SpaceX Just Got Fast-Tracked Into Your Portfolio

You know that rep who closes faster than everyone else, they're not quite who they seem.

“While they're walking into every call prep, writing perfect hand-off briefs and follow-ups”

and catching every signal in time, they've actually got Atia working for them around the clock. Atia's revenue agents qualify and work every account so they can move at scale with ease. It's how startups, including Granola, Motel, and Whisper Flow win, you can go to Atio.com/Proftshee

and you'll get 15% off your first year at ATTIO.com/Proftshee.

Here's something most wellness influencers won't tell you. Obsessing over supplements, powders, cold plunges, wearables, and hacks, that's going to undermine your goals. I call it majoring in the minors and it is one of the five mistakes I see people make most on their wellness journeys.

I'm Rapid Edson, VP and head instructor at Peloton, and this week on my podcast ProjectsWagger, I'm sharing all of those mistakes and what I want to see you do instead. Follow ProjectsWagger now, wherever you get your podcasts. One day, with the help of science, you might be able to live forever. Pour everything!

Your body will just need a couple of tune-ups, injecting bone marrow in your 40s, your kidney in your 50s, your heart in your 60s, and so on, and then potentially a whole body transplant by the time that you were 90. This week, I'm explaining it to me, the quest for longevity. Find new episodes, Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to Prophecy Markets, I'm Ed Nelson, it is July 7th, let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices rose as chipmakers climbed out of last week's slump, the Dow closed

above 53,000 for the first time, oil was stable as Saudi Arabia cut its prices and

opaque increased its production target, and finally, Dell stock popped as much as 8% after some comments from the president, more on that later. Okay, what else is happening? It's official, SpaceX is part of the Nasdaq 100, as of this morning, SpaceX's performance will influence the more than $1.4 trillion that is benchmarked to the index.

The stock currently has a weight of about 1% and now tens of millions of Americans invested in the Nasdaq 100 index funds indirectly own it. SpaceX got in under new fast track rules, which cut the required trading history to just 15 days and also got rid of the float requirements altogether. Nasdaq's rapid inclusion of SpaceX leaves investors with many questions, one of them being

has this company proven itself enough to be included in one of the world's most followed stock indices. Here to discuss this question, we're speaking with Michael Green, Chief Strategist and portfolio manager for Simplify asset management, Michael, it's good to see you again.

“I think a lot of people were wondering if this company should really be a public company,”

if it was profitable enough, and also if the price made any sense, but now there's sort of another question which should it be in passive index funds, specifically the Nasdaq 100, which a lot of passive investors own indirectly. What do you make of it? Well, I mean, unfortunately, I think this is the logical conclusion of America's shift

towards passive index investing, rather than have a choice being made by an individual or by a portfolio manager. We now have choices that are being made simply by the index, which has an obvious incentive to get companies public, get them listed on the Nasdaq offer Nasdaq inclusion as a component of that in order to get the listing on the Nasdaq index, this compared to the New York

stock exchange or other exchanges that could potentially have listed on. So we understand why this is occurring, or we have a very strong sense for why this is occurring. It is an opportunity to effectively exploit the index position to bring the company public,

get it listed, drive the capacity for insiders to sell shares, and ultimately create liquidity

for those inside investors.

“As to whether or not that's a good idea, obviously, I think it is not from the tone that I'm”

using. I think it is candidly quite manipulative.

does not have the same requirements that active management has for fiduciary standards or suitability standards. If I run a strategy that says I'm going to do X when I suddenly unexpectedly change that, I'm allowed, my investors are allowed to sue me. We are by and large protected from that in the index world, as long as the index methodology

has changed rather than simply the inclusion of a new stock. In this case, they published their intent to do this in advance of the listing. It was open for comment period. My understanding is the comments were almost universally negative. I certainly contributed several of those myself.

It was much like Chicago, I voted twice and often, even after I had died. But the simple reality is that they were intent on doing this. It's a profitable decision. It draws attention and gets a discussion in the Nasdaq 100 or the QQQETF, which is part of the objective as well.

Now we're confronted with a scenario in which funds can actually be invested in under the idea that they are passive, that they receive special treatment under the law, and yet they've exposed themselves as not at all being passive. It's the logical conclusion of what you would expect eventually will figure out how to manipulate anything to generate profits.

