Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 524 posts

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#221

Post by cfiggers »

derf_ wrote: post #187
LinguaBrowse wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve moved my S&P 500 investments to the Equal Weight index to reduce my exposure to AI. Quite aside from SpaceX, I think the large-cap tech companies are making some uncomfortably large bets on AI and any major upset could cause a domino effect. But as so many ETFs have a significant stake in large-cap US tech stocks (the top 10 holdings of the iShares MSCI World ETF is entirely comprised US Big Tech, making up 20%…

> I found S&P 500 Equal Weight to be pretty attractive. The rebalancing required to maintain equal weights means constantly selling your winners and buying more of your losers. That creates volatility drag. Stock returns are highly skewed: only about 4% of stocks outperform the market, and are responsible for most of its gains. By keeping your allocation to those stocks small through constant rebalancing, you are mis…

I think you're missing the feature of equal-weight index that your parent comment is attracted to—which is a sense that the market generally is out of balance toward AI investment at the moment and that there's a correction coming, which the equal-weight index will have less exposure to.

Your concerns sound valid provided things continue on as they have (I'm not a financial advisor and this is not financial advice) but the commenters above you are specifically worried that it's not going to do that. In which case, the disadvantages you point out of the equal-weight index will be handily outweighed. If an AI bubble popping causes the market-weighted funds to suffer, it doesn't matter that we've avoided trading fees along the way.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#222

Post by zerobees »

zhivota wrote: post #30

Big relief for me. As a passive investor, I want the indices to follow the same passive strategy they always have, and specifically not make exceptions for specific companies like SpaceX wanted. Plenty of ways to get exposure to that stock without it going into the indices it is not qualified for.

I get what you're saying, but I think there's a contradiction between wanting to be a passive index-fund investor and having opinions like that. The core tenet of index investing is that the market knows better than you.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#223

Post by fauigerzigerk »

lelanthran wrote: post #149
frozenseven wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The greatest tech revolution by far and people on this site are trying to movie their money away from it. I hope y'all will do an honest retrospective in a year or so. I see this sentiment often, and think it is short-sighted: 1. The tech fails at the goal - profitability is what we see for any tech that augments humans, which isn't anywhere close to satisfying the trillions in debt, busting the market and bleeding…

Neither is very likely in my opinion.

I think the tech will work well for some tasks where a formal feedback loop exists (such as coding). In other areas it will take many years to adapt business processes and roles to make the best use of this technology. The total productivity boost could be around 1% p.a similar to the industrial revolution of the 19th century.

Stock prices could be at risk not from lack of demand but because the data center buildout is bound to slow dramatically as we come up against some serious bottlenecks like energy, grid, fab capacity, permissions, etc. Not much will have to be written off, but the delays could cause big problems for debt funded projects and companies.

This slowdown will allow the economy and the workforce to evolve away from execution and towards planning, strategy, research and development, idea generation, experimentation, oversight as well as manually handling a million exceptions and gaps left by current AI models.

I don't think there has ever been a tech boom without a tech bust. But that's not the same thing as the tech not working or causing economic collapse. Maybe this time is different. Who knows.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#224

Post by cj »

derf_ wrote: post #187
LinguaBrowse wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve moved my S&P 500 investments to the Equal Weight index to reduce my exposure to AI. Quite aside from SpaceX, I think the large-cap tech companies are making some uncomfortably large bets on AI and any major upset could cause a domino effect. But as so many ETFs have a significant stake in large-cap US tech stocks (the top 10 holdings of the iShares MSCI World ETF is entirely comprised US Big Tech, making up 20%…

> I found S&P 500 Equal Weight to be pretty attractive. The rebalancing required to maintain equal weights means constantly selling your winners and buying more of your losers. That creates volatility drag. Stock returns are highly skewed: only about 4% of stocks outperform the market, and are responsible for most of its gains. By keeping your allocation to those stocks small through constant rebalancing, you are mis…

If big tech ends up seeing a 40-50% draw down in the next 2-3 years, what ETF is best equipped to limit the blast radius?

