upvote
which, if true, would make an arbitrage opportunity for a fund that explicitly excludes these high valuation targets but buys those trimmed companies (because for trimming to have happened, they must've been sold unwillingly and thus must be under-priced).
reply
Which, again, benefits the wealthy and well-informed and well-connected.

The suckers who have their retirement savings in some kind of index fund because all the experts have been saying, "Buy index ETFs and forget about it" for decades are gonna get fleeced, and the wealthiest get wealthier.

reply
What to do then, if "Boogleheads" are wrong?
reply
Bogleheads aren't wrong, historically. At least, not in the general sense that buying index funds and mostly forgetting about it is smarter than trying to beat the market with individual stock picks and timing the market.

But, that philosophy came about in an era when there were protections for small investors that prevented the richest man on earth from dipping into your retirement fund to make himself even richer. I don't know how to be a smart investor when the game is so thoroughly rigged for a handful of billionaires.

reply
I think the way to adjust the boglehead philosophy for this scenario is to construct a shadow index which would be the same as the normal index except with the grifts removed or at least underweighted. And then buy stock to track the shadow index.
reply
I suppose everyone reading this thread counts as "well-informed" then, right? All I have to do is move my 401k into the bond-heavy fund right now and then back into the stock-heavy one when everything craters is what I'm hearing. It's what you're doing, right?
reply
isn't this also "timing the market"? which most people agree is a bad idea
reply
I'm informed enough to see what they're doing and why, but I'm not informed enough to know how to prevent them from wrecking the economy for normal folks while enriching themselves. I don't think information alone can solve the problem for the majority of people. Retirement accounts aren't often easy to change, non-retirement accounts have tax consequences, timing the market as a normal retail investor is risky.

I don't really have advice. If I were directly holding an index that tracks the Nasdaq 100, I would get out of it, and take the tax hit. But, I suspect the impact and risk will cascade outward. Nvidia has exploded in price based on actual revenue (though I suspect it will be temporary, and have to come back to earth in time). SpaceX is entirely fantasy land. It doesn't have revenue to justify anything like the price they're launching the IPO, and when indexes are forced to buy it, everyone holding those indexes provides exit liquidity for the same scammers who've been hyping it.

reply
If you are subject to capital gains taxes, this would likely be a bad idea? (Though I have no clue how American 401k work in this regard.)
reply
401ks are tax exempt so there would be no tax for switching investments.
reply
Thanks!
reply
You are giving up equity premium for the time till everything settles. You will also not know when that is. It's going to be more like a long term ticking bomb that may take years to detonate.
reply
Years? The way people are talking in this thread it's all an AI exit scam, which shouldn't take years to play out. It's a popping bubble, remember?
reply
It is a liquidity event for Elon Musk, and people like Elon Musk. What they do with it, hard to say. But, the forced buying by institutional investors will push the price of SpaceX upward based on nothing. SpaceX revenue was $15.8 billion last year, and it's profit was negative $2.4 billion, its AI business is an also-ran, Twitter has declined to a fraction of its value before the acquisition.

There's no there there, so anything that props up the valuation of SpaceX puts money in scammers pockets at the expense of everyone else exposed to the stock.

reply
deleted
reply
Yeah it's years because they will slowly unload it to entities that are forced to buy (and as they do those entities will be forced to buy more). If you have money invested in those ETFs I think you may want to pay a bit more attention rather than making sarcastic comments unless you want to end up with 5%+ of your portfolio being invested in hopium by the end of 2028.

The threat is to end up with the bag, not that the bag explodes this month or the next.

reply
> Yeah it's years because they will slowly unload it to entities that are forced to buy

I get your logic, but why all the handwringing over the short time frame for inclusion in these funds (days instead of a year)? None of that should be relevant if it's going to take so long to play out.

> unless you want to end up with 5%+ of your portfolio being invested in hopium by the end of 2028.

OK so, going back to the original question: the play is what? Move into bonds around IPO time and move back in when everything craters?

reply
>>I get your logic, but why all the handwringing over the short time frame for inclusion in these funds (days instead of a year)? None of that should be relevant if it's going to take so long to play out.

It matters at what price the forced buying starts.

>>OK so, going back to the original question: the play is what? Move into bonds around IPO time and move back in when everything craters?

It's hard to say what's the play is because:

1)For many people making any kind of "play" triggers a tax event

2)It's not clear what ETFs to choose as currently there aren't many good options.

Imo one decent choice out of available ones are ETFs based on MSCI World Quality Factor index. It's not ideal because it still excludes companies like Berkshire Hathaway (because of accounting rules) but it avoids many suspicious companies (like MSTR) as well as mega IPOs. Unfortunately those are more costly (0.3% instead of like 0.05%). If you are in EU you and want world wide exposure you still need something for emerging markets (EU based ETFs based on that methodology exclude emerging markets).

You can also become an active investor but that's a job and I don't think many people want to take on it.

The main problem with going with bonds is that you are giving up equity premium and you still need to time the market for a comeback and that's very difficult.

reply
That's not what arbitrage means
reply
>The money still comes from somewhere.

Can't they just be printed and massive funds borrowing money to buy shares?

reply