ywvcbk · HackerTrans

3 giorni fadiscuss

Why single out Australia though? I mean one conclusion that can be made from arguments like this is that if you do commit genocide and ethnic cleansing you better go all the way and wipe out the other group 100% so your grand children can avoid any type of ancestor blame or demands for compensation (like in plenty of other countries like Turkey etc.)

ywvcbk

3 giorni fadiscuss

In plenty of cases it's absolutely self evident (especially when there are plenty of historical precedents for similar or analogous situations).

Yes you can get involved in extended arguments with people arguing in bad faith or whose world view is fundamentally incompatible with your but that's usually just a waste of time (I mean you wouldn't argue with Nazis either just the same as with people trying to institute a Stasi style surveillance apparatus through slow boiling)

ywvcbk

4 giorni fadiscuss

What if the majority of the ancestors of some individual Anglo Saxon Australians immigrated in the 1980s. Do they have a moral and legal obligation to personally contribute to this? What about Italian Australians? Or Irish Australians? Are the exempt? I mean it's a stupid biased loaded question to begin with (i.e. attributing collective blame to a undefinable ethic/racial group)..

ywvcbk

4 giorni fadiscuss

Slippery slope is not a "fallacy" by default. It can be occasionally but its a perfectly reasonably argument in plenty of cases.

ywvcbk

4 giorni fadiscuss

No? I don't think there is a way to meaningfully change the layout for non trivial charts?

ywvcbk

5 giorni fadiscuss

Globally in relative terms? Kind of. Sure the gap to the US was huge but it still controlled pretty much entire Africa and much of Asia (with China and Japan obviously not doing great..)

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> But at a fundamental level, the S&P500 index exists to track the market

No, it exists to track a subset of the market based on specific criteria and weights. It's not even based on the market cap of included companies directly.

'S&P Total Market Index' exists to track the market.

> qualify as major members of the index

Not based on the inclusion criteria.

AND even if that were changed they wouldn't be near the top anyway, despite the trillion dollar valuations initially they wouldn't even be in the top 20 by weight.

> and defeats the purpose of the index entirely.

The index has operated based on specific rules defining inclusion criteria for a while. Can we just conclude that it did not become the most popular index despite never being designed to track the full market or be based directly on total market caps.

After all it's the people advocating the inclusion of these companies are advocating an arbitrary modification to the rules just to get them in.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

Assuming it's share price does not drop significantly because of that.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> what an index describes vs what investors prefer

What makes you think S&P 500 did not become the most popular index (instead of full market ones) because of the rigid entry criteria and and rules for weights.

Amongst other things the weighting is not even based on the market cap.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> The 409a has a lot of words and numbers to justify a particular valuation

That's tangential. The valuation is based on supply and demand, nothing else.

Amongst other things the supply part of the equation will be low because all these companies are only to make a very small proportion of their shares available on the public markets.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> The purpose of an index is to provide a benchmark of the market

Usually a subset of the market based on specific criteria. Total market indexes and funds exist, maybe there is a reason S&P 500 despite its "strict" inclusion criteria is more popular than them?

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> There is plenty of money in the market

Their float will be very small so yes, the value of their shares that anyone could buy at even the most optimistic valuations would be tiny compared to most public megacaps.

> Btw I don’t really know how index funds work, but if they need to track the index as closely as possible, they will all have to buy those stocks on a certain day, no?

S&P wouldn't include them until they became profitable and even if they did they wouldn't even be in the top 20.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> accurately reflect the market. When S&P rules end up excluding a significant part of the market with trillions

Define what that means? The weights are based on the value of shares available publicly, not market cap. So even if included SpaceX wouldn't even be in the top 20 and have a lower weight than Johson & Johson.

A lot of what people are saying here seems to be based on a misconception of what S&P 500 is supposed to be. Maybe it became the most popular index because of those rigid rules?

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

Neither? What makes you think it was supposed to be a benchmark for either.

Amongst other thing weights are based on the value of shares that are traded publicly, not market cap.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

S&P 500 weights are based the value of shares available on the public market not the market cap. Based on that SpaceX will be nowhere near the top 10.

Do you think their valuations wouldn't fall dramatically if they were willing to float a significant proportion of their shares on the market anytime soon.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> out unstable, illiquid questionable

So Space X, OpenAI, Anthropic? Those are perfect examples.

It's unlikely their valuations could survive the IPO if their float wasn't extremely low.

> top 20 largest companies in the US market

You do know that S&P weights are based on the free float and not the market cap. So based on that SpaceX etc. will not be in the top 20. The total value of shares of Johnson & Johnson available on the public market will be much higher than that of SpaceX/etc. based on their current valuations.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> the S&P 500 no longer reflects the actual market

Well it was never intended to reflect the full "actual market".

> no longer an adequate benchmark

According to your definition it never was. However there were and are plenty of other index benchmarks which serve different purpose. Its just that S&P 500 managed to become the most popular one, why did it happen if it was always inherently flawed?

Like they didn't even add Microslop for 8 years...

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

You want to turn S&P 500 to a total market index. Why? That was never its purpose.

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> Because the index needs accuracy

So you are saying that S&P 500 should be merged with Russell 2000 or rather just become a fully market index to be more "accurate". You do know that's something that exists already, having different indexes makes perfect sense and consumers can pick the ones they want based on their risk profile and preferences.

> most civilization changing companies from the benchmark

It took Google 2 years to get into S&P 500. For Microslop it was 8 years (!). So what's new?

ywvcbk

mese scorsodiscuss

> which is more than enough time for the market to find a price

The price markets find would still inevitably be influence by the knowledge that the demand would increase massively in a few months.

> inclusion criteria reward companies that prioritize profit over growth

Or stable and sustainable growth. Whatever else SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic valuations are price in extremely optimistic growth. But yeah, I do see a point that including adequately priced growth stocks could be a net benefit but of course accouting for the actual valuation would turn index funds into managed ones.

Thankfully its not an issue at all since there is Nasdaq 100.

comments