4 ms·

Many wouldn’t consider Twitter to be a blue chip stock.

gruez 2y ago
Is it any less of a "blue chip" stock than other holdings in that fund, which include securities like like Skyryse, Inc. Series B, MOD Super Fast Pizza Holdings LLC Series 3, and Alif Semiconductor Series C?
- austhrow743 2y ago
  Probably not.
- ProAm 2y ago
  That is sort of whataboutism commenting. While yes, but still, not the point being argued.
  - unclad5968 2y ago
    Without discussing nuance the question isnt meaningful. The answer to "can X be sued for Y" is always yes.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > The answer to "can X be sued for Y" is always yes. ...which is why taking that question literally probably isn't being a good listener. If someone is asking a question with an obvious answer if taken literally, probably that means they're not intending to ask that question literally. Yes, they could ask their question more specifically, but it's up to us as listeners to try to understand people too. Communication, famously, is not a one-person activity[1]. Typically I'd assume "can X be sued for Y?" means "can one reasonably hope to win a civil suit against X for Y?" unless I have reason to believe that the speaker is very un-knowledgeable about U.S. law. [1] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1984:_Misinterpretation https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1984:_Misinterpre...
  - gruez 2y ago
    No, the point is that if the fund hasn't been sued for the past few decades of its existence for holding non-well known companies (or whatever your definition of "blue chip is"), they're probably not going to get sued for holding x holdings, inc.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      I think that could be the point if the question was "Will the fund be sued for [...]?" but the question was "Can the fund be sued for [...]?", which likely was intended to ask if such a lawsuit could reasonably be expected to win. It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible. That said, I don't see many entities with the will and funding to pursue this lawsuit. The SEC has way more obvious problems to solve than clarifying the definition of "blue chip" in court, institutional investors aren't usually going to pursue a suit on moral outrage, and the average individual has no chance in court against Fidelity's legal team.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible. From the prospectus: >Principal Investment Strategies > [...] > Normally investing at least 80% of assets in blue chip companies (companies that, in Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR)'s view, are well-known, well-established and well-capitalized), which generally have large or medium market capitalizations. Fidelity has wide latitude to decide what counts as "blue chip". On top of that, even if there are companies that aren't "blue chip", it's fine as they're below 20%.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    No. Whataboutism is an attempt to change the topic. "Why are you wasting time on A when B is so much more important?" The comment you're replying to is more "that reasoning would imply Z, which does not appear to be the case." (If it was assumed that people already knew about those other companies, then the comment would be more calling out an isolated demand for rigor... which is also not whataboutism despite occasionally being denounced as such.)
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  I mean, any competent lawyer suing Fidelity for misrepresenting the "Blue-Chip-ness" of the fund's holdings is going to list holdings like that as well. Twitter is just the holding that's most likely to get noticed, not because it's the least "Blue Chip" of the holdings, but because it's the most likely to cause (arguably justified) moral outrage. The morality has little bearing on the justification for the case, but it might have a big impact on whether people are likely to pursue the case in the first place.
- lupire 2y ago
  Well there you go. One outrageous investment choice has brought attention to several other dubious choices for that particular fund premise.
addicted 2y ago
You have to read the prospectus to know whether or not this is misleading. It’s “blue chip” but it’s also “growth”. Words which can mean anything depending on how they’re defined in the prospectus.

Is it any less of a "blue chip" stock than other holdings in that fund, which include securities like like Skyryse, Inc. Series B, MOD Super Fast Pizza Holdings LLC Series 3, and Alif Semiconductor Series C?

austhrow743 2y ago
Probably not.
ProAm 2y ago
That is sort of whataboutism commenting. While yes, but still, not the point being argued.
- unclad5968 2y ago
  Without discussing nuance the question isnt meaningful. The answer to "can X be sued for Y" is always yes.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > The answer to "can X be sued for Y" is always yes. ...which is why taking that question literally probably isn't being a good listener. If someone is asking a question with an obvious answer if taken literally, probably that means they're not intending to ask that question literally. Yes, they could ask their question more specifically, but it's up to us as listeners to try to understand people too. Communication, famously, is not a one-person activity[1]. Typically I'd assume "can X be sued for Y?" means "can one reasonably hope to win a civil suit against X for Y?" unless I have reason to believe that the speaker is very un-knowledgeable about U.S. law. [1] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1984:_Misinterpretation https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1984:_Misinterpre...
- gruez 2y ago
  No, the point is that if the fund hasn't been sued for the past few decades of its existence for holding non-well known companies (or whatever your definition of "blue chip is"), they're probably not going to get sued for holding x holdings, inc.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    I think that could be the point if the question was "Will the fund be sued for [...]?" but the question was "Can the fund be sued for [...]?", which likely was intended to ask if such a lawsuit could reasonably be expected to win. It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible. That said, I don't see many entities with the will and funding to pursue this lawsuit. The SEC has way more obvious problems to solve than clarifying the definition of "blue chip" in court, institutional investors aren't usually going to pursue a suit on moral outrage, and the average individual has no chance in court against Fidelity's legal team.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible. From the prospectus: >Principal Investment Strategies > [...] > Normally investing at least 80% of assets in blue chip companies (companies that, in Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR)'s view, are well-known, well-established and well-capitalized), which generally have large or medium market capitalizations. Fidelity has wide latitude to decide what counts as "blue chip". On top of that, even if there are companies that aren't "blue chip", it's fine as they're below 20%.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  No. Whataboutism is an attempt to change the topic. "Why are you wasting time on A when B is so much more important?" The comment you're replying to is more "that reasoning would imply Z, which does not appear to be the case." (If it was assumed that people already knew about those other companies, then the comment would be more calling out an isolated demand for rigor... which is also not whataboutism despite occasionally being denounced as such.)
kerkeslager 2y ago
I mean, any competent lawyer suing Fidelity for misrepresenting the "Blue-Chip-ness" of the fund's holdings is going to list holdings like that as well. Twitter is just the holding that's most likely to get noticed, not because it's the least "Blue Chip" of the holdings, but because it's the most likely to cause (arguably justified) moral outrage. The morality has little bearing on the justification for the case, but it might have a big impact on whether people are likely to pursue the case in the first place.
lupire 2y ago
Well there you go. One outrageous investment choice has brought attention to several other dubious choices for that particular fund premise.

addicted 2y ago

You have to read the prospectus to know whether or not this is misleading. It’s “blue chip” but it’s also “growth”. Words which can mean anything depending on how they’re defined in the prospectus.