You're claiming without evidence that the bureaucracy and regulators are corrupt to the core? No way I refuse to hear another bad word about the government, they are above reproach sir.

At least a new Cybertruck.

If you have evidence of corruption, present it. Otherwise it's just generic cynicism leading to a thought terminating cliche.

> Do you think it’s more or less likely that they will make the same change as the other benchmarks?

S&P has historically been more conservative. My personal guess is they won't adopt all of the proposals.

> Are you actually optimistic?

Not particularly. When I posted the request for comment to HN it got crickets [1].

Not enough people care about this. And the "safe" option has kind of shifted with the other index providers having moved first. That said, there were a lot of proposals and I'm not expecting all of them to be adopted.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48054324

A: posted a fact

B: but what about your emotions

Very glad to see HN stereotype being upended :)

I think that's the point the parent comment was making.

yeah, trillion. 30m isn't even a vapor droplet.

AI in space, for all that sweet sweet latency.

It's not only Grok, but also the robotics applications.

[delayed]

Why would a Shariah index fund have to exclude SpaceX?

They're just as on the take as anyone.

Think about it: you have hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence that the hyper-wealthy may have trafficked minors across state and international borders. Only one person is in prison over it, and her cell gets upgrades.

35 years ago this would have been a slam dunk for the opposition party of any republic. Instead of standing ten toes down on it, opposition leaders are doing... what exactly? Going on with business-as-usual, for the most part. They should be attempting to add language to every single bill that comes across the floor to see more done. They aren't.

I think stock trading shenanigans are far lower on the list of moral outrages, particularly given Congress' predilection for insider trading.

People can surely sue the index publishers for removing the safeguards, or the index funds to take more risks than they were mandated.

When money is lost in the order of billions, someone is getting sued.

This is optimistic about binding arbitration providing protection from more traditional remedies

You can't sell these ETFs without incurring capital gains, potentially large. So it isn't really a choice.

Sure, the problem is trust.

Regular people want to invest so they can make money and companies want people to invest so that they can raise money. So pretty much everybody wants the 401k money to be invested in the stock market.

But the issue is that investing in the stock market is very technical, so some smart asses invented the index funds to make it easy for daddy and mummy to put their retirement accounts to work.

The index has safeguards in place to try and reduce its volatilty. So people are happy, cause they are investing in stock without having to look closely at what it is they bought.

But if suddenly some people change the safeguard rule, so that their buddy can dump their overvalued stock over people who think they are investing relatively safely, then it can be argued that there is foul play.

People are not finance specialists and they are heavily incentivized to buy index funds, so they need to trust that the people who are telling them to invest are not hiding things from them. If that trust is broken, lawsuits will follow.

It’s like: imagine you own a Toyota and have a maintenance contract with Toyota, and one day you have your car serviced and they tell you they changed the brakes. They tell you the brand of the new brakes and they tell you it’s fine while in fact, they put some cheap garbage that fail after 100 km of driving.

When the brakes fail and your car falls off a cliff, you go and see them and they tell you: “yeah those brakes were bad, but we told you we put them in, you could have looked up that these were bad, it’s all over the internet, so that’s on you”.

You mean "Listen to [someone who started on Wall Street at Lehman Brothers, joined PayPal in its earliest days and worked alongside Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, and eventually became a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley] argue why AI probably isn't a bubble".

Can you please summarize his argument?

[flagged]

except the last bubble pop hit fast and hard with post covid inflation.

Irrational exuberance rarely transitions to a rational drawn down. The minute the first selfish-actor flood-liquidates, everyone else will too. That's now runs work.

I mean, isn't the definition of a bubble that it pops quickly? If it slowly loses value over time, its not really a bubble.

Because it is deliberately extracting cash from Mom and Pop into the robber baron's wallets?

There is literally nothing creative about circumventing existing regulations. By definition of there already being rules in place to prevent them, the pump methods being used are already a known quantity. That those safeguards are being bypassed is just boring old corruption.

Ask Warren Buffet how concerned he was of "missing" on bubbles... He got richer than pretty much everybody else by just avoiding bubbles and then buying assets at fire sale prices when they inevitably popped.

Yeah, right.