| ▲ | gruez 2 hours ago |
| 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 7 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 27 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 17 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 [-] |
| ;) |
