7 ms·

To start the conversation off with the obvious: "Magnificent 7" reads like someone satirizing CNBC. I genuinely do not believe anyone worth listening to has use

To start the conversation off with the obvious: "Magnificent 7" reads like someone satirizing CNBC. I genuinely do not believe anyone worth listening to has used this phrase unironically. Absurd.

EchoChamberMan 3y ago
From the article, > Magnificent 7 returned an incredible 107% over 2023, far outpacing the broader MSCI USA index, which delivered a still healthy but relatively paltry 27% to investors. If I owned those stocks, I'd say that's magnificent.
- creer 3y ago
  But not for the reasons or mechanisms bandied about. The various members are magnificent for fairly distinctive reasons, meaning they seem to me run in very different manners. They have tech and valuation more or less in common - and that's about it.
  - EchoChamberMan 3y ago
    I wouldn't say they are magnificent at all, but as a description of their production of wealth, especially in common news, it seems very fitting, considering they are 3-4x as "productive" as the alternative. I don't find the usage of magnificent "absurd" in context.
mistrial9 3y ago
reminds me of oil industry analysts using descriptions of raw petro products that sound like the names of wines
nkurz 3y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately it's become the common term to refer to a particular group of stocks. It was semi-ironically coined last year by a Bank of America analyst who was pointing out the risks of having such a concentration in so few companies, but at this point almost everyone in the media is using it unironically. It's possible that your rule of not listening to anyone who uses it should still stand. If it helps you view it a little more positively, consider the argument that at least "Mama Ant" didn't catch on: https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/31/mama-ant-helps-you-recall-the-magnificent-7-stocks/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/31/mama-ant-helps-you...

To start the conversation off with the obvious: "Magnificent 7" reads like someone satirizing CNBC. I genuinely do not believe anyone worth listening to has used this phrase unironically. Absurd.

EchoChamberMan 3y ago

From the article, > Magnificent 7 returned an incredible 107% over 2023, far outpacing the broader MSCI USA index, which delivered a still healthy but relatively paltry 27% to investors. If I owned those stocks, I'd say that's magnificent.

creer 3y ago
But not for the reasons or mechanisms bandied about. The various members are magnificent for fairly distinctive reasons, meaning they seem to me run in very different manners. They have tech and valuation more or less in common - and that's about it.
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  I wouldn't say they are magnificent at all, but as a description of their production of wealth, especially in common news, it seems very fitting, considering they are 3-4x as "productive" as the alternative. I don't find the usage of magnificent "absurd" in context.

mistrial9 3y ago

reminds me of oil industry analysts using descriptions of raw petro products that sound like the names of wines

nkurz 3y ago

I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately it's become the common term to refer to a particular group of stocks. It was semi-ironically coined last year by a Bank of America analyst who was pointing out the risks of having such a concentration in so few companies, but at this point almost everyone in the media is using it unironically. It's possible that your rule of not listening to anyone who uses it should still stand. If it helps you view it a little more positively, consider the argument that at least "Mama Ant" didn't catch on: https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/31/mama-ant-helps-you-recall-the-magnificent-7-stocks/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/07/31/mama-ant-helps-you...