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#225

Post by everforward »

Wololooo wrote: post #107
frozenseven wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

People are doing so because the math is not mathing. Assuming that all the claims are true, this would lead to a collapse under its own weight, because at that point, supposedly, most people won't be needed in the jobs they currently occupy. Assuming the claims aren't true, there will be a reckoning where all the glitter thrown will hit the ground and people that invested would like to have their marbles back at what…

Have they even talked about how they’re going to handle the heat?

I’m willing to believe the construction is plausible (maybe not cost-effective, but possible), and robotic operation of it is a stretch but with some optimism I could be convinced.

I don’t see how they can get rid of the heat, at least in a realistic way that isn’t “a square kilometer of black body radiation surfaces” or something equally “works on paper, so uneconomical it will never actually happen”.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#226

Post by infecto »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #31
Drupon wrote: post #25

Crazy to see the Twitter behavior here of really smart, well conveyed top level comments replied to by weird propaganda pushing bottom feeders.

HN discussion quality has deteriorated dramatically, especially for anything AI related.

Sadly you are absolutely correct. The quality has nosedived in the past 1-2 years. I am not sure the exact cause but one of the things I noticed is a massive uptick in users who have insane post counts with sub 1-2 year history.

Breaking the rules but it does feel very much like Facebook or Reddit where there are distinct hive minds on topics and it just becomes a pissing match between brain-dead individuals.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#227

Post by infecto »

xyzal wrote: post #120
solenoid0937 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN discussion quality has deteriorated dramatically, especially for anything AI related.

Mind that the host of this site has an interest in keeping the hype going on ...

And? Continue down your conspiracy theory please.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#228

Post by infecto »

kortilla wrote: post #48
Drupon wrote: post #25

Crazy to see the Twitter behavior here of really smart, well conveyed top level comments replied to by weird propaganda pushing bottom feeders.

The top level comments are not smart or well conveyed, they are just the other side of the internet echo chamber. “Good, the rich don’t need money”, etc. I think Elon owned companies are just a third rail for any kind of intelligent discussion because it turns into Elon fan boys arguing against Elon haters.

I think you pierced the hearts of Elon haters/fan boys and are getting downvoted.

Absolutely agree with your statement. Most top comments are just upvoted from the hivemind. Elon topics are always the worst because nobody even uses critical thinking and will just upvote/downvote based on the theme of Elon = Good or Bad.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#229

Post by everforward »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #200
have_faith wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the time horizon do you think for free models matching today’s SOTA on average consumer hardware? I see people building 6k+ machines to run the best of them at the moment, which are behind SOTA by maybe 6 - 12 months or so right now.

Open models lag the frontier ~3-6 months, though they're likely smaller than frontier models as well so that lag might not be fully real. Qwen 3.6 27B is very usable for average coding, and Gemma4 31b is very usable for day to day tasks. The problem there isn't the models, it's consumer hardware. Even 16GB cards aren't the norm, and even with massive improvements in per-parameter performance we probably still need 48…

“Average” is also doing terrible things there. The “average GPU” is probably the integrated graphics on the CPU of a laptop.

If you scoped it to “average gaming desktop”, double digit VRAM is pretty normal at this point. If costs came down, I imagine the higher end GPUs would start including enough VRAM for 30B-ish models.

Re: S&P 500 rejects SpaceX, also blocking entry for OpenAI and Anthropic

#230

Post by simsla »

cj wrote: post #224
derf_ wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I found S&P 500 Equal Weight to be pretty attractive. The rebalancing required to maintain equal weights means constantly selling your winners and buying more of your losers. That creates volatility drag. Stock returns are highly skewed: only about 4% of stocks outperform the market, and are responsible for most of its gains. By keeping your allocation to those stocks small through constant rebalancing, you are mis…

If big tech ends up seeing a 40-50% draw down in the next 2-3 years, what ETF is best equipped to limit the blast radius?

I think there are no safe harbor investments at this time. Even gold is unpredictable.

Personally I went 80% world excl US and 20% equal weight S&P500 to hedge against what I think is an AI bubble. But if the market decides to adjust Nvidia's valuation 20% downward next week, I expect there to be ripple effects throughout the economy.

(Like the .com bubble, I think the tech is genuinely transformative and here to stay, but the valuations are just ridiculous.)

Post reply on HN