>index providers will have to decide: Are they in the business of giving passive investors exposure to all the stocks that the market thinks are good, or to all the stocks that the index committee thinks are good?

>There’s only one plausible answer.

Can you explain why your theory is better than the one widely believed by people who actually work in the financial industry?

▲

nullstyle an hour ago | parent [-]

Lol, the dude asking for reporting to justify his oligarch dickriding dismisses patrick boyle in his chat history as just a youtuber while using paywalled links to support his position.

My theory is better because it isn’t ignorant of the billionaire dynamics in play.

▲

l23k4 an hour ago | parent [-]

Criticizing Bloomberg as a poor source for finance-related reporting is kind of hilarious, but then I guess your position does seem vastly more credible when viewed through a lens that also rejects Bloomberg.

▲

nullstyle2 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

newly created alt because apparently my main account has hurt too many feefees to allow me to respond to a discussion I'm having. "posting too fast" my swingin dick...

I'm not criticizing bloomberg, i'm criticizing you for posting paywalled links to support your position in an open discussion.

Given I'm bailing on this convo now because hackers news is a shite application getting in the way of people trying to talk, let me respond to our sibling thread with the closet thing my opinion has to evidence: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=smH. IMO we remain at an all time high of financial flimflammery as a portion of our GDP and there have been a number of recessions triggered by the financial sectors malfeasance during my lifetime because of it.

	▲	l23k4 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You assume far too much competence from the supposed conspirators. If what you're claiming was truly happening, it would have been leaked and widely reported. Yet, somehow, no journo covering the world's leakiest industry has been able to break this massive-if-true story.