“It seems as though, if we were to sort of go through the winners and losers here, I think”

you and I both agree that the loser is the passive investor who doesn't really know what's

happening and the rules are being changed, basically for this specific company, the SpaceX

potentially for Elon Musk, almost breaks down the whole point of pass investing. As for the winners, clearly it's kind of a win for Nasdaq, it's probably a win for some of the ETFs that track the Nasdaq, like in Vesco, QQQ being the largest one. Probably a win for SpaceX too because it means that you're getting all of this passive investment which boosts your share price, just specifically this index from the Nasdaq 100.

There was a question as to whether the S&P was going to include them, they were debating at the S&P decided no. The Nasdaq is smaller than the S&P, but it has included it in the index, tens of millions of Americans own an index that tracks the Nasdaq 100, $1.4 trillion in capitalized as I suggested. What kind of upward pressure will this actually put on the stock?

“Like how much have a win is it for SpaceX to be included in the Nasdaq 100?”

Well, when you highlight that it is in the neighborhood of 1.4 trillion that is tracking it, and it is roughly a 1% weight, although it is receiving additional weight because of the flow multiplier that is being used. You are talking several billions, tens of billions of dollars that are ultimately going to flow into these investments.

The big winners there are those who are seeking liquidity. The Insiders who are actually looking to sell shares, whether those are investors who invested during its private, its extended private period, or whether those are employees

who have waited for liquidity, the answer is it's the Insiders.

That unfortunately I think contributes to the general perception that the stock markets are really not set up for the average investor at this point, although we are thrilled to see them move higher given our participation through things like 401(k)s, it is a little bit of a slap in the face to see somebody become the world's first trillion error on the basis of manipulating an index that we were all told we could trust.

What do you think this means for passive investing in the future? I mean, if we are getting rid of the float requirements, we are getting rid of the amount

“of time that you have to be listed before you are included, but changing all of the rules,”

it feels like this is kind of just a race to the bottom. I mean, I don't see why you don't just get rid of all the rules. I think there is definitely some truth to that. I think what we need to remember is, is that passive was never passive by its own definition. The definition of a passive investor is somebody who never buys or sells.

That makes sense to many individual investors who threw their 401(k) or a quote-unquote

buy and hold, but that first step, the buy, actually is a really critical component because

you are contributing cash to the portfolio that causes the portfolio to need to be rebalanced. That was his trading and influences prices. Through the last five to seven years, we have learned an extraordinary amount about the influence of passive investing. My work suggests that the impact of passive strategies is rising the S&P increasing the S&P

by nearly 18% a year now. I know that sounds like an astonishing number given that the S&P was only up 15% last year.

we not chosen to invest this way. We decided to do this because we thought that it simplified the process. It did simplify the process for average investors. It also simplified the process of taking advantage of those investors as we have just seen.

“Do you think that passive investing is something that we should just be reconsidering all together?”

Are you not a fan of passive investing in general or is it only recently that you're in a change? I've been doing research and reporting and writing on this for a while over a decade now. Some time around 2016, the formative literature and the awareness began to grow that there was

an impact from passive investing, which had always been presented as effectively a not

meaningful impact on the market. Even today, you will hear Van Garten talk about the small fraction of trading that is involved in passive trading, those are simply misrepresentations, unfortunately, what they consider is what's called the organic trading. It excludes all of the flow characteristics that I just walked you through.

So when we look at what's happening in the markets today, we have about a trillion dollars that is flowing into index funds. We have somewhere in that neighborhood that is actually leaving the discretionary active community. My lament is not about the active community. It's about the impact that has on the markets.

We're destroying the process of price discovery. You asked, is it the right price for SpaceX?

The reality is nobody knows and nobody bothered to look at it and everyone who has has

has come to the conclusion that it's fantastically overvalued. In fact, it really shouldn't even be called SpaceX. It should be called XAI because three quarters of the expected value and most of the forecasts are tied to its money losing non-profitable and lagging AI business. Why that justifies such an extraordinary multiple evaluation is somewhat beyond me.

But once you declare it into the index at those levels, the index accepts that the last price

“was right, and that's really the key of passive.”

