5 ms·

An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules to favor Elon and his band of misfits. No longer will there be a year of

by malfist 7mo ago

An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules to favor Elon and his band of misfits. No longer will there be a year of price discovery for index funds, 15 days. Meaning index funds have to buy it at the peak of the hype cycle. Will be a huge wealth transfer from mom and pop retirement accounts to the ultra wealthy.

yandie 7mo ago
Now I need a fund that will honor a year of price discovery rather than 15 days. Any recommendations?
- malfist 7mo ago
  Legally, any fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 must follow the rules set by NASDAQ, so you'd want something that is neither a total market index, nor tracks the NASDAQ. Something like an S&P500 index would work
  - charcircuit 7mo ago
    What law prevents someone from choosing to buy stocks from the NASDAQ 100 however they want for a fund?
    - davey48016 7mo ago
      You can make a mutual fund or ETF with any stocks you want, you just can't call it a NASDAQ 100 fund if you're not tracking the NASDAQ 100 index.
      - tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
        Is that really true? It doesn’t sound likely to me. Then again I’m often surprised by this stuff.
        mandevil 7mo ago
        In order to call it a NASDAQ 100 Tracking Fund you need to pay the NASDAQ a licensing fee (same with S&P500, Wilshire 5000, etc.). The contract you have with NASDAQ will determine exactly how much freedom you have to change rules and still call it a NASDAQ 100 fund. I've never seen a licensing agreement, don't know anything about how they would typically read. There is also the concept of "Index Tracking Error". No fund can perfectly mimic the index, and that is expected and understood, but the goal is generally to have the tracking error <0.1%- 1% would be a bad track. And so an index fund could take the risk that they will have a tracking error and delay picking up SpaceX even after it joins the official index, but then if it goes up they will look worse relative to their real competitors, the other NASDAQ 100 tracking index funds. If SpaceX goes down, of course, they will have positive tracking error, but I'm not sure how much potential investors would value that. SpaceX would be something like 4% of the NASDAQ 100 at it's announced expected market cap, so a 10% movement by SpaceX would be enough on its own to get you into the notable tracking error range if you didn't have any exposure to it.
      - lxgr 7mo ago
        It's an interesting question whether you could legally track the NASDAQ 100 without calling it that, or something very similar, e.g. "NASDAQ 100, but with a one year delay for new listings". But assuming it is: How would you even call it, and how would you describe your methodology in the prospectus? "Tech 100 (compare with e.g. NASDAQ)"?
    - bluecalm 7mo ago
      You need enough customers to make it profitable at reasonably low expense ratio.
    - dmurray 7mo ago
      Actively managed funds like that charge around 0.5% to 1% a year. E.g. [0] The most prominent Nasdaq ETF, QQQ, charges 0.2% [1] Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2]. If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your investment. Assuming you're saving for retirement in 30 years time, the fees will cost you 15% or more. Maybe your fund manager finds a Spacex-level mispricing every two years. In that case, they're worth the fees. Some people will tell you nobody can beat the market. My employer among others believes very strongly in the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. What is certainly true is that not everyone does. [0] https://helpcenter.ark-funds.com/what-is-the-fee-structure-expense-ratio-of-ark-etfs https://helpcenter.ark-funds.com/what-is-the-fee-structure-e... [1] https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html [2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/01/how-the-spacex-could-affect-these-popular-nasdaq/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/01/how-the-spacex-cou...
      - WalterBright 7mo ago
        > the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. Of course some do. After all, that's what makes an "average". Some people are taller than average, too!
        Dylan16807 7mo ago
        They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck. Someone can win at roulette and make more money than the average player over some measurement period, but nobody can be good at roulette (when properly implemented and stuff). Stocks are somewhat possible to be good at but results are mostly random and the fee you'd pay is usually way too much.
        WalterBright 7mo ago
        > They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck. How would you know it is or is not luck? > roulette Has no winning strategy - it's very different. The winning strategy with stocks is understanding the underlying businesses better than the average investor. Peter Lynch's Magellan fund did consistently better than others because Lynch had insights others didn't. When others figured it out, Magellan's returns retreated to market levels. I.e. investors can do better than average if they have insight others don't have and stay below the radar.
