5 ms·

i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech

by seydor 1y ago

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
It is. Some members of congress somehow magically end up buying tech stocks right before they go to the moon or selling them right before tariffs hit. It's as if they have some insider knowledge or something, and also a lot of skin in the game to protect these monopolies.
- pnw 1y ago
  You can buy the Pelosi ETF (NANC) and enjoy the same upside!
  - 1over137 1y ago
    Too bad the MER is so high at 0.74%.
  - dmoy 1y ago
    I just read the prospectus investment strategy, and it looks like it trails the trades by up to 30-45 days? Seems like the majority of that upside might be gone by then, no? They explicitly list that in Reporting Delay Risk. Also I didn't see any info on whether the fund manager can beat hft et al to the punch once disclosure happens.
    - lazyeye 1y ago
      It would interesting to know how it performs relative to other index funds even with the delay risk. A few people have been saying Nancy is getting better returns than Warren Buffet https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581 https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581
      - mikestew 1y ago
        I compared it to .SPX, and the 12 month charts look almost identical.
        dmoy 1y ago
        Which makes sense to me, 45 days is a loooooong time, and I kinda doubt this fund is cutting edge speed trading on disclosures when they do show up.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikestew 1y ago
    …and enjoy the same upside! No, you won’t. That ETF is a trailing indicator, and it’s trailing so far back it won’t even show up in the rearview mirror. That, and if you load a comparison chart with .SPX, they look almost identical. No upside, and greater risk.
    - booleandilemma 1y ago
      Thank you for an honest comment in a world of so much grift.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech I don't like the way this is phrased because it nearly implies that doing this is an advantage to the US population. "Preventing foreign dominance in tech" is plausibly a legitimate goal. Preventing a foreign tech monopoly is a good thing. But the assumption that this can only be achieved by a domestic one is the fallacy. A domestic monopoly is still a disadvantage compared to a competitive market with a multitude of domestic companies. Unless you're an authoritarian that wants to leverage the monopoly for the purposes of e.g. censorship. But then you're an enemy whose goal is to harm even the domestic population.
- mystraline 1y ago
  Why do you think Windows, MS Office, MSSQL, Azure, and other MS applications are used extensively in the federal government? Its to prop up American businesses, and as a form of corporate welfare. We see this a lot in various vertical industries. The USG could pay and make it free, but they would rather prop up proprietary software as long as its US based. Not even being a monopolist matters.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > Its to prop up American businesses, and as a form of corporate welfare. You say that like it's an actual policy goal. You don't think it's because those companies donate to the campaigns of the politicians doing it? It's corruption.
    - mystraline 1y ago
      > You say that like it's an actual policy goal. I do. There's reasons for that from previous employment that would indicate that as a policy goal. Red Hat is also technically accepted by US Gov. Technically. But you need to use? They're bypassing all sorts of security shit with ongoing POAMs and doing their own thing. And yes, I would agree that its corruption as well.
      - 1y ago

i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech

by seydor 1y ago

i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech

It is. Some members of congress somehow magically end up buying tech stocks right before they go to the moon or selling them right before tariffs hit. It's as if they have some insider knowledge or something, and also a lot of skin in the game to protect these monopolies.

pnw 1y ago
You can buy the Pelosi ETF (NANC) and enjoy the same upside!
- 1over137 1y ago
  Too bad the MER is so high at 0.74%.
- dmoy 1y ago
  I just read the prospectus investment strategy, and it looks like it trails the trades by up to 30-45 days? Seems like the majority of that upside might be gone by then, no? They explicitly list that in Reporting Delay Risk. Also I didn't see any info on whether the fund manager can beat hft et al to the punch once disclosure happens.
  - lazyeye 1y ago
    It would interesting to know how it performs relative to other index funds even with the delay risk. A few people have been saying Nancy is getting better returns than Warren Buffet https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581 https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581
    - mikestew 1y ago
      I compared it to .SPX, and the 12 month charts look almost identical.
      - dmoy 1y ago
        Which makes sense to me, 45 days is a loooooong time, and I kinda doubt this fund is cutting edge speed trading on disclosures when they do show up.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mikestew 1y ago
  …and enjoy the same upside! No, you won’t. That ETF is a trailing indicator, and it’s trailing so far back it won’t even show up in the rearview mirror. That, and if you load a comparison chart with .SPX, they look almost identical. No upside, and greater risk.
  - booleandilemma 1y ago
    Thank you for an honest comment in a world of so much grift.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech I don't like the way this is phrased because it nearly implies that doing this is an advantage to the US population. "Preventing foreign dominance in tech" is plausibly a legitimate goal. Preventing a foreign tech monopoly is a good thing. But the assumption that this can only be achieved by a domestic one is the fallacy. A domestic monopoly is still a disadvantage compared to a competitive market with a multitude of domestic companies. Unless you're an authoritarian that wants to leverage the monopoly for the purposes of e.g. censorship. But then you're an enemy whose goal is to harm even the domestic population.

mystraline 1y ago
Why do you think Windows, MS Office, MSSQL, Azure, and other MS applications are used extensively in the federal government? Its to prop up American businesses, and as a form of corporate welfare. We see this a lot in various vertical industries. The USG could pay and make it free, but they would rather prop up proprietary software as long as its US based. Not even being a monopolist matters.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > Its to prop up American businesses, and as a form of corporate welfare. You say that like it's an actual policy goal. You don't think it's because those companies donate to the campaigns of the politicians doing it? It's corruption.
  - mystraline 1y ago
    > You say that like it's an actual policy goal. I do. There's reasons for that from previous employment that would indicate that as a policy goal. Red Hat is also technically accepted by US Gov. Technically. But you need to use? They're bypassing all sorts of security shit with ongoing POAMs and doing their own thing. And yes, I would agree that its corruption as well.
    - 1y ago