| ▲ | taurath 2 hours ago |
| Ill bet all the decision makers wives have suddenly come into some nice island property recently though |
|
| ▲ | stinkbeetle 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | digitaltrees 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I was a lawyer in 2008 representing banks in the financial crisis. Multiple bankers wives set up companies to by mortgage backed securities using government loans and government guarantees on payment upon default. That let the banks get the toxic mortgages off their balance sheet. These wives were yoga teachers and socialites. And I say that as a man that is a feminist and upmost respect for the amazing women I have worked with that were absolutely world renowned professionals. The bankers wives were not in that category and were shells to eliminate the “conflict of interest”. The CEO of Goldman Sachs did this. You can find the records if you want to be on a government watch list. | |
| ▲ | riffraff 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | To be fair, these are not regulators, just private companies making up rules, so technically this is not corruption just something that looks like it but it's just business™ | |
| ▲ | HWR_14 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | These are all private companies's decisions. |
|
|
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At least a new Cybertruck. |
|
| ▲ | gruez 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If you have evidence of corruption, present it. Otherwise it's just generic cynicism leading to a thought terminating cliche. |
| |
| ▲ | dools 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | At this point in US regulatory oversight I would have a harder time finding evidence of no corruption. | | | |
| ▲ | wookmaster an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why else would they change the rule ? | | |
| ▲ | tikhonj 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Because they think that a lot of people will want to get in on the historically massive and well-known companies, which would lead to outflows if the index doesn't pick them up fast enough? | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Why else would they change the rule ? These indices aim to replicate the market. They’re not trying to pick stocks. There is a serious argument for saying they fail to replicate the market if they structurally exclude trillions of dollars of it. | | |
| ▲ | lenerdenator 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They also exclude many other things that are of economic value, because they could cause structural or social harm in the markets. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jimjimjim an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think deep cynicism is the correct mindset to have in the current financial/political climate. | |
| ▲ | noonething an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | ;) |
|