  - dmoy 7mo ago
    What is an example nasdaq 100 fund that isn't float adjusted?
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >that isn't float adjusted? AFAIK the problem is that they're lobbying the nasdaq 100 index provider to add a 5x multiplier for free float for spacex. Otherwise it would be far less controversial. edit: https://keubiko.substack.com/p/nasdaqs-shame https://keubiko.substack.com/p/nasdaqs-shame
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > Legally, any fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 must follow the rules set by NASDAQ No? Contractually, maybe. But legally you can do whatever you want with index constructions.
    - lxgr 7mo ago
      Are indexes not covered by copyright, even if you don't mention the underlying data source by name? If they are, you'd only get a license when accepting their terms.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > Are indexes not covered by copyright Index providers definitely own their trademarks. You can’t market an S&P index without paying S&P. But “the available authority indicates that copyright protection for indexes may extend to the index constituent lists but not index averages, and copyright preemption principles may limit misappropriation protection for indexes to a very narrow class of ‘hot news’ uses” [1]. > you'd only get a license when accepting their terms Sure. But plenty of indices allow for mixing and matching. The terms are designed to avoid confusion—you can’t use the term NASDAQ 100 if it isn’t exactly that. More broadly, there are tons of indices and benchmark portfolios. [1] https://www.blegalgroup.com/market-index-licensing-a-review-of-u-s-law/a3 https://www.blegalgroup.com/market-index-licensing-a-review-...
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
        > Are indexes not covered by copyright, even if you don't mention the underlying data source by name? If there were a good autopilot energy policy option, it would probably entail doing the opposite of whatever Germany votes to do.
    - malfist 7mo ago
      You might be surprised to learn that the stock markets are heavily regulated.
      - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  - oa335 7mo ago
    Not legally, only by contract/specification. Funds could get sued for deviating from the index, but funds generally have a decent amount of discretion in my experience in how they handle rebalancing.
Noaidi 7mo ago
[flagged]
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules I’m genuinely confused how a passive investor winds up tracking the NASDAQ 100 versus a broader index. Also, if you’re picking and choosing your exposures, you aren’t passive.
- lxgr 7mo ago
  That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. Even passive investors need to pick some methodology of how to pick assets and how to relatively weigh them, and while you can make that as mathematically simple as possible, it's arguably an active decision. Or would you say that e.g. an ETF tracking MSCI ex-US is not a passive fund?
  - bitmasher9 7mo ago
    I’d also argue that "passive investor" applies more to the buy and hold strategy when paired with low engagement in the account (few transactions, or scheduled transactions). I’d consider someone that puts $50 into Coca Cola stock every paycheck a passive investor
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > I’d consider someone that puts $50 into Coca Cola stock every paycheck a passive investor They’re not. Passive vs active are terms of art in investing. They refer to the degree selection effect is at play.
      - esseph 7mo ago
        [dead]
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > would you say that e.g. an ETF tracking MSCI ex-US is not a passive fund? Assets aren’t passive or not; investing styles are. The degree to which one’s returns earn from, or are expected to earn from, selection effects determines if you’re investing passively or actively. If I say trade SPYs, I’m an active investor. If I buy and hold a custom broad-market benchmark, I’m passive. Buying MSCI ex-US without a hedge is an active investment decision. If it’s bought and held it’s more like a passive strategy over time, provided the U.S. doesn’t dramatically over or underperform the global markets.
taurath 7mo ago
When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.
- gigatexal 7mo ago
  Yeah imma get out of index and hold my basket and just rebalance. This is dumb. Why bend the rules for a trillionaire?
  - Nevermark 7mo ago
