3 ms·

No. Apple was the largest component and now it’s 19th. Also amusingly, DJIA is unable to include Amazon since it would obliterate the rest of the index.

• iso1210 5y ago
  Amazon is small fry compared with BRK-A, which was up $8,854 on Friday - over twice Amazon's share price.
• dheera 5y ago
  Just weight it by 0.1 or whatever? Simple solution.
  • mastax 5y ago
    The whole point of the DJIA is that the same rules have been used for a long time. If you want a better index there are many available.
    • dheera 5y ago
      So version it in a repo e.g. on Github, and ensure continuity in the DJIA index from one version to the next on the date the version is committed. We have technology, we should use it. I could add a clause that says if a share splits its weight gets multiplied accordingly, and that would have the effect of (a) DJIA stays continuous now (b) DJIA stays continuous through next split. It doesn't disrupt anything now, and prevents future inadvertent disruptions. Anyone that is insisting we shouldn't change it is stuck in a backward age. Honestly I don't understand why there are so many no-sayers on HN. We should be building the future, not making excuses.
      • freeone3000 5y ago
        The index you're describing has already been created by Charles Schwab as SCHV in 2009 (and SPCH in 2005 for the S&P, and ...). There are already new indexes -- lots of them. DJIA is useful because it's an index calculated using the same metric for over a hundred years, so you can track performance for reporting and public perception.
        • dheera 5y ago
          > so you can track performance for reporting and public perception Well you can't track performance if splits wreak havoc on it. Garbage in, garbage out. So __at least__ fix that by adjusting weight when splits happen. THEN you can track performance for reporting.
• pgwhalen 5y ago
  They adjust for it in the sense that the value of the index itself doesn’t drop, but yes, Apple’s proportion needlessly changes.