5 ms·
Is this really the worst thing? People keep bringing this up but it’s the Nasdaq 100. It would be shocking if we were talking about the SP500.
by infecto 3mo ago
Is this really the worst thing? People keep bringing this up but it’s the Nasdaq 100. It would be shocking if we were talking about the SP500.
- baggachipz 3mo agoIt almost was. S&P decided against it at the last minute, despite saying they would initially.
- quickthrowman 3mo agoThe S&P committee never said they would. Space X asked and the committee said no. They should not have asked.
- groundzeros2015 3mo agoIt went through the formal process to adopt. Almost certainly public discussion online had an influence.
- quickthrowman 3mo agoThey don’t meet the inclusion criteria. The committee went through the motions to be diplomatic, not because there was ever a chance of it happening.
- rconti 3mo ago#1 rule of sales. If someone is trying to sell you something, you _probably_ don't want it. Eg, they need the sale more than you do. The very fact that they were asking the question is such a huge red flag.
- inigyou 3mo agoThem needing it more than you doesn't mean you don't need it too. Bought an air mattress recently. Way better than a sleeping bag on the ground, even though I can also manage that.
- pessimizer 3mo agoDid you buy it from a door-to-door salesman, or did you seek it out?
- marcosdumay 3mo agoThe most insistent the salesman, the highest odds you got a bad deal. But we are thread is about corruption (probably with bribes, and stealing the money of people that didn't participate on the transaction), while everybody keeps pretending is a consensual sale.
- fecal_henge 3mo agoSee, a positive outcome from investing in inflated stock.
- floren 3mo agoI've started telling basically that to the solar salesmen who come by every few days: if it was so great, you wouldn't have to pretend to be from PG&E or tell a bunch of half-truths about how utilities work.
- DesiLurker 3mo agoproblem with solar is that in itself it is great, but here in US if you look at the cost per watt produced it is heavily inflated with permitting and marketing costs. which is basically their margins till it becomes barely profitable to you. otherwise most of solar system cost has been fallen quite a bit for last decade plus. dont believe me, look up how much a open loop DIY system costs.
- floren 3mo agoOh yeah solar is getting good but the guys who come to your door and say they'll give you a $0 electric bill just sign here are peddling something that's maximally profitable for them
- FireBeyond 3mo agoNo, but they did hold research sessions and they did draft the policy and the rules and all the updates and have them go through legal... they were planning to, until they saw public sentiment, or other influence. It'd be misleading to claim it was never a consideration.
- infecto 3mo agoConsidering yes but unclear how much of that is doing valid DD or a real push internally to want inclusion.
- infecto 3mo agoThey never said they would afaik. They were considering it and went through a consultation process and the outcome was a no.
- khurs 3mo agoYes Index and other funds are forced to buy as their contractual mandate is to follow the index or methodology set out by the fund.
- tjwebbnorfolk 3mo agook but who is forced to buy the nasdaq 100?
- stackghost 3mo agoIndex funds, for starters.
- quickthrowman 3mo agoI don’t even have access to a NASDAQ fund in my 401K. You have to go out of your way to buy the NASDAQ 100, QQQ and /NQ or /MNQ futures are the most popular instruments for getting exposure. I have a tiny minute slice of SPCX from owning VTI total market ETF but my 401K holds no SpaceX.
- malfist 3mo agoOkay? Just because you don't have access to that investment vehicle doesn't mean others aren't using it. What type of reasoning is this? "I, personally, am not too badly effected, therefore it's not a problem" And guess what, your VTI which does track NASDAQ as part of it's index is effected by this inclusion rule.
- danielmarkbruce 3mo agoHis reasoning is valid. Compared to the S&P500, it's a small sum of money. Most people aren't buying a fund that tracks that nasdaq index. The total effect isn't that large.
- 3mo ago
- runarberg 3mo agoSo you are saying it could have been worse, and therefor it is not that bad. I feel like this may be a logical fallacy. It is like saying that the worst thing about twin earthquakes in Venezuela was not the fact that there were two of them, because there could have been three.
- infecto 3mo agoDefend your position instead of comparing to earthquakes. The Nasdaq 100 is already quirky in that it’s the largest 100 non-financial companies listed on Nasdaq. So it’s a large-cap growth/tech play or for Nasdaq a showcase piece. I don’t think it’s great they remove the 3 month criteria but also knowing the specific slice of potentially unprofitable companies it highlights does not make it as concerning as the SP500 drastically changing their rules to include.
- runarberg 3mo agoTo clarify: I am not comparing anything to these horrible earthquakes. I am comparing the above rhetoric to a hypothetical rhetoric about the earthquakes. Nobody would actually say this about these earthquakes, and that is my point.
- infecto 3mo agoAgain, do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Your words are insulting and just putting words in my mouth. The Nasdaq 100 is not that special or unique. You’re comparing a quirky index to earthquakes which is weird. They don’t have much of any rules, the three month modification is maybe not great but also not that big of a deal. Price discovery is pretty quick and for the Nasdaq 100 it fits for their theme. It’s absolutely not the worst thing. It’s not really great or bad, it’s the Nasdaq 100. It might help to go read up on how they market that index. I know people tend too see “index” and think it’s a rigorous financial instrument but on a lot of cases it’s not. This index excludes financials so it ends up being this mega cap/tech 100. No other rules historically.