People keep saying “bad apples into indices” but I have yet to truly understand what folks mean. Most of the mainstay indices would not include a fresh on the block new comer and it would generally need to follow other criteria. Yes SpaceX got added to the Nasdaq 100 but that is the whole purpose of that index. People should not be investing their savings in that.
What they mean is that when a company becomes part of an index, like the S&P500, historically, they come in somewhere around approximately rank 500. The S&P naturally results in more buying of winners and more selling of losers, so anyone who owns an S&P ETF will own that stock when its approximately rank 500, and will own more and more of it as it grows to be a bigger part of the index (higher rank).
Now, however, these IPOs are so big that straight away they're at like rank 10, or 15 or whatever. The investors who own the S&P don't experience any of the upside when they grow from rank 500 to 10. They are only exposed to the downside (if they lose value/rank/fall out of the index) or the marginal upside if they continue performing and generating returns.
The point is that given the size of the IPOs relative to other companies, their addition to the index has a much more downside exposure than reasonable upside exposure.
I'm probably butchering my explanation here, so apologies if it sounds odd.
You could but why stop there? I argue that enforcing the standards for compliance and transparency is one of the greatest levers. After that it’s on the market. You will never stop an individual from buying fools gold and in some sense it’s healthy for some to fail no matter how silly the investment was.
I am going to jump on the touch hate bandwagon but more specifically I think it’s odd in the format they designed. I think the MSFT surface is brilliant because you can fold it down into an iPad like device which can be great for travel and other non-desk uses.
Touch while still being a normal laptop does feel odd. I would be curious who wants touch in this form factor.
The title is poorly worded. I can easily see how it can be conflated in passing. Naming the model is silly in the title. It should be mentioned in the article but as read the title suggests it’s something related to this model.
I think you’re overthinking it. Someone just passed away. For all accounts they seem to be a really amazing person with incredible character, something that is missing in many people. She donated a lot of her wealth throughout her life, always being one of the first to write a check for disaster recovery.
Let’s not pick apart “myths and folklore”, it does not matter at the end of the day.
It does not appear to adjust for any of the things that matter. Taxes, cost of capital, generation mix, etc. I think the “insight” is impossible to call an insight with the lack of real modeling.
reply