The question is what can we do about it? Nasdaq finalized these rule changes already. It seems like this got rammed through and now it is happening. And I don't expect Trump's corrupt SEC to do anything about it. Who else can we appeal to?
Why should anything be done? This is what America voted for.
We get another vote in November. Americans can express whether they think this was a good idea or not. If they aren't overwhelmingly opposed to it, then democracy has spoken.
At that point it will be up to the rest of the world to decide what to do about a nation that has, and will continue to, invade other countries, apparently unprovoked.
The rule of law should apply to everyone, if government officials are breaking the law and being protected by the executive branch that's a sign of deep disfunction in your system
I can't give my ethical status as a human over to what the masses of folks in the US think is okay. It's kind of a disgusting proposition.
Like, you who are in the thuick of it, you who have given your voice over to empire, you expect the rest of the world to do something about the horrors done in your name just because... what?
The assholes you live around "voted" to do something evil, lesser or greater?
And now you're doing evil, too? And it is, somehow, "up to the rest of the world?"
That's bleak and you really should think if "democracy" (or it's pale ghost that haunts US politics) is doing anything useful for your status as an ethical human.
It's entirely possible that you indeed do have such a boot on your neck that you really can't resist the power of empire in its core, but for [insert your preferred diety here]'s sake, you don't have to roll your soft belly over and take the kicks.
Yeah. I vote for the lesser evil. My ethical status is less important to me than trying to make the world a better place, even if imperfectly.
I believe that my ethical status would be in more jeopardy right now if I could have prevented a clearly criminal war, and chose not to. My actions, not the actions of others, determine my ethical state.
It does mean I face an ethical quandary now. Thus far I have upheld the social contract of democracy. I have not broken it in an attempt to end this war. That is an ethical stain on me, which I live with as best I can. It is my inaction, not the actions of the country, which stain me.
I will vote again when I can, and right now I'm going to hope that ends the war. That will not be sufficient, but one of my moral principles is "It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it".
If it suffices... then it suffices, and I will do my best with what happens after that. If it does not suffice, then I will be faced with an even worse moral quandary, and I hope I find the strength to do whatever seems right in that dire circumstance.
I recommend Jon Stewart's podcast with Heather Cox Richardson from this week. They talk about the ceding and concentration of power, and how we the people can take ours back. Not something that can happen in a midterm or maybe even the next ten years. But at least we are talking about it more and their words will help us articulate things better to our neighbors.
I agree with that explanation much of the time, but here it would seem to require a level of self-awareness that just isn't there. And it's not like his handlers would expect much market movement from having him dementedly ramble on TV.
Does the GAAP accounting matter if everyone passively buys shares due to the new fast entry rules, which corruptly will force us all to buy into these companies? The fundamentals and true value seem less relevant than ever:
For other readers, I want to add some context here. NASDAQ is pondering whether or not to change their NASDAQ 100 index membership rules for IPOs. Currently, there is a three month waiting rule for IPOs. They are proposing (not sure if passed/agree/completed yet) to remove this waiting rule for IPOs.
Real question: What is the real impact of this rule change? To me, it seems so minor. Three months is just a blip in time for any long term investor.
> which corruptly will force us all to buy into these companies
Why is this "corrupt"? That term makes no sense here.
Also, if you don't like the NASDAQ 100 rules, then you don't have to invest in securities that track it. You can trade the basket yourself minus the names that you don't like.
Finally, I would say that S&P 500 index is far more important than NASDAQ 100. To join the S&P 500 index, the name must be profitable for the most recent year. (four quarters). Recall that Uber IPO'd in 2019, but was not profitable until 2023. OpenAI probably will not be profitable when it goes public; thus, it will not join the S&P 500 immediately.
I think the bigger story is SpaceX. It will likely IPO very close to a 1T USD market cap (with a small float: ~10%). And, thanks to StarLink, I assume that SpaceX is now wildly profitable.
The "corruption" allegation is that for, yes, SpaceX, index funds will effectively be "forced" to buy in right away at their IPO price, rather than seeing where they settle before getting the money in. Given that most people have most of their money in index funds, it's sort-of an automatic buy and raises some hackles about a fixed game.
Saying "you can trade the basket yourself minus the names you don't like" is not a real counterargument. Most of us are not going to do that, I'm not going to do that and I'm writing this post right now. John Doe is certainly not doing that.
> Also, if you don't like the NASDAQ 100 rules, then you don't have to invest in securities that track it.
Isn't the idea with the indexes that they allow you to intentionally not take an activist position in the market? The exposure is not tied to any underlying market hypothesis. In other words, if we make people form a market hypothesis in order to decide whether or not to hold this index, it has failed in its purpose.
Diluting the index entry rules, only devalues the index utility. When it becomes a bigger problem, other indices with higher quality controls will out compete the current ones and be used by asset managers seeking safety.
More likely than not, most of us are already holding stock in these companies one way or another. All the Mag 7 hold a major chunk of OAI and Anthropic stock anyway, slower entry does not make it less risky for us.
Even if the big tech companies did not hold any stock, they are still the biggest vendors and their own order books is hugely impacted by the AI demand from these two ( and others in this space), either way we are all in this together.