    > Why bend the rules[?] > for a trillionaire[!] This writes itself. It shouldn't, but "should" as a concept needs a lot of work. And even that isn't accurate. They are not bending the rules for a trillionaire, they are maintaining the consistency more systemic rules. This is how it has always been. We can all point to real or perceived ethical islands. They certainly exist, and are worth creating and preserving. But for now, the sea still sets the rules, and the sea is deep. For the deeper system, island visibility is a useful distraction. Sometimes something heavy moves near the surface and we misinterpret visibility as exception.
    - gigatexal 7mo ago
      Did you get lost and start writing a poem? What’s all this about the “sea”? Fine. Let me turn down my anti-Elon-ness for a bit and caveat that the timing of these changes coinciding with this listing is suspicious, no? Grant me that at least. And then we can, with new found common ground, investigate the motives behind such a change.
      - Nevermark 7mo ago
        Lol. Yeah, I am tired and need a nap. Half unconscious over focus. Pay no mind!
      - Nevermark 7mo ago
        Nap achieved. > Grant me that at least Granted, indeed, and with the summarily bestowed honor of our royal favor. Yes. The changes for Elon are exactly what they look like. Preferred treatment in exchange for the priveledge of being paid vast sums to serve him. My sober point is that this is absolute par for the course. Every whale gets this treatment. Elon can take his business somewhere else, and expects something for not doing so. The exception here is not a bent rule. But that the special treatment his spending power "merits" is so enormous, that the proportional conflict-of-interest sacrifice, is unusually visible.
tliptay 7mo ago
Wow! This comment inspired me to dig deeper. After 20+ years in the market, today I learned: "The S&P 500 is a float-adjusted, market-capitalization-weighted index." So presumably an S&P 500 index fund is not disadvantaged, since it is tracking a float-adjusted index, i.e. the weight of SpaceX will be tiny if its float is tiny. Or, is there a nuance that I'm missing?
- gruez 7mo ago
  >So presumably an S&P 500 index fund is not disadvantaged, since it is tracking a float-adjusted index, i.e. the weight of SpaceX will be tiny if its float is tiny. Nasdaq already caved. FTSE and S&P are supposedly considering it. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/31/index-providers-should-not-bend-the-rules-for-elon-musk https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/31/index-providers...
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- AlotOfReading 7mo ago
  Low float, large cap companies will get a 5x multiplier.
- Zigurd 7mo ago
  The SpaceX float is small in proportion to a ridonculous valuation.
lxgr 7mo ago
Huh, TIL, thank you. Seems like MSCI can add new large constituents very quickly as well [1], so to remain neutral to the frenzy until a price has been discovered, one might need to actively short. [1] e.g. https://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_GIMIMethodology_Feb2026.pdf https://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_GIMIMeth...
cr125rider 7mo ago
Does the hype cycle even last 15 days in 2026? It seems like they stabilize after a day or two. Happy to be proven wrong here…
stouset 7mo ago
They’re also reducing the float requirements, which is absolutely insane. As a passive investor with significant assets outside of tax-protected retirement accounts, I am beyond livid. If I have to switch investments to move away from the rules being changed out from under me, it will result in enormous tax consequences. I don’t tend to let my emotions out this much here, but utterly fuck everything about this administration, and fuck anyone who voted in favor of it.
- KK7NIL 7mo ago
  Nothing like a forced tax event to get the people rioting in the streets!
  - throwway120385 7mo ago
    I think you need to consider who is being taxed. I doubt very much that OP is part of the class of people who really should be paying more tax. Rather, they're concerned about their retirement assets. Is that a good outcome here if it applied to everyone?
    - KK7NIL 7mo ago
      You seem to have read some sort of political opinion into my post that is not actually there. I was just making a joke about the outrage OP is showing, I wasn't making a judgment on whether they get taxed too much or too little.
  - stouset 7mo ago
    This is just one more of an endless list of inexcusable, indefensible, corrupt and incompetent acts this government has performed and/or enabled. In this specific case I am retired and I have done this based on financial projections assuming the game continues to be played the same. So it hits closer to home for me. But it’s a far bigger problem than just me—this is looting the retirement savings of millions of Americans—and it is far from the only thing about this administration and those who have supported it to make me absolutely livid.
- 7mo ago
frm88 7mo ago
The S&P500 will make an exception, too. Patrick Boyle made a video analysing this and pointing to consequences https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?si=uYZU230dzqqwp1Np https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?si=uYZU230dzqqwp1Np

