391–400 of 542 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how many businesses operate. You have still not provided example of fraud or scam behavior.
If "many businesses" operate this way, then "many businesses" are committing fraud. You can't publicly claim to be selling loans to an unrelated company when in fact you control that company.
Good. Indexes are supposed to be slow-moving, precisely due to their entry requirement of sustained profitability that skews towards mature companies. All that an inclusion of these new companies would accomplish is a bailout of their stockholders by pension funds and ETFs where millions of regular people shoulder all the downside risk. SpaceX and OAI stock will be available through Robinhood, Questrade and all the o…
This does seem sensible and I’m glad most of my holdings are in s&p funds. Just to play devils advocate though, what are the downsides of not having 3 of the biggest 10 in the world not in your fund, if you hold to track broad market performance? Wouldn’t that have a massive blind spot on AI related growth? Whether or not I personally think ai is over hyped or not, the whole point of these ETFs is to make sure I don’…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also worth noting that other index providers are less principled. > Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days
More like its a competition to get the listing -- not dissimilar to Amazon shopping cities for its corporate base. Set up a competition and get the best deal would be my speculation on why it was done (as well as goose the demand).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Orbital datacenters is just an excuse of a reason to merge the two companies when there’s nothing else tying them together. They won’t actually happen.
SpaceX will run out of things to profitably launch with Starship once they launch Starlink V3 (a few hundred launches per year), and orbital datacenters provides effectively unlimited launch demand. Like Starlink was for Falcon 9, orbital datacenters are a way to fully leverage the insane launch cost advantage and launch capacity that Starship brings to the table.
The datacenters in space thing just doesn't make sense to me. Datacenters get their value from scale which is why they're so freaking massive here on earth. I just don't see any datacenter in space being big enough (unless built over multiple lifetimes) to use let alone profitable/desireable. What am i missing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a fundamental level, the S&P 500 index is meant to be a benchmark of the market. Journalists, policymakers, investment managers, politicians, regular investors, everyone I know all use the S&P 500 as the benchmark of the US stock market. If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark.
> If a significant percentage of the market is excluded from the index because they don't meet index inclusion criteria, then then index stops being a useful benchmark. So what's the reason for fast entry specifically? If it's a significant portion of the market and will remain so, it doesn't need an accelerated entry. A benchmark should be conservative about new entrants so that it doesn't turn from a market benchma…
Inclusion in as many indexes as possible is basically the definition of "too big to fail." It's the ultimate de-risk to know that if you fuck up badly enough the government will just give you everyone's money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please elaborate why caravan is a scam?
See my reply to @rtpg. The short answer is that it is believed they are selling high-risk loans to a company they control, making it look like the publicly traded Carvana is some kind of miracle in the car industry while offloading the risk to anonymous shell companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medallion, Renaissance, Dodge, Sequoia. But I don't think that's what you were really asking.
Interesting those are value funds? Of course that was not what I was asking or what this thread was about.
And the answer is yes, e.g. both the S&P 500 Value Index and S&P 500 Pure Value Index have beaten the S&P 500 historically.
Small Cap indexes, have also *significantly* outperformed the S&P 500 from 1927 till today (a compounded 13.1% annual growth).
Value stocks represent companies whose price-to-book is particularly attractive compared to the underlying business, and since investing is tied by the sell/buy ratio, buying at a discount improves it. Needless to say, value stocks require more risk, and risk is directly related to potential growth.
Small caps, are both riskier and have a much larger room to grow, they have significantly outperformed the SP500 since 1927.
Neither value nor small caps have done well, in the last decade, as the financial markets have multiple times provided better returns to a small but heavy portion of the market that was neither risky nor at any point had particularly attractive price-to-book ratios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also worth noting that other index providers are less principled. > Nasdaq changed its rules recently so SpaceX can join the Nasdaq 100 Index, a cohort of the largest non-financial companies listed on its exchange, in just 15 trading days, down from a three-month minimum. FTSE Russell adopted a similar approach, shortening the waiting time to five trading days
More like its a competition to get the listing -- not dissimilar to Amazon shopping cities for its corporate base. Set up a competition and get the best deal would be my speculation on why it was done (as well as goose the demand).
The Nasdaq 100 is not the same as Nasdaq. A company can be in many indexes but only one listing. There may have been competition for the listing but there is not competition between indexes for inclusion.