61–70 of 208 posts
IMHO, still too much. Someone posted this link [1] recently. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHD8BDFYyGI
Holy crap is that an amusing/depressing video. Assuming the financial shenanigans outlined in it are even partially accurate, how the heck is this getting allowed?
When it comes to dealing with the abuse of power by those who hold power, the question is not "who's allowing them to do this?", it's "who's going to stop them?".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I keep seeing this comment on all these spacex posts, can someone ELI5 to me why the pension funds are going to be forced to buy this? (do they not have free will on what they buy?)
People confuse pension funds with index funds. Index funds will buy SpaceX once it is added to the index.
Pensions have strong and weird investment rules, and you have no control over what they do other than law. This makes them generally a worse investment (but if you live longer than average they are great anyway) so a 401k is better for most.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additional concern is the push to get it added to indices immediately. Forcing it into our retirement funds, 401ks and IRAs.
The best you can do is avoid the exposure with changes to your portfolio composition while everyone else gets grifted. It's regrettable.
That’s the way indexes roll. I don’t invest in indexes for this reason.
There is a separate structural issue with indexes that is being ignored here. Indexes were never really designed to accommodate companies going public so late with high revenue growth. A couple decades ago companies went public when they were so small that they could grow into the index. This reflects changes in the nature and structure of the capital markets, these new IPOs are just a manifestation of this reality.
IMHO, still too much. Someone posted this link [1] recently. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHD8BDFYyGI
Holy crap is that an amusing/depressing video. Assuming the financial shenanigans outlined in it are even partially accurate, how the heck is this getting allowed?
So I don't fundamentally care if SpaceX is overvalued or not. Like, that's on you for whatever you want to invest in or not. What I object to is all the rule changes by NASDAQ to essentially fix the IPO so massive pension funds and index funds are forced to invest in it. There have been multiple submissions about this but in short small floats are normally prohibited for index inclusion (not anymore), the trading day…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best you can do is avoid the exposure with changes to your portfolio composition while everyone else gets grifted. It's regrettable.
There are many dubious companies in the S&P500. I don’t see the point in getting selectively heated about this one when everyone seems to be okay with the others. That’s the way indexes roll. I don’t invest in indexes for this reason. There is a separate structural issue with indexes that is being ignored here. Indexes were never really designed to accommodate companies going public so late with high revenue growth.…
So I don't fundamentally care if SpaceX is overvalued or not. Like, that's on you for whatever you want to invest in or not. What I object to is all the rule changes by NASDAQ to essentially fix the IPO so massive pension funds and index funds are forced to invest in it. There have been multiple submissions about this but in short small floats are normally prohibited for index inclusion (not anymore), the trading day…
Ultimately it was inevitable that as passive investing got more and more popular, people would seek to game it. Not that I'm happy about it, but if this works, it is probably just the beginning of sneaky ways being found to trick passive money into taking on way more risk than it intended to. And of course passive investors are passive, so they may not even notice, and probably won't fight back until the inevitable c…
I looked into the how the rule-changing works. NASDAQ is what's called a Self-Regulating Organization ("SRO") in the legislation so it has a lot of power. Were it a government agency, it would be more difficult. Technically, the SEC has to approve all rule changes by SROs but in this administration in particular, that's just going to be a rubber stamp. By the way here's a speech the head of the SEC previously gave about deregulation of capital markets [1].
I was also curious if Loper Bright had changed anything here but it appears not. The sstatuory language here is clear rather than intentionally or unintentionally ambiguous.
So the funds can technically challenge any such rules. They have standing. But the bar is difficult and I don't see it happening.
But if this goes badly, what I think you'll see is changes in governance by pension funds that'll be reflected by Vanguard and Blackrock, which is "index-like" funds that have stricter governance with rules closer to what was the case before these rule changes were rammed through. I could be wrong. I hope I'm not.
[1]: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/04/22/speech-by-chair-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is poor advice. Its share of the index will be relatively small and if it is indeed a dud, the index will organically rebalance. If you’re a long-term investor, this would just be a temporary blip. On the other hand, if this is thr opposite of a dud, you’ll get the benefit of that.
If one wants to gamble on the grift, that is what options are for. Otherwise, we might as well start adding NFTs to the indexes if fundamentals do not matter. Luck for some, risk management for others. Regardless, informed consent is important imho. Relevant precedence is ETFs that exclude Big Tech. https://www.defianceetfs.com/xmag/ ("XMAG, the first ETF designed to provide investors with exposure to the S&P 500, ex…
VOOG has returned 18.28%/yr over 10 years vs 15.63%/yr for VOO, a meaningful gap driven almost entirely by Mag 7 dominance. XMAG has no 10-year track record.