It passively accepts the price. And so when you involve them in the process of listing in this manner, you are structurally changing outcomes. It's a tough one because a lot of the, I like the point that you bring up that there's those things really as passive investing.

Someone asked to buy at some point and someone has to be the one to make that decision. And the thing that seems to hold it all together, at least for my perspective, is trust in the rules and the regulations that sort of govern those passive index funds. I mean, if you trust that there is a framework in place that says we're only going to buy these types of companies that have proven themselves over the long term that only makes

sense in these conditions, then it sort of makes me feel a little bit more comfortable to close my eyes and say, okay, you guys handle it. You at the Nasdaq, you at the S&P and I'm down and I'll put it in and to be fair, it's worked for a lot of investors who have just dollar cost average into the S&P and it's all been fine. It does seem that there will come a point, though, where if they continue to

make these change requirements that might not work out because SpaceX could implode over the next six to 12 months. We've got all of the lockups expiring over the next few months,

which is going to put huge downward pressure on the stock. It could ultimately be a bad

decision, which ultimately may lead to outflows. And I wonder if that's the next chapter in the story that people say, you know, we don't trust these people, managing our money anymore. I'm taking matters into my own hands. I'm going to choose exactly which stocks

“I'm going to buy personally. Is that the next chapter in your view?”

I don't think so. I think actually the next chapter is we will see more of this type of manipulation. There are many, many publicly traded, privately held companies that would love to list under these types of conditions and to receive the multiplier. My hunch is that we will actually see that exploitation and a repeat of the late 1990s, IPO boom, before we see anything resembling the outflow to components that you're highlighting.

File question here on SpaceX. I think we both sounds like we both agree on SpaceX, but many people wouldn't your views on the company, the valuation, the financials, and whether or not it is a sound investment. Ultimately, I want to be clear for an investor into the NASDAQ 100 or into any index, like the total market indices that have already included SpaceX because of its size in

their indexes. Ultimately, whether it turns out to be a good investment or a bad investment is not going to be all that material. It is relatively small fraction of the index, so even if it went to zero, the ultimate impact on the index investor would be largely negligible.

that allows corporate executives and insiders to dump shares onto an unsuspecting public.

“And the last thing I would highlight is that I think you're giving people by and large”

too much credit. I think this audience very well may be aware of what you're discussing,

but the really critical changes were made in 2006 when we created what's called the Pension

Protection Act, rolled people we switched our retirement system of 401Ks from what's called an opt-in framework in which they had to choose to participate into what's called an opt-out framework where they had to choose not to participate. That exploded the number of people who held 401Ks, a climb from around 25%, since today is around 65%, it radically reduced the investment choices that most people are exposed to. And candidly, I would argue that

most people are sleepwalking through this process, not really aware of what they're investing in or why they're investing in it. They're simply doing as they are told that's always that can be a good thing. It can also be a bad thing. If everybody starts doing what they're

“told as we are seeing, it creates the distortions that we are experiencing as markets”

becoming increasingly disassociated from fundamentals. So should this be happening? No.

But we made a choice to do it this way. And as I said at the very beginning, it's likely the logical conclusion. We will figure out a way to exploit this phenomenon and turn it into profits for those who are highly incentivized to create those profits. Michael Green is chief strategist and portfolio manager for Simplify asset management. Michael really appreciate your time. Thank you. My pleasure. Off to the break, worrying signs in the

jobs report. And for even more markets insights, you can subscribe to my weekly newsletters simply put at Simplify.proftimeedia.com. Support for the show comes from Anthropics. Some questions don't come with obvious answers, and when you're working through a challenging problem, it helps have a partner bounce ideas

“off of and a covered deeper issues beneath the surface. That's where Claude can help.”

Claude is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough. It's a collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow and thinks with you. Whether a debugging code of midnight or strategizing your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems of matter. And Claude brings the power of Claude code to a desktop app. No terminal require. Just connect it to a folder on your computer or service like Google Drive and Gmail,

describe what you need and it gets to work. Whether that's organizing files, building spreadsheets, or turning scattered notes into a polished report, co-work and handle the heavy lifting. You can even queue up tasks and come back later to find the work already done. For problems worth solving, get started with Claude today at Claude.au/markets. That's Claude.au/markets and check out Claude Pro which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode.

