4 ms·
> Are you actually optimistic? Not particularly. When I posted the request for comment to HN it got crickets [1]. Not enough people care about this. And the "
by JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> Are you actually optimistic?
Not particularly. When I posted the request for comment to HN it got crickets [1].
Not enough people care about this. And the "safe" option has kind of shifted with the other index providers having moved first. That said, there were a lot of proposals and I'm not expecting all of them to be adopted.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324
- loeg 5mo agoThere's no obviously correct answer here.
- lucketone 5mo agoNot changing rules would seem quite obvious and correct at the same time.
- loeg 5mo agoIt is not obvious that excluding SpaceX is (1) better for index investors or (2) what index investors/buyers want. Passive index investors buy the whole market. For better or worse, SpaceX is (will be) part of the whole market. Most indices will be buying proportionate to float, which is probably the correct thing to do. Only the Nasdaq 100 isn't float-weighted, and there's just less money in that index than the S&P500 (even with outsized weighting, Nasdaq 100 indexers will buy about 0.5% as much SpaceX as S&P500 indexers).