But assuming it is: How would you even call it, and how would you describe your methodology in the prospectus? "Tech 100 (compare with e.g. NASDAQ)"?
There is also the concept of "Index Tracking Error". No fund can perfectly mimic the index, and that is expected and understood, but the goal is generally to have the tracking error <0.1%- 1% would be a bad track. And so an index fund could take the risk that they will have a tracking error and delay picking up SpaceX even after it joins the official index, but then if it goes up they will look worse relative to their real competitors, the other NASDAQ 100 tracking index funds. If SpaceX goes down, of course, they will have positive tracking error, but I'm not sure how much potential investors would value that. SpaceX would be something like 4% of the NASDAQ 100 at it's announced expected market cap, so a 10% movement by SpaceX would be enough on its own to get you into the notable tracking error range if you didn't have any exposure to it.
Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2].
If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your investment. Assuming you're saving for retirement in 30 years time, the fees will cost you 15% or more.
Maybe your fund manager finds a Spacex-level mispricing every two years. In that case, they're worth the fees. Some people will tell you nobody can beat the market. My employer among others believes very strongly in the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. What is certainly true is that not everyone does.
[0] https://helpcenter.ark-funds.com/what-is-the-fee-structure-e...
[1] https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html
[2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/01/how-the-spacex-cou...
Does that article say that? I didn't see "4.5xm" mentioned anywhere. Also jow does QQQ do float adjusting? Will it do the same 5x that we're hearing nasdaq is going to do? (Which would make it what, <1%?). Or something else?
The article isn't a great source, agreed. But it does give this calculation:
> Oddly enough, had SpaceX entered the Nasdaq-100 with a market capitalization of $1.75 trillion on Friday, March 27 [assuming the new rules (?)], it would have supplanted Tesla as the fifth-largest holding in the benchmark. The electric vehicle stock accounts for 3.8% of the Invesco ETFs.
So it would come in somewhere above 3.8%, by those calculations. And it depends on market prices from day to day. Not much changes about the argument above if you make it 3% or 6%, holding constant the assumption that it's 30% overvalued.
It is just not addressed at all in the article, which makes it seem like they're assuming it's 100% of market cap.
Of course some do. After all, that's what makes an "average".
Some people are taller than average, too!
Someone can win at roulette and make more money than the average player over some measurement period, but nobody can be good at roulette (when properly implemented and stuff). Stocks are somewhat possible to be good at but results are mostly random and the fee you'd pay is usually way too much.
How would you know it is or is not luck?
> roulette
Has no winning strategy - it's very different.
The winning strategy with stocks is understanding the underlying businesses better than the average investor. Peter Lynch's Magellan fund did consistently better than others because Lynch had insights others didn't. When others figured it out, Magellan's returns retreated to market levels.
I.e. investors can do better than average if they have insight others don't have and stay below the radar.