Claude.au/markets. Support for the show comes from Vanta. Every new tool your team signs up for, every vendor that turns on AF features, every new integration has a chance for something to go wrong. And most security programs weren't built for a space to grow. Enter Vanta. Vanta is the number-one-agentic trust platform used by over 16,000 fast moving companies, including ramp,

cursor, and Harvey to ensure they're always audit-ready. And now Vanta is helping companies like

yours watch for the risks that show between all of it. Across your vendors, your AI tools, and your entire environment. How? The Vanta Agent Network works like a 24/7 GRC engineer in the background. Finding issues, drafting fixes for you, and cutting vendor assessment time by up to 50%. Whether you're a fast growing startup or a global enterprise, Vanta is here to help you automate your security compliance and earn and prove trust. Get started today at Vanta.com/markets.

That's V-A-N-T-A dot com/markets. 1, 2, 3! I'm stand-up comedian John Marcos Suraisy, and I'm actor penis model Russell Daniels. The downside is our podcast where we bring on guests to talk about how miserable their lives are, because let's face it. Things are not getting better. Every episode we talk about what's wrong

with our lives, our guest lives, the world, but in a fun way. Bottom line is you're going to walk away feeling better about your life. We've had so many cool guests Caleb here on. Busy films, Stavros Halkius, LeVern Cox, Hassan Piker, Elana Glazer, I promise you're going to have a good time. Now in the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is the downside.

added just 57,000 jobs in June, and less than half the number of economists were forecasting. April and May payrolls were also revised downwards, and while the unemployment rate actually fell

to a 4.2 percent, that was largely due to a sharp decline in the labor force participation rate

rather than a surge in hiring. Roughly 720,000 people left the labor force between May and June, which dragged the participation rate down to its lowest level in about five years. So joining us to discuss the June jobs report, we're speaking with podfavorite Catherine and Edward's PhD economist, economic policy consultant and colonist for Bloomberg News. Catherine, welcome back to the show. It's great to see you. This jobs report here doesn't seem great

and the labor force participation number doesn't seem great either. In fact, it seems quite

“concerning, but what's the truth? What's the reality? What should we make of it?”

I mean, I think in some ways this report really puts us in the place that we've been for about a

year and a half, which is the labor market is treading water, and so many of the indicators that we

look at so closely. I mean, it's almost like they're bouncing within their standard air. You know, just they're right around zero, they go up a little bit, they go down a little bit, but we're not seeing a trend that we can monitor over time. We're not seeing it just fall apart in just a climb, we're not seeing it just take off and recover and become stronger. We're just seeing this almost like noise around the mean and the mean is treading water. I think it makes it harder

to parse on a monthly level, but the upshot is this is a weak labor market because if it weren't weak, it'd be very obvious to see it growing, showing signs of strength and we just don't see it. The strangest part to me is the labor force participation rate and just to clarify what that means for people. This is the share of the working age population that is either working, obviously, or looking for work, which fell, which to me tells me that a lot of Americans are saying,

"I'm no longer going to look for work now," and we see that that rate was especially among the 25

“to 54-year-old demographic was especially pronounced. How do we make sense of that?”

Labor force in the U.S. this century, people tend to not that you're doing this, but people tend to pick the rate that they want. If you look just at the overall rate for 16 and older, it's really low this century because it's reflecting the retirement of the baby boomers, right? It doesn't have an age cap on our overall labor force participation rate, which is why you're right to look at the prime age. It's not really taking into account those big demographic shifts, but how much

are people who are really expected to be working and the cutoff for leaving the labor force because you've gotten, because you're no longer looking for work is really tight. It's just four weeks.

So it's basically since the last survey, have you looked for work in the past four weeks?

