l23k4

8 ms·

91.
by l23k4 4mo ago
But why? Won't that just make it far more awkward when they're inevitably forced to go through with very similar changes in the end?
92.
by l23k4 4mo ago
>I don’t think you have either? I don't know how I could? The indices have already provided their reasoning for these rule changes, but that's just summarily rejected by the conspiracy-minded. To laymen this appears to be a gra
93.
by l23k4 4mo ago
So you don't actually have any evidence to support your claim? This just seems like a matter of faith at this point, that's fine.
94.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Here's Matt Levine from Bloomberg saying something along the lines of "lol, obviously the indices have to do this, they'll look like fools if they don't because these will be the biggest companies on the market". He
95.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Criticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg.
96.
by l23k4 4mo ago
This is just silly. HN rewards comments people agree with, not "engagement". Engagement farming works on social media platforms that reward engagement. Posting engagement bait in HN comments would just result in downvotes.
97.
by l23k4 4mo ago
It is what S&P Dow Jones Indices themselves say, so the burden of proof to prove otherwise must fall on you. And anyway, the rule change is truly the only reasonable way they can react to the current situation. It will absolutely be unt
98.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Can you share any credible reporting substantiating this theory?
99.
by l23k4 4mo ago
How would you "design" an IPO to do that? What exactly is that even supposed to mean?
100.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Why "unwilling"? That's a weird wording. S&P Dow Jones Indices decided to not go through with their rule change after it became a political issue. Obviously they were willing, the proposed rule change originated from th
101.
by l23k4 4mo ago
They became effective last month.
102.
by l23k4 4mo ago
> Im just saying that its ironic the person I was replying to used the word "supposed" like it may malfunction. I think you've simply misunderstood what "ironic" means.
103.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Would approximately 30 years not have been a long enough time horizon to move on this, or what?
104.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Who cares? Only people who are willing to give their DNA samples to meta and google can access those links anyway. Of course, they'd also have to be willing to consume the content in the least efficient format imaginable.
105.
by l23k4 4mo ago
I certainly am not. The only positive thing I have to say about those two is that SpaceX has cool rocketry tech. >Why post anything online? Typically people post things on HN for different reasons than they do on reddit or bsky, but your
106.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Why did you feel the need to post this comment?
107.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Why is that set of rules particularly good?
108.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Why didn't it occur to someone without occurring to someone first?
109.
by l23k4 4mo ago
>I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things Because this is how the rulemaking processes for these indices have always worked? Why are you suddenly making this argument now, and weren't complaining ab
110.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Ah, so you'd like the passive broad market index which contains the 500 biggest good companies? Do tell us if you find one I guess.
111.
by l23k4 4mo ago
>I'm sorry but you're very naive. The rules were changed because it was advantageous to SpaceX and the richest man on Earth. The rules were changed in the mid-90s because of a significant amount of big IPOs which did not have a
112.
by l23k4 4mo ago
It's still not thievery by any definition of the word.
113.
by l23k4 4mo ago
It's perfectly legitimate for me to reject outright the idea that anything Nasdaq-100 does matters. Why do you think anything that Nasdaq-100 does would matter?
114.
by l23k4 4mo ago
That's the Nasdaq-100 lol who cares? Are you buying it? It is literally just an arbitrary bucket of stocks.
115.
by l23k4 4mo ago
And how do you suppose these rules were originally introduced? Do you believe that the reasoning was particularly solid then, and is it directly applicable in the current situation?
116.
by l23k4 4mo ago
>What? Absolutely not. They are doing what the President is telling them to do. This is a paranoid delusion. These rules were never on particularly solid ground, it's only natural to see them gone when you have significant upcoming
117.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Tesla has been able to demonstrate significant growth which Toyota hasn't. >Do you think that Kathie Woods trying to memestock Tesla to 2000USD/share is normal? Frankly, I don't see why any sane adult would care enough to
118.
by l23k4 4mo ago
>I feel that what this article is telling me is that passive funds are becoming active funds by way of manipulating the index itself. It's wrong. They're undoing a previous manipulation and making the index more accurately refl
119.
by l23k4 4mo ago
Pension funds are perfectly capable of switching to a different product if they don't want index funds that reflect the market. But they do want index funds that actually reflect the market, so they want these rule changes. The managem
120.
by l23k4 4mo ago
How exactly do those numbers add up in your mind? At around $60B valuation sometime in 2018, how was TeslaQ spot on? Are you maybe claiming that Tesla is lying in their current disclosures?

More ›