by malfist 7mo ago

yandie 7mo ago

Now I need a fund that will honor a year of price discovery rather than 15 days. Any recommendations?

malfist 7mo ago
Legally, any fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 must follow the rules set by NASDAQ, so you'd want something that is neither a total market index, nor tracks the NASDAQ. Something like an S&P500 index would work
- charcircuit 7mo ago
  What law prevents someone from choosing to buy stocks from the NASDAQ 100 however they want for a fund?
  - davey48016 7mo ago
    You can make a mutual fund or ETF with any stocks you want, you just can't call it a NASDAQ 100 fund if you're not tracking the NASDAQ 100 index.
    - tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
      Is that really true? It doesn’t sound likely to me. Then again I’m often surprised by this stuff.
      - mandevil 7mo ago
        In order to call it a NASDAQ 100 Tracking Fund you need to pay the NASDAQ a licensing fee (same with S&P500, Wilshire 5000, etc.). The contract you have with NASDAQ will determine exactly how much freedom you have to change rules and still call it a NASDAQ 100 fund. I've never seen a licensing agreement, don't know anything about how they would typically read. There is also the concept of "Index Tracking Error". No fund can perfectly mimic the index, and that is expected and understood, but the goal is generally to have the tracking error <0.1%- 1% would be a bad track. And so an index fund could take the risk that they will have a tracking error and delay picking up SpaceX even after it joins the official index, but then if it goes up they will look worse relative to their real competitors, the other NASDAQ 100 tracking index funds. If SpaceX goes down, of course, they will have positive tracking error, but I'm not sure how much potential investors would value that. SpaceX would be something like 4% of the NASDAQ 100 at it's announced expected market cap, so a 10% movement by SpaceX would be enough on its own to get you into the notable tracking error range if you didn't have any exposure to it.
    - lxgr 7mo ago
      It's an interesting question whether you could legally track the NASDAQ 100 without calling it that, or something very similar, e.g. "NASDAQ 100, but with a one year delay for new listings". But assuming it is: How would you even call it, and how would you describe your methodology in the prospectus? "Tech 100 (compare with e.g. NASDAQ)"?
  - bluecalm 7mo ago
    You need enough customers to make it profitable at reasonably low expense ratio.
  - dmurray 7mo ago
    Actively managed funds like that charge around 0.5% to 1% a year. E.g. [0] The most prominent Nasdaq ETF, QQQ, charges 0.2% [1] Spacex will be around 4.5% of the index [2]. If you believe the thesis of the article that Spacex is about 30% overvalued, and if the only advantage your fund manager has over the rest of the market is that they will avoid Spacex, they will save you 1% of your money over the lifetime of your investment. Assuming you're saving for retirement in 30 years time, the fees will cost you 15% or more. Maybe your fund manager finds a Spacex-level mispricing every two years. In that case, they're worth the fees. Some people will tell you nobody can beat the market. My employer among others believes very strongly in the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. What is certainly true is that not everyone does. [0] https://helpcenter.ark-funds.com/what-is-the-fee-structure-expense-ratio-of-ark-etfs https://helpcenter.ark-funds.com/what-is-the-fee-structure-e... [1] https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html https://www.invesco.com/qqq-etf/en/home.html [2] https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/01/how-the-spacex-could-affect-these-popular-nasdaq/ https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/01/how-the-spacex-cou...
    - WalterBright 7mo ago
      > the idea that some people do make better investment decisions than average. Of course some do. After all, that's what makes an "average". Some people are taller than average, too!
      - Dylan16807 7mo ago
        They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck. Someone can win at roulette and make more money than the average player over some measurement period, but nobody can be good at roulette (when properly implemented and stuff). Stocks are somewhat possible to be good at but results are mostly random and the fee you'd pay is usually way too much.
        WalterBright 7mo ago
        > They mean consistently make better decisions than a baseline index investor in a way that isn't luck. How would you know it is or is not luck? > roulette Has no winning strategy - it's very different. The winning strategy with stocks is understanding the underlying businesses better than the average investor. Peter Lynch's Magellan fund did consistently better than others because Lynch had insights others didn't. When others figured it out, Magellan's returns retreated to market levels. I.e. investors can do better than average if they have insight others don't have and stay below the radar.
- dmoy 7mo ago
  What is an example nasdaq 100 fund that isn't float adjusted?
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >that isn't float adjusted? AFAIK the problem is that they're lobbying the nasdaq 100 index provider to add a 5x multiplier for free float for spacex. Otherwise it would be far less controversial. edit: https://keubiko.substack.com/p/nasdaqs-shame https://keubiko.substack.com/p/nasdaqs-shame
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > Legally, any fund that tracks the NASDAQ 100 must follow the rules set by NASDAQ No? Contractually, maybe. But legally you can do whatever you want with index constructions.
  - lxgr 7mo ago
    Are indexes not covered by copyright, even if you don't mention the underlying data source by name? If they are, you'd only get a license when accepting their terms.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > Are indexes not covered by copyright Index providers definitely own their trademarks. You can’t market an S&P index without paying S&P. But “the available authority indicates that copyright protection for indexes may extend to the index constituent lists but not index averages, and copyright preemption principles may limit misappropriation protection for indexes to a very narrow class of ‘hot news’ uses” [1]. > you'd only get a license when accepting their terms Sure. But plenty of indices allow for mixing and matching. The terms are designed to avoid confusion—you can’t use the term NASDAQ 100 if it isn’t exactly that. More broadly, there are tons of indices and benchmark portfolios. [1] https://www.blegalgroup.com/market-index-licensing-a-review-of-u-s-law/a3 https://www.blegalgroup.com/market-index-licensing-a-review-...
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > Are indexes not covered by copyright, even if you don't mention the underlying data source by name? If there were a good autopilot energy policy option, it would probably entail doing the opposite of whatever Germany votes to do.
  - malfist 7mo ago
    You might be surprised to learn that the stock markets are heavily regulated.
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
- oa335 7mo ago
  Not legally, only by contract/specification. Funds could get sued for deviating from the index, but funds generally have a decent amount of discretion in my experience in how they handle rebalancing.

Noaidi 7mo ago

[flagged]

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> An passive investors are going to get hosed by this thanks to NASDAQ cooking the rules I’m genuinely confused how a passive investor winds up tracking the NASDAQ 100 versus a broader index. Also, if you’re picking and choosing your exposures, you aren’t passive.

lxgr 7mo ago
That sounds like a "no true scotsman" argument. Even passive investors need to pick some methodology of how to pick assets and how to relatively weigh them, and while you can make that as mathematically simple as possible, it's arguably an active decision. Or would you say that e.g. an ETF tracking MSCI ex-US is not a passive fund?
- bitmasher9 7mo ago
  I’d also argue that "passive investor" applies more to the buy and hold strategy when paired with low engagement in the account (few transactions, or scheduled transactions). I’d consider someone that puts $50 into Coca Cola stock every paycheck a passive investor
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > I’d consider someone that puts $50 into Coca Cola stock every paycheck a passive investor They’re not. Passive vs active are terms of art in investing. They refer to the degree selection effect is at play.
    - esseph 7mo ago
      [dead]
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > would you say that e.g. an ETF tracking MSCI ex-US is not a passive fund? Assets aren’t passive or not; investing styles are. The degree to which one’s returns earn from, or are expected to earn from, selection effects determines if you’re investing passively or actively. If I say trade SPYs, I’m an active investor. If I buy and hold a custom broad-market benchmark, I’m passive. Buying MSCI ex-US without a hedge is an active investment decision. If it’s bought and held it’s more like a passive strategy over time, provided the U.S. doesn’t dramatically over or underperform the global markets.

taurath 7mo ago

When index funds became such a default I knew they’d change the rules. They’re taking everything thats not nailed down. A wealth tax is the only way, it cannot continue like this.

