3 ms·
> marketed for decades So why change? You're not building a case for why this change is needed. Is there even another Nasdaq 100 company like SpaceX? Probably
by bonsai_spool 4mo ago
> marketed for decades
So why change? You're not building a case for why this change is needed. Is there even another Nasdaq 100 company like SpaceX? Probably not because it would be an obvious point of discussion. So now we need to add a new 'thing' to our definition of tech, then change our funds to adopt our new definition. To what end, with this haste?
> The NASDAQ 100 has seen practically no net outflows
Is it a fund or just an index? If an index, what are you monitoring when you cite 'no outflows'?
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> So why change? You're not building a case for why this change is needed It has changed loads of times. Nobody noticed any time. Including this one. (Look at flows into and out of related funds.) > Is there even another Nasdaq 100 company like SpaceX? Right now? No. Including SpaceX. By the end of the year? Probably a few. > Is it a fund or just an index? If an index, what are you monitoring when you cite 'no outflows'? Covered assets. Indices license their indices. Funds pay that royalty.