4 ms·

Kudos to S&P 500. Vast majority of the world has no clue how trillions of $ from their pension funds is being funneled to the select few. Absolutely pathetic.

joxdosba 4mo ago
[flagged]
- lumost 4mo ago
  It's quite clear that there is an effort to engineer mega financial vehicles that index tracking funds are forced to buy. The incentive to do so is massive, and there is nothing illegal about it. As a holder of index funds such as the S&P, I'd much prefer that these vehicles are excluded for at least some period of time to ensure that the greater fool isn't simply my index portfolio.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - kortilla 4mo ago
    Are you happy to be invested in Tesla? It is not profitable quarter to quarter and is included in your fund. Why do you tolerate that and not this?
    - lumost 4mo ago
      TSLA has been around for many years, whether I agree with its value or not. It has been able to retain its valuation in the public market. An IPO with massive insider selling counterbalanced by a flood of index fund rebalancing is entirely different.
  - joxdosba 4mo ago
    > It's quite clear In the same way 9/11 was quite clearly an inside job. Alternatively, a crop of big companies with real, potentially world-changing technology are going public. This isn’t exactly pets.com we’re talking about.
- propagandist 4mo ago
  The comment above is perfectly clear, and if you have been living under a rock since the Reagan years, that's on you. See Elon talking about Tesla finally joining the S&P 500 so index funds would finally have to buy its shares. See a hundred examples where socialism is reserved for the few, the jungle and legal constraints for the rest of us.
- viccis 4mo ago
  All of those are real, natural, organic and, might I add, "actual" words.
  - 3683826312819 4mo ago
    [dead]
- muadddib 4mo ago
  I did, in fact, use words. Would you prefer heiroglyphics?
JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
> no clue how trillions of $ from their pension funds Pension funds don't tend to follow the S&P 500, much less automatically. They're sophisticated institutional investors like CalPERS [1] who dabble in everything from public stocks to private equity. It's other retirement assets, e.g. 401(k)s and IRAs, that tend to follow the S&P 500. But again, with substantial variation. S&P including these companies would have driven a lot of money towards them. But there was a lot of misinformation around the magnitude of that drive, as well as the breadth of whom it would affect. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS
- viceconsole 4mo ago
  In the US at least, many pension funds are not sophisticated, they're small, underfunded, and getting taken for a ride by expensive advisors who promise fantastical returns that will help dig them out of their funding ratio hole. Many would be better off using an S&P 500 index fund for their equity component instead of getting wined and dined into an illiquid, opaque private equity investment. Telling that among OECD countries, the US is an outlier in having a much lower average funding ratio, and this despite the fantastic performance of the US stock market over the last 15 years.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > many pension funds are not sophisticated, they're small, underfunded, and getting taken for a ride by expensive advisors Who tend to come up with bumfuck benchmarks other than the common ones. Sometimes for good reasons. Often to justify their own comp. > Many would be better off using an S&P 500 index fund Maybe. They would probably be better off with some total-market funds (instead of biasing towards large caps, especially if they're small). But my point stands: pension funds don't tend to automatically follow any major index, much less the S&P 500 proper.
    - kgwgk 4mo ago
      It’s true that S&P 500 is not the most popular US equities benchmark for pension funds. Russell is the preferred provider - and they will include SpaceX 5 days after the IPO.

joxdosba 4mo ago

[flagged]

lumost 4mo ago
It's quite clear that there is an effort to engineer mega financial vehicles that index tracking funds are forced to buy. The incentive to do so is massive, and there is nothing illegal about it. As a holder of index funds such as the S&P, I'd much prefer that these vehicles are excluded for at least some period of time to ensure that the greater fool isn't simply my index portfolio.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- kortilla 4mo ago
  Are you happy to be invested in Tesla? It is not profitable quarter to quarter and is included in your fund. Why do you tolerate that and not this?
  - lumost 4mo ago
    TSLA has been around for many years, whether I agree with its value or not. It has been able to retain its valuation in the public market. An IPO with massive insider selling counterbalanced by a flood of index fund rebalancing is entirely different.
- joxdosba 4mo ago
  > It's quite clear In the same way 9/11 was quite clearly an inside job. Alternatively, a crop of big companies with real, potentially world-changing technology are going public. This isn’t exactly pets.com we’re talking about.
propagandist 4mo ago
The comment above is perfectly clear, and if you have been living under a rock since the Reagan years, that's on you. See Elon talking about Tesla finally joining the S&P 500 so index funds would finally have to buy its shares. See a hundred examples where socialism is reserved for the few, the jungle and legal constraints for the rest of us.
viccis 4mo ago
All of those are real, natural, organic and, might I add, "actual" words.
- 3683826312819 4mo ago
  [dead]
muadddib 4mo ago
I did, in fact, use words. Would you prefer heiroglyphics?

JumpCrisscross 4mo ago

> no clue how trillions of $ from their pension funds Pension funds don't tend to follow the S&P 500, much less automatically. They're sophisticated institutional investors like CalPERS [1] who dabble in everything from public stocks to private equity. It's other retirement assets, e.g. 401(k)s and IRAs, that tend to follow the S&P 500. But again, with substantial variation. S&P including these companies would have driven a lot of money towards them. But there was a lot of misinformation around the magnitude of that drive, as well as the breadth of whom it would affect. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalPERS

viceconsole 4mo ago
In the US at least, many pension funds are not sophisticated, they're small, underfunded, and getting taken for a ride by expensive advisors who promise fantastical returns that will help dig them out of their funding ratio hole. Many would be better off using an S&P 500 index fund for their equity component instead of getting wined and dined into an illiquid, opaque private equity investment. Telling that among OECD countries, the US is an outlier in having a much lower average funding ratio, and this despite the fantastic performance of the US stock market over the last 15 years.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > many pension funds are not sophisticated, they're small, underfunded, and getting taken for a ride by expensive advisors Who tend to come up with bumfuck benchmarks other than the common ones. Sometimes for good reasons. Often to justify their own comp. > Many would be better off using an S&P 500 index fund Maybe. They would probably be better off with some total-market funds (instead of biasing towards large caps, especially if they're small). But my point stands: pension funds don't tend to automatically follow any major index, much less the S&P 500 proper.
  - kgwgk 4mo ago
    It’s true that S&P 500 is not the most popular US equities benchmark for pension funds. Russell is the preferred provider - and they will include SpaceX 5 days after the IPO.