undefined

points

[-]

> Let the market decide... They're changing the rules on inclusion ...

You have the market deciding and the rules changing in the same paragraph and nothing's bothering you. I genuinely envy your peace of mind, my friend. Some of us are truly blessed.

by bko3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The rules changed because it's unprecedented. It's not complicated. If your job is to "track the market" and there is this company that is worth $1+ trillion, you're not doing your job if you don't have exposure to this company.

Just be honest with yourself. The only reason you and others have an issue is because of politics. You don't like Musk for whatever reason and now you're very opinionated about the internal workings of index selection, when prior to reading about it in the NYT or something, you had no idea.

You don't care about the arcane byzantine process, you think rocket man is bad. I feel bad for people that get so easy manipulated. It's a hell of a way to live your life, waking up and reading corporate media to tell you what you should be angry about today

by jghn1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Ignoring the moral questions, the issue is that the old waiting period had a purpose. The market *isn't* getting an opportunity to decide here. There's a concern that these are a glorified pump & dump where initial investors extract all the value via the IPO and then the price craters once it's on the open market.

It'd be nice to give the market a period of time to figure out what it *really* values these companies.

by bko23 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

> moral questions

Do you hear yourself? This is about index inclusion.

by jghn21 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I stated that because most of this thread is on that topic and specifically didn't want it involved for this. I'm sorry if you're too biased on the topic to take that into account.

by stackskipton2 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Doesn’t matter that it’s unprecedented by value, Whole point of rules is confirm that value isn’t fake by letting the market stabilize after IPO and then if value is there, it’s added to the index. Yes, some money could be lost if value is there but reverse is true as well.

by myk90012 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Hang on, wasn't the market supposed to work it out? How come it's someone's job to fast-track inclusion? Isn't intervening directly in the market a communist policy? Are you a communist by any chance?

by vibrio7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I think their point is not the ESG component, but firms with traditionally irrational valuations (à la GameStop) for which index inclusion exceptions have been made to facilitate short term liquidity for IPO participants. Seems as though one should be able to hold the broad market less that component.

by sobiolite6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Let the market decide what, though? What the market cares about may be different from what you care about, if the average investor has a higher tolerance for risk that you do. For pension funds, long term stability is key. A wide spread of large companies has traditionally been a good way to achieve that, but that isn’t guaranteed.

by ImPostingOnHN3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> Let the market decide. Of course they should own one of the largest public companies in the world.

The pension fund is the customer here. The market is already deciding. You're free to invest your own money as you see fit. The pension fund's money is not yours to decide what to do with.