3 ms·
If you have evidence of corruption, present it. Otherwise it's just generic cynicism leading to a thought terminating cliche.
by gruez 5mo ago
If you have evidence of corruption, present it. Otherwise it's just generic cynicism leading to a thought terminating cliche.
- dools 5mo agoAt this point in US regulatory oversight I would have a harder time finding evidence of no corruption.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- BostonFern 5mo agoThen present your evidence, so we can have a substantive debate and draw informed conclusions.
- dools 5mo agoMy evidence of no corruption? I can’t find any because the admin is so horrendously corrupt.
- noonething 5mo ago[flagged]
- jimjimjim 5mo agoI think deep cynicism is the correct mindset to have in the current financial/political climate.
- wookmaster 5mo agoWhy else would they change the rule ?
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> Why else would they change the rule ? These indices aim to replicate the market. They’re not trying to pick stocks. There is a serious argument for saying they fail to replicate the market if they structurally exclude trillions of dollars of it.
- lenerdenator 5mo agoThey also exclude many other things that are of economic value, because they could cause structural or social harm in the markets.
- s1artibartfast 5mo agoYes, but a stock market index is just that. It is intended to track stocks, not meth sales or the phase of the moon. Most of these indicies intend to match the largest companies on the market - going up when they do and going down when they do. If someone doesnt want that, they can pick a different index or invest in a managed fund. Companies like vanguard also offer custom EFTs where you can exclude certian companies if you want - probably the simplest option. But then you cant complain if they go up and you miss out. PS: Yes, there are several cannabis ETFs if you are into that kinda thing. look into MJ, WEED, MSOS, and YOLO.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago> They also exclude many other things that are of economic value, because they could cause structural or social harm in the markets Which index are you thinking of?
- yxhuvud 5mo agoIt defeats the purpose of the value setting part of the IPO if there are guaranteed buyers. It would be better for the market and for the indices if they only hopped onto new entries of the market after any initial instability has passed.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
- tikhonj 5mo agoBecause they think that a lot of people will want to get in on the historically massive and well-known companies, which would lead to outflows if the index doesn't pick them up fast enough?
- californical 5mo agoIt will lead to outflows either way. And I say that as someone who has been an Index fund evangelist for years, strongly considering selling my index funds to build my own collection of companies that I believe in long term. So why not just stick to the roles we agreed on when buying in?
- taurath 5mo agoI find it to be genuinely more likely some level of corruption, and while my insinuation may be overly specific or illustrative, I still hold to it as an ironic statement meant to speak the truth. In this age of AI marketing taking over the minds and imaginations of most of our businesses leaders in the name of greed and fear, I’ll hold to the more likely truth given the circumstances, regardless of this appeal to some invented tale of uncorruptable corporate governance. Have you never seen decisions being made? I think that better matches the original spirit of this forum. The progenitors have become the people they once disrupted.