Each option resolves YES if that specific change is implemented in the official Nasdaq-100 methodology by the end of 2026 (mere announcements that donβt take effect this year resolve NO).
I will consider resolving NO early if there is an official announcement to the effect that they have ruled the change out.
~
π§ What
These proposals would change how companies get into and are weighted in the Nasdaq-100:
Fast Entry: Large IPOs could join the index within ~3 weeks instead of waiting months.
5Γ float multiplier: Companies with small public floats (<20%) would be given extra index weight (5Γ their float, capped).
Remove 10% minimum float: Even companies with extremely small public floats (e.g., 5%) could still qualify.
Full market cap ranking: Eligibility would be based on total company size, even if only a small portion is publicly traded.
Top-125 replacement rule: Instead of removing companies based on tiny index weight, removal would depend on ranking by size.
Quarterly-only share updates: Share count changes would be consolidated into scheduled quarterly rebalances.
π‘ Why
These rules matter because they affect:
β’ Everyday ETF investors
If you own funds tracking the Nasdaq-100 (like QQQ), these rules decide what stocks your money is forced to buy β and how quickly.
β’ IPO companies and founders
The changes may let founders sell fewer shares to the public while still getting large index representation β potentially boosting early valuations.
β’ Active traders
Faster and more predictable index additions can create trading opportunities around inclusion dates.
β’ Market stability
Low-float stocks getting meaningful index weight could increase volatility if lots of passive money has to buy limited shares.
In short:
These rules shape who benefits from big IPOs and who absorbs the risk.
π Resolution Rules (Spirit of the Market)
Resolve YES if Nasdaq officially updates the Nasdaq-100 methodology and the rule is in force by December 31, 2026.
Minor wording changes do not matter.
If Nasdaq substantially weakens or abandons a specific proposal, resolve NO for that item.
In the edge cases where it might be possible that some degree of minor quantitative or qualitative changes are made to the literally proposed rule changes as they are implemented will be judged by ChatGPT as whether they are substantively similar in their consequences as whether they should still resolve YES or NO (What and Why sections).
Each option resolves independently.
If adoption is announced before the deadline but effective after 2026 β resolves NO.
(The above three sections were written largely by ChatGPT with background of some of the sources below and were lightly edited and reviewed by me).
Nasdaq-100 February Consultation (proposed rule changes):
https://indexes.nasdaqomx.com/docs/NDX_Consultation-February_2026.pdf
FT article by Craig Coben:
https://www.ft.com/content/cdf3cbb8-a2b5-439e-b8a8-691782cd763b
Some additional commentary by Rupert Mitchell:
https://x.com/SquirrelMacro/status/2026391318784803196?s=20
~
ChatGPT describes the changes as a trade off that clearly tilts towards Objective A, reallocating risk from issuers to passive capital:
Objective A β Represent the Largest Companies Quickly
Keeps index relevant.
Prevents missing mega listings.
Supports benchmark accuracy.
Objective B β Protect Investability and Liquidity Integrity
Avoid forced buying of scarce shares.
Preserve price discovery.
Align weight with tradable supply.
1,000