undefined | Better HN

0 pointskeernan7d ago0 comments

>aggressive ignorance on HN

That's rich in view of the fact you are the one who is expressing aggressive ignorance. The truth is:

1. An ETF tracking a specific passive index is legally obligated to purchase the shares of a new company added to that index with zero discretion allowed no matter how irrational the pricing might be.

2. Contrary to what you've been spewing about ETFs adding the stock gradually over time, the truth is all ETFs make their full purchases BEFORE the company is actually even added.

Doubt it? Do a quick google search: How soon do ETF's tracking a specific index buy the stock in a new company added to the index they track?

So stop being a jerk with your personal attacks - especially when you don't know what you are talking about.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

mattmaroon6d ago

2. You’re misreading that. They do it before the rebalance date, not before it is added to the index. Rebalances only happen every 3-6 months generally, so they definitely are buying it over a period of time, not all at once, specifically so they don’t move markets.

The aggressive ignorance (not my term, I’ve got a better one) is that multiple times this guy just didn’t even respond to the actual point. See his first response to me where he just restated the thing I was clearly replying to, rather than addressing my actual argument, which is that all those people would’ve ended up with the same amount of SpaceX shars at the same time, even if the rules had not changed. He just restated the argument I had already just rebutted, then he did the same thing in this branch.

It does not matter that SpaceX is in the index sooner. The future in six months or 12 months would look the same in either case.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse