3 ms·
Am I the only one that thinks this is fundamentally unfair? What's the point of having inclusion guidelines if you can just change them willy nilly to suit your
by safog 6y ago
Am I the only one that thinks this is fundamentally unfair? What's the point of having inclusion guidelines if you can just change them willy nilly to suit your own agenda?
We need a more algorithmic index, not one ruled by one central committee.
Wonder if there's an ETF that simply does market cap weighting and just picks top public companies by valuation.
- doopy-loopy2 6y agoThis looks bad on the SP500 IMO
- gumby 6y agoIt’s not about fair or unfair it’s about the marketing plans of a given index. If you think a more algorithmic approach would be better you could start one — perhaps you could even get into yc with it, though historically the index publishers themselves don’t make a lot of money directly.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ardy42 6y ago> What's the point of having inclusion guidelines if you can just change them willy nilly to suit your own agenda? You said it yourself: they're guidelines. I'm glad there are humans in the loop to exercise judgement when the guidelines may be giving a funny results. > We need a more algorithmic index, not one ruled by one central committee. IIRC, there already are many "algorithmic indexes", but they're not the S&P500 and there's no reason for the S&P500 to be one.
- safog 6y agoYou just happen to agree with this one, so you find reasons to justify it like "exercising judgement". What if they exclude a company because of political ties to communist regimes? Or ESG concerns? To me neither of these is acceptable. I would be pretty annoyed if Exxon was excluded from SP500 because they contribute to Global Warming. Go pick another index is not a defensible position when I'm criticizing the index's policies specifically. Yet to hear good reasons for why a committee "exercising judgement" is a good thing for the average investor.