRSP/Morningstar folks feel about the interesting lock-up period rules that Elon has inserted into the SpaceX IPO and how that jives with their analysis.
Won't the lockup expiry increase the float on these already-included companies, forcing mechanical buying by all the very large pool pool of folks holding these index funds? Thus creating forced buyers to maintain said share price?
Every single index fund is different. They all have publicly available methodology guides; you can read them to understand how it works and to model various scenarios.
This particular one, the CRSP total market - which Vanguard uses for VTI - has a “modern” methodology that is thought to be very good. Once every three months they re-rank the entire market and assign weights based on the market as of a particular point in time. Then, a randomly-chosen number of days later, the fund (Vanguard) begins a weeklong reconstitution process in which they buy and sell stocks to reflect the new weights. It is intentionally a weeklong process so that the market is setting prices and not Vanguard with the size of their orders.
The lockup expiry happens, the market reacts, the market is re-weighted, the index reconstitutes. In that order. The price of the stock has to survive the increased float to force the index fund to buy lots more shares.
To the site in general, where the dingo happened to be buried, rather than to the grave of the dingo.
Midden piles of fresh and saltwater shells abound in Australia - unsurprising given some 60K+ years of occupation by cruising along hunter gatherers.
The north west beaches I'm familiar with have many good fishing and marine food gathering spots and the dunes back from the high tide lines often reveal deep strata layers of shells dumped on a near daily basis over long windows of time.
Rivers are similar with remnants of fish traps (blasted by early Europeans for reasons of both navigation and moving the natives along) having waste layers (fish bones, freshwater shells, etc) nearby.
We really can’t know why, maybe it was continuous or maybe it was to have the dingos spirit guide their mussel harvest or maybe they wanted their dingo to never be hungry in the afterlife and that particular dingo was forgotten after a generation under accumulated shells, it’s deliberate but that’s all we can conclude.
The prevents them from asking before extending an offer, but it seems they could (and should) have checked after.[0]
> However, an employer may ask about criminal conviction(s) after extending a conditional offer of employment (the employer can never ask about arrests or criminal acusations that aren't pending). An employer who properly asks about a criminal conviction can only withdraw the offer or take adverse action against the applicant for a legitimate business reason that is reasonable under the six factors* listed in the Act.
One of the six factors is "Fitness or ability of the person to perform one or more job duties or responsibilities
given the offense"[1], which they probably could have invoked after asking (though they never checked or didn't check thoroughly enough, so I guess it's moot).
> If . . . the replacement has a higher version number than the one in the SYSBCKUP directory, then the replacement was copied into the SYSBCKUP directory for safekeeping.
This as well. I know there are a million ways for a malicious installer to brick Win95, but a particularly funny one is hijacking the OS to perpetually rewrite its own system components back to compromised version number ∞ whenever another installer tries to clean things up.
It doesn't say for certain, but assuming the version of this they settled on (restoring components after the installation finished) is what they shipped in the original version of Windows 95, then no, I don't think this could have caused hangs in the installer itself (unless Win95 misjudged whether the installer had completed or not and started the restore process early?).
The right has an extremely large chip on their shoulder when insisting that the their _more popular media outlets_ do not count as "mainstream media" because... reasons.
Fox news, who constantly tells it's listeners that it's #1 in the world for news, also lambasts "mainstream media". After bragging their the most mainstream of mainstream
That's just something they say to scare the children.
In any event, the point of a decent algorithm is that if the result isn't complying with the action, upcoming updates to the weights will fix it. Moreover, changes to the weight would be such that they optimize for maximum learning.
It is so weird seeing people preach for an obscure entity to do something so basic, and being shut down when asking for transparency. Today's AIs could write good model-development algorithms for tasks that are a hundred times more complicated.
Oops, the unaccountable algorithm eased when it should have tightened and Volcker Shocked when it should have eased. No prob, the weights will get tweaked and all will be well. Once the economic crisis blows over, anyway . . .
> That's just something they say to scare the children.
Is that really your response to “past results aren’t indicative of future performance”? Honestly at that point why not just let ChatGPT run loose and set guidance? Please, I implore you to think about the issue a bit deeper.
No, they're referring to an error that pops up when you visit a page whose url ends in 'women-in-the-world.html'; you can click okay and still browse the page though :-)
Haha thank you. That went over my head. I dismissed that box without reading the error. But... I can neither confirm nor deny I understand what you are referring to ;)
Even with the CRSP indexes this was recently changed to make fast-tracking for these IPOs easier.[0]
> CRSP indexes were also recently changed to better accommodate fast entry . . . Previously, these screens included having at least 10% of shares qualifying as freely tradeable (known as float shares outstanding, or FSO). However, in April the methodology changed to allow stocks with either 10% FSO or approximately $3.3 billion in float-adjusted market capitalization to be eligible for index inclusion.
That change is notable because both Anthropic and SpaceX are planning to IPO at well under that old 10% requirement.[1] Neither would have qualified for fast-track inclusion before, but both are virtually guaranteed to clear the absolute valuation bar.
[0]https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/some-indexes-accelerate-e...
[1]https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/06/01/c...
reply