gigatexal 7mo ago
Yeah imma get out of index and hold my basket and just rebalance. This is dumb. Why bend the rules for a trillionaire?
- Nevermark 7mo ago
  > Why bend the rules[?] > for a trillionaire[!] This writes itself. It shouldn't, but "should" as a concept needs a lot of work. And even that isn't accurate. They are not bending the rules for a trillionaire, they are maintaining the consistency more systemic rules. This is how it has always been. We can all point to real or perceived ethical islands. They certainly exist, and are worth creating and preserving. But for now, the sea still sets the rules, and the sea is deep. For the deeper system, island visibility is a useful distraction. Sometimes something heavy moves near the surface and we misinterpret visibility as exception.
  - gigatexal 7mo ago
    Did you get lost and start writing a poem? What’s all this about the “sea”? Fine. Let me turn down my anti-Elon-ness for a bit and caveat that the timing of these changes coinciding with this listing is suspicious, no? Grant me that at least. And then we can, with new found common ground, investigate the motives behind such a change.
    - Nevermark 7mo ago
      Lol. Yeah, I am tired and need a nap. Half unconscious over focus. Pay no mind!
    - Nevermark 7mo ago
      Nap achieved. > Grant me that at least Granted, indeed, and with the summarily bestowed honor of our royal favor. Yes. The changes for Elon are exactly what they look like. Preferred treatment in exchange for the priveledge of being paid vast sums to serve him. My sober point is that this is absolute par for the course. Every whale gets this treatment. Elon can take his business somewhere else, and expects something for not doing so. The exception here is not a bent rule. But that the special treatment his spending power "merits" is so enormous, that the proportional conflict-of-interest sacrifice, is unusually visible.

tliptay 7mo ago

Wow! This comment inspired me to dig deeper. After 20+ years in the market, today I learned: "The S&P 500 is a float-adjusted, market-capitalization-weighted index." So presumably an S&P 500 index fund is not disadvantaged, since it is tracking a float-adjusted index, i.e. the weight of SpaceX will be tiny if its float is tiny. Or, is there a nuance that I'm missing?

gruez 7mo ago
>So presumably an S&P 500 index fund is not disadvantaged, since it is tracking a float-adjusted index, i.e. the weight of SpaceX will be tiny if its float is tiny. Nasdaq already caved. FTSE and S&P are supposedly considering it. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/31/index-providers-should-not-bend-the-rules-for-elon-musk https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/03/31/index-providers...
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
AlotOfReading 7mo ago
Low float, large cap companies will get a 5x multiplier.
Zigurd 7mo ago
The SpaceX float is small in proportion to a ridonculous valuation.

lxgr 7mo ago

Huh, TIL, thank you. Seems like MSCI can add new large constituents very quickly as well [1], so to remain neutral to the frenzy until a price has been discovered, one might need to actively short. [1] e.g. https://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_GIMIMethodology_Feb2026.pdf https://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_GIMIMeth...

cr125rider 7mo ago

Does the hype cycle even last 15 days in 2026? It seems like they stabilize after a day or two. Happy to be proven wrong here…

stouset 7mo ago

They’re also reducing the float requirements, which is absolutely insane. As a passive investor with significant assets outside of tax-protected retirement accounts, I am beyond livid. If I have to switch investments to move away from the rules being changed out from under me, it will result in enormous tax consequences. I don’t tend to let my emotions out this much here, but utterly fuck everything about this administration, and fuck anyone who voted in favor of it.

KK7NIL 7mo ago
Nothing like a forced tax event to get the people rioting in the streets!
- throwway120385 7mo ago
  I think you need to consider who is being taxed. I doubt very much that OP is part of the class of people who really should be paying more tax. Rather, they're concerned about their retirement assets. Is that a good outcome here if it applied to everyone?
  - KK7NIL 7mo ago
    You seem to have read some sort of political opinion into my post that is not actually there. I was just making a joke about the outrage OP is showing, I wasn't making a judgment on whether they get taxed too much or too little.
- stouset 7mo ago
  This is just one more of an endless list of inexcusable, indefensible, corrupt and incompetent acts this government has performed and/or enabled. In this specific case I am retired and I have done this based on financial projections assuming the game continues to be played the same. So it hits closer to home for me. But it’s a far bigger problem than just me—this is looting the retirement savings of millions of Americans—and it is far from the only thing about this administration and those who have supported it to make me absolutely livid.
7mo ago

frm88 7mo ago

The S&P500 will make an exception, too. Patrick Boyle made a video analysing this and pointing to consequences https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?si=uYZU230dzqqwp1Np https://youtu.be/8rS3fTbC7TE?si=uYZU230dzqqwp1Np