Live data from Hacker News

Nasdaq's Shame

keubiko.substack.com

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: Nasdaq's Shame

#171
post #33

Anyone know if vanguards VTI is immune from such practices?

vti is free float adjusted, so not as susceptible. But: Elon will naturally do everything in his power to pump his stock, as every CEO does, and VTI buys shares in proportion to how successful that is. That is the nature of passive, market cap weighted investing. If you want to underweight Elon's companies, or, generally, weight companies based on something besides market cap, you have to get into active or factor in…

When a stock drops in value, the dollars don't flow anywhere, they just disappear. Think about this: For every buyer ("putting money in a stock") there is a seller ("taking money out of a stock') at exactly the same price. So dollars aren't "in" a stock at all - the shares exist and are said to have some dollar value based on the recent trading price or open orders in the market. When the price drops, it's because the collective consensus on how much those shares are worth changed, and the dollars assumed to have exist prior are just gone.

Re: Nasdaq's Shame

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author wants to buy ahead of the indexes and benefit from the squeeze; he wants the normal rules of waiting a year before SpaceX is eligible to join the indexes to apply.

this is news.ycombinator.com Do you think there's some super dominos that happens? If he's trying some combo pump-dump scheme, there's much better places. Also, you provide zero counter to the punch, so what is your word worth any more?

It's substack, not ycombinator. The article is obviously not targeted at ycombinator.

And I don't think he's doing a pump and dump. He's just doing the very human act about ranting about things that affect him. His self-interest colors the piece.

Re: Nasdaq's Shame

#173
post #115

I’m trying to understand the mechanics here. I get that SpaceX and Nasdaq are in cahoots to get SpaceX bundled with a bunch of other stocks (and that bundle is called QQQ?) But why must retail investors hold this bundle? If I’m holding now, I can sell it and buy a different bundle right? And if I’m not holding it now, I can just continue not to buy it after SpaceX gets included.

Yes, you can sell and buy a different index. However, those who buy ETFs want broad market exposure without picking stocks (or ETFs). Also selling and re-buying means you have to pay taxes now - depending on jurisdiction, that is way worse than holding till you are retired and then selling. SpaceX/Nasdaq want to distort the rules to make more money off the backs of those passive investors.

If you sell and then rebuy isn’t that considered a wash trade and therefore exempt from taxes?

Re: Nasdaq's Shame

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think we're going to see the end of America as we know it within our lifetimes? Surely the system can't keep going on like this?

I think many people will say it's already not the same as it was. It's not just a US issue though. It's a global issue. Every country is in the same boat. That's what's scary about it. I think Ray Dalio is right that we are near the end of a kind of super cycle with multiple cycles converging towards some kind of major collapse. We will have to reorganize a lot of things. I hope technology will provide us the support…

All I have to say is I live in a city that pretty much bears you out.

Re: Nasdaq's Shame

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, when SpaceX gets added to the index, it's going to skyrocket for just that reason. The other reason why SpaceX stock is going to skyrocket is because of the "infinite potential". After all, Elon is going to be God-Emperor of Mars, and how much is a piece of that worth? The OP knows this and wants a window to profit from this squeeze. For the general public index owners, the sooner it's added to the index the bet…

How will a colony on Mars be profitable?

How many Earth dollars would you pay to go live on Mars?

Re: Nasdaq's Shame

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a bold claim. Since we are talking about stock indices here... Can you provide a well known (liquid) non-leveraged example that does not directly trade the underlying stocks? It would probably make the create/redeem process more complex for market makers.

Invesco S&P 500 UCITS ETF 100% synth replication edit: ISIN: IE00B3YCGJ38

Hat tip! I was not aware that Europe has very particular laws (different from the US) about how ETFs need to treat dividends. As a result, using an underlying equity swap is more tax efficient than owning the shares directly. For US-listed ETFs, I believe that my original point still stands: Well-known (liquid) non-leveraged ETFs hold physical shares instead of replicating returns with derivatives (equity swaps).

Re: Nasdaq's Shame

#178

Uh, can someone explain this to me like I’m 5, but somehow still have money invested in index funds? It makes me sound like my invested-in-vanguard-total-market-indexes-and-fidelity-target-date-funds money is going to be mechanically dumped into Elon Stock because of FinanceWord FinanceWord FinanceWord gobbledgook FinanceWord but is that the correct reading?

Index funds divvy up money into stocks, in this case weighted by market cap. More market cap = bigger slice of the pie. SpaceX wants to instantly jump near the top of the pie - capturing tons of the money in index funds for itself, and also therefore taking it away from other companies stocks. SpaceX (and others like OpenAI, Anthropic)'s private market cap valuation is so high that if they IPO they would instantly ju…

So the next question becomes: is there anything out there that’s like an almost-index? Like something that acts like a passive index fund, except when acting like an index fund would be obviously idiotic (for e.g. if following the rules suddenly becomes “invest everything in Elon Musk and pray he doesn’t bankrupt you with a tweet), the person in charge has the discretion to say “doing that would be stupid, no?”
Post reply on HN