If you say, "No, you fall off." There could be people who have sent in a lot of us have looked for a job, but you're so frantic. You fill out 50 applications, and then you're at almost like, "We're trying to buy a house. You've got to wait for something else to come on the market," and that can push you kind of mechanically out of the labor force. For interpreting the market's strength, what to get from the prime age labor force participation falling in the months,

you can think of it as maybe it's just noise, like I said at the beginning, or it's a function of what we have seen to be true in the labor market for some time, which is it is not generating jobs or people who have been looking for some time. Hiring is slow. The share of unemployed workers who have been unemployed for six months are longer has been increasing for a year and a half, it has shown no signs of slowing, including in this report. So we have

a lot of people who have been looking without much success for a long time, and even amongst prime age workers that can result in them leaving the labor force in a month. Historically, prime age labor force participation is at a near high, but this particular time in the labor market has not shown as many opportunities for workers as it should, particularly for workers who don't have a job. One of the big themes that we have continued to discuss whenever we have you on is the fact

that almost all of the job growth that we've seen is coming from healthcare and social assistance. That's been true. It continues to be true. It's report. Was it true in this report? Is that still kind of what's happening in the job market? Yes, we are still seeing that kind of the only sector that is very consistently and predictably adding jobs or health care and social assistance.

“I think a lot of people were hoping that this month would see a big boost to leisure and hospitality”

from the world cup, but it actually shed jobs in June. Justin Wolf has also pointed out that since January 25th, 90% of all new non-form payroll jobs have gone to women. Actually women now hold

Do you think that trend will continue? Well men and women don't work the same jobs, and if you're

adding jobs in places like leisure and hospitality and in health care and social assistance, those can often be dominated by women. It's not so much that the labor market is favoring women versus the labor market is giving opportunities that women are much more likely to take. You know, some of your typically male jobs, especially something like manufacturing, has seen a hit over the past year and a half. Construction has been a little bit more

you know, stops and starts, but has seen some growth. But we just, you know, we have gender differences in employment, which is natural, but that means that men and women can fare differently based on how the economy is doing. I mean, the 2007, the great recession was notoriously

very male. I mean, it was a cratering of construction and manufacturing employment,

the COVID pandemic recession that hit women so much harder because it hit health care and social assistance as well as leisure and hospitality. So I don't think these patterns spell, like shouldn't be over interpreted because at the end of the day, it comes down to

“are we pursuing policy that helps the labor market and helps workers? I think the answer is no.”

You can't look at the worn around. You can't look at tariffs. You can't look at deportation. You can't look at a deficit finance tax cut that cut, Medicaid and food stamps and say all of this is benefiting the worker who hurts from weak policy isn't going to be uniform. It's going to hit different people at different times and right now we're just we're seeing male employment take a hit. I wanted to ask you about immigration as well because that was one of

the big themes in our previous conversation and it's timely because Trump just posted on his truth social. He said that there was a federal reserve paper that according to Trump showed that illegal immigration underbided increased home prices by 30%. In reality, that's not what the paper said. It actually said that immigration had driven up prices by around 6% during the Biden administration and then it also had some details about how actually

wage growth had not been suppressed or taken a hit because of immigration and also an employment actually increased point being there's some data that might suggest that the immigration that we saw was problematic to the housing market. Trump is exaggerating it and using it as a way to sort of score some political points and kind of distorting the truth. But while we're here, what do you make of those comments and also what do you make of how immigration is affecting the economy

“and the job market right now? I mean, I think it speaks volumes about how terrible his immigration”

policy is in 2026 that he's pointing to an effect of 2023 as being a reason why immigration immigrants are bad for the economy. I mean, he's we've had a historic year in the United States. We had a net loss in immigrants and the majority of them were legal immigrants that did not come because of restrictions on spousal visas, restrictions on H1Bs. I mean, restrictions on student visas. This hit the United States hard. We had a net decline in immigrants in 2025. And if

there was some miracle cure waiting at the end of immigrants not being as important part of our economy, surely we would have seen it in 2026 the year after. And yet here we are talking about speculative and misrepresented comments about a paper that took place years ago. It's for me, the the Holonist is obvious. If there was some cure to not having immigrants in the economy or having fewer immigrants, you would have seen it by now. And but instead what you really see is that

the people who have benefited from the decline in immigration are the immigrants who are still here who are seeing lower unemployment rates and more opportunities because just like men and women don't hold the same jobs. Native workers and immigrant workers, they don't hold the same jobs either. So if you deport part of the immigrant workforce, it tends to leave their remaining immigrants in higher demand and helps their wages accelerate because now they have more market

power. So I mean, I suppose in some backwards way he is doing some immigrants a favor, but at a really high cost to our society and the fabric of our democracy. I mean, I do wonder at what point Americans will learn the lesson on immigration that nativism has no economic benefit. It's unclear to me when that will happen, but you know, so long as you need me to make the case on

the show, I'm always happy to do it. Well, I always do appreciate it because it's a helpful reminder.