> When it becomes a bigger problem, other indices with higher quality controls will out compete the current ones and be used by asset managers seeking safety
I personally find this is the correct solution, since indexes are over-inflated either way, this brings much needed sanity to the index. Your index is now worth much more or much less based on how you view the AI bubble and you are forced to understand and correct your forward looking investments accordingly.
Passive investments are good, but if taken too far as they clearly have been in the last decade they become a scam. Everyone is SIPing into it, and there is infinite liquidity. Until one big whale finally decides they are booking it, then all hell will break loose on the same damn day.
You can just choose not to play the accounting game, and only choose the ones that actually gaap viable as investment opportunities. For example mag7 - tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip.
Some times the best play is just not to play. If you think they are too risky, walk away. There are enough good oppotunities
> mag7 (minus) tesla are all relatively cheap when they dip
I asked ChatGPT for a list of Magnificent 7 stocks and their most recent price to earnings (PE) ratios.
Company Ticker P/E Ratio
Apple Inc. AAPL ~33
Microsoft Corporation MSFT ~25
Alphabet Inc. GOOGL ~29
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN ~30
NVIDIA Corporation NVDA ~38
Meta Platforms Inc. META ~28
Tesla Inc. TSLA ~378
In the last 50 years, I think the median PE ratio for S&P 500 index is about 15. Seven and below is considered rock bottom, and 30 and above is very high. These PE ratios look pretty damn high to me.
How much do these names need to "dip" for you to consider them cheap?
There are a few things to consider if you are in the investment space:
- Growth rate: you can't compare them to the average single digit growth companies or dividend focused companies. Most of these tech companies revenue are still growing at double digit with good moat. Pe is a good measure but it's not absolute. If you believe they sustain their growth then it's a good bet. And you can choose not to buy in their growth stories too. At the end of the day investment is about judgement call
- History benchmark: some of their pe is at historical low. So they are actually cheaper than before.
- Pe ttm and forward pe: how much pe ttm are they at? how much forward pe are they projecting? If forward pe is significantly lower, that means the current analysts consensus is that they will grow in future
- Pe is the a number but it's not everything. You need to consider multiple things to decide if that's undervalued for you. It's highly subjective as different interpretations are common.
- This post is about if you want to play the gaap game with private tech companies. My point is that there are still many public companies that are cheap at certain point. You just need to be patient and be willing to research and wait. For example, meta at around 500 was a buy for me, but since then it has rebounded it's still good but not as undervalued as a few days ago
With NASDAQ and NYSE looking to reduce the timelines for new public companies to be included into indices (“fast entry” rule), I have a feeling that OpenAI and SpaceX and Anthropic are mostly looking to dump their inflated shares into the public’s retirement accounts by force.
Michael Burry called out this structural manipulation play recently:
Retirement accounts already own funds and those in turn are often tied to the underlying index. If the time to being included in an index is reduced, they end up being automatically bought sooner. And that keeps their price from collapsing artificially.
Overly long rambling article by a consistently pro AI effective altruist. Not sure why this is interesting. It’s a very low information density post that doesn’t refute the claim that ground surface temperature increased around these data centers.
I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. If you read the paper being criticized, the authors clearly intend to claim that heat exhaust is the cause.
> "The electronic components in AI hyperscalers are characterized by extremely high-power densities, often reaching magnitudes on the order of 107 W/m^2
That's an actual passage from the paper. Masley shows that AI, data centers, and computation writ large have nothing to do with the effects measured. All they discovered was that parking lots and roofs were hot. None of your priors, or mine, or any of the authors, matter here. If Masley is correct, the paper is junk science.
"My argument here is going to be that this paper is just measuring the fact that buildings are hotter than grass. The land around the data center that isn’t either buildings or road has probably not warmed. It doesn’t matter at all that this study is about data centers. I’d expect similar measurements for Wal Marts. If you build a building, whether it’s a data center or Wal Mart or house or Starbucks, and you point a NASA satellite at the building, you are going to measure a warmer surface temperature exclusively caused by the material the building made of, not any heat exhaust from what’s happening inside the building."
He goes on to get into the math of his claim. It's possible, of course, that his math could be wrong, in which case his refutation would be incorrect. But he very specifically refutes the claim you said he doesn't refute.
I do not trust private companies to care about light pollution in our night skies or actual pollution in our orbit. Why do we permit them to launch thousands (and soon, millions) of satellites?
> An 8-1 high court majority sided with a Christian counselor who argues the law banning talk therapy violates the First Amendment. The justices agreed that the law raises free speech concerns and sent it back to a lower court to decide if it meets a legal standard that few laws pass.
> Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the law “censors speech based on viewpoint.” The First Amendment, he wrote, “stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”
> In a solo dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that states should be free to regulate health care, even if that means incidental restrictions on speech. The decision, Jackson wrote, “opens a dangerous can of worms” that “threatens to impair states’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47392550
And Michael Burry also wrote a long post about it:
https://x.com/michaeljburry/status/2032483200404992209
The question is what can we do about it? Nasdaq finalized these rule changes already. It seems like this got rammed through and now it is happening. And I don't expect Trump's corrupt SEC to do anything about it. Who else can we appeal to?
reply