Just looking ahead, you point it out that there's a lot of noise in these reports, always and it's

“kind of hard to know what to even pay attention to, what is actually important and what matters”

going forward. Over question, what does matter? What are you focused on in the job market? What do you think people are not talking about enough that they've perhaps should be talking about?

The reason why we care about the payroll employment number is because if we're adding enough jobs,

“we can bring down the unemployment rate. And the reason why we care about bringing down the unemployment”

rate is so that people who need economic livelihood have it. And if the unemployment rate is false enough, that pushes up wages and we all earn more money. I mean, this is a market. It's called the labor market. It operates off of supply and demand and we want it to be tight so that we can have higher wages. And given the oil price shocks from the war on Iran and given the week wages, we've had for the past year and a half, we've had months where price growth is

out matching wage growth. That is a pay cut for every American worker. And I don't think I will

feel like the economy is in a strong enough place or the labor market is in a strong enough place

until we have consistently good wage growth for every worker. Not just the workers at the top, but workers in the middle and at the bottom. And we have not seen it. On the aggregate, on the average, we haven't seen it in months. It hasn't really picked up pace since 2022, but we've also are coming off of decades when the bottom half of Americans have not seen good enough wage growth. So for me, everything is wages because that is the payout, the literal payout for workers.

Week wage growth, like we've seen this spring. I mean, that is just it's so hard on families to have prices go up even inches at a time when your paycheck is not going up at all. Yeah, and the negative real wage growth that we were seeing, to me, I totally agree seems to be the most striking. Do you think that that will continue in 2026, or is it just impossible to tell at this point? I mean, who knows about inflation? But I mean, the real question is will

“will wages keep up so far they haven't and how much longer will that continue to be the case?”

You know, if the economy is not producing jobs fast enough to get employment to the workers who want it, it's very hard to imagine a scenario in which workers have enough bargaining power to really bid up wages. I mean, at the end of the day, yes, it's a market, but that market's tightness is a way to give workers power to ask for more, to demand more from their employers. There has to be some channel of getting power to workers to ask for money to see wages grow up.

If the market's not doing it, you could do it through things like unionization, collective bargaining, labor market regulation to give workers a lift. The labor market remains to be seen. I don't see going up this year. I don't see Republican controlled Congress in House and Senate's Presidency to really do much for the working class. All right, Catherine Ann Edwards, PhD economist, economic policy consultant,

and columnist for Bloomberg News, Catherine. We always appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thanks for having me back. Dells stocks surged as much as 8% yesterday, not because of any material information or any news related to the company, but instead because the president pumped it. Yes, yesterday on live television Trump encouraged Americans to quote, go out and buy a Dell computer. And it was exactly at that moment that shares of Dell sword. Does President Trump own any Dell shares you

might ask? The answer is, of course, yes, according to his recently released financial statements, Trump purchased nearly a million dollars worth of Dell last year and now he is actively pumping it on TV. This is yet another example of a dynamic that we are calling the Kingmaker economy.

“And that is, the best way to increase your stock price in America today isn't to improve your”

product or to sell more goods and services. It is to have your stock anointed by the high priest of American markets, aka the president. If you can do that, great things will occur. You might get a shout out in a national address. You might even get a government contract who knows the point is it pays to kiss ass not metaphorically, but literally. And that's why so many leaders are now doing it from Tim Cook and his golden apple trophy to now Sam Altman and his benevolent offer to sling

open AI stock onto the balance sheet of the US government and hopefully get a bailout. Is this how free markets are supposed to work? Is this what capitalism is supposed to look like? Absolutely not. But that doesn't matter anymore. Trump has made it clear to American business do something for the leader and the leader will do something for you. Quid Pro Quo. We are becoming more and more like China every day.

Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alson Weiss and

as Dancialon, Cristina Donahue and Mia Souveria and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to "Proxy Markets" from "Proxy Media." If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Alson. I'll see you tomorrow.