it's nowhere close. Most orchestras are playing 1-2 nights a week (max) and each performance has 0 or 1 rehearsal (1 if it's a new program, 0 otherwise). Average when performing is maybe 20hr a week
That was not a useful metaphor, but by all means try again (if you want) and teach us something interesting (and concrete) based on your unique experience.
While I very much agree with your sentiment and to be honest I prefer dining in the USA, it’s naive to think (in most cases) that they actually care about anything other than getting you out of the restaurant as soon as possible to work a new party.
Of course, there’s a bit of future optimization where they want you as a repeat customer, but that manifests in pretending they don’t want you out, not actually feeling that way. It makes sense - a rational revenue maximizing business does want you out but they need to pretend they don’t. The veneer is thin in many cases (though it varies by establishment). Personally, I’d prefer the incentives aligned with being a bit more straightforward, down to earth and without fake flattery.
I remember I had a meal once as a group of 5 about 10 years ago at a beachfront restaurant in Boca. At this group size a tip of 18% was added by default. Our waiter had been so cloying and over the top, calling us friends, etc. When the bill came and I didn’t tip anything other than 18% the waiter started shouting from across the room and made physical contact with me because he thought I hadn’t tipped. It was really a horrible experience, but very telling.
It’s not surprising to anyone that two random Spaniards may disagree on whether a number like this is high or low. That’s because Spaniards don’t all get together to agree on a common position for online posting; and because high/low depends on the context and comparison to other countries.
Spain’s gini coefficient indicates it is much more equal than USA, but not as equal as, say, Denmark.
You’re right but this chain of reasoning is irrelevant/missing the important point.
You don’t need to track index X to be affected by changes in X. You only need to hold something related to X. Almost all pension funds, heck almost every investment account in the world holds something affected by some index.
What was unlikely to happen? It already happened in Nasdaq. It’s nice that it didn’t for S&P but for most investors it already did happen, so I’m not sure the ‘whatever’ attitude is warranted.
Also, since when is it appropriate/intellectually OK to respond to allegations of corruption by saying ‘stop freaking out, it’s only a small amount of corruption PER PERSON’.
NASDAQ 100 is marketed as a tech-focussed fund. It's also way smaller. And it makes sense for it to include new issues. Total-market funds are also being adapted to include these, and again, that makes sense.
> for most investors it already did happen
What do you mean? For the vast, vast majority of investors, nothing happened. If S&P had adoped these rules, the majority of investors would still be unaffected.
> when is it appropriate/intellectually OK to respond to allegations of corruption by saying ‘stop freaking out, it’s only a small amount of corruption PER PERSON’
I'm saying the allegations of corruption were misplaced. The rule changes have been mooted for years. Did Musk et al try to put their thumbs on the scale? Sure. That should be called out.
But the scaremongering that followed was full of factual misrepresentations. Moreover, it presumed corruption across the board versus certain actors trying to corrupt a process, all for the purpose of getting views.
It’s not just Nasdaq-100 it’s Russell indices too, which are way bigger by the way (not that it matters).
Regarding misplaced corruption allegations. Virtually everywhere it is illegal to both give a bribe as to receive a bribe. It’s not just Musk et al who should be called out.
As for the unnamed sources doing the scaremongering, it seems you should be calling those specific people out instead of downplaying this whole issue. You’re dismissing the argument not on its merits but because some people argue for it badly.
> It’s not just Nasdaq-100 it’s Russell indices too, which are way bigger by the way (not that it matters)
Russell does total-market indices. S&P also changed its rules for total market because it pretty clearly makes zero sense for total market to ignore a few trillion dollars of the market.
The NASDAQ 100 change has some capability of being sketchy due to Nasdaq wanting to win the listing. Russell, eh, not seeing it. They're just being Russell.
> it seems you should be calling those specific people out. Instead you’re downplaying this whole issue because some people overreacted
It's a couple YouTubers. No crime of the century. But from what I've heard from the RIA community, a not-inconsequential amount of fees are being generated in the Bay Area from folks rotating out of low-fee index funds into bespoke nonsense because they are scared about a 0.3% change they think happened that didn't ever occur.
So what that it’s total market? We must be talking about different issues. The main issue for me is that the seasoning window was reduced. Of course eventually spcx should be included, I’m not arguing against that (and I haven’t heard anyone else argue that convincingly or at all either).
If everyone expected the price of the stock to remain the same or higher after the seasoning windows then why were those with the most to lose if it did not, lobby so hard to change the rules?
Also, what do you mean the 0.3% thing never happened? The ipo hasn’t happened yet, so obviously the index rebalance hasn’t happened.
Total market is meant to be total market. It isn't slicing out large caps, like the S&P 500. The assumption was new issues would be too small to matter. That's clearly changed.
> main issue for me is that the seasoning window was reduced
Seasoning really only matters nowadays in respect of lockups. Private markets provide a lot more price signal than we had previously.
> what do you mean the 0.3% thing never happened?
S&P 500 won't include SpaceX. The magnitude of the effect of including SpaceX would have been on the other of about 0.3% for the S&P 500. (The other indices collectively matter less than individual allocators at e.g. BlackRock and Fidelity.)
If you think seasoning windows don’t matter and pre ipo price signal is already great, true and fair, explain Cerebras price after IPO in the midst of one of the biggest sectoral bull runs in history.
I'm not going to say Nasdaq didn't do this corruptly. But there are plenty of good reasons for the NASDAQ 100, an index marketed as being tech focussed, bending over to include AI issues that don't require nefarious explanations.
Why do you think they originally had inclusion criteria, and have the reasons for having those criteria changed? Why do you think Musk has made it so clear that he’s strongly weighting that inclusion in his choices?
> have the reasons for having those criteria changed?
I think it was reasonable to ask if they had. If SpaceX were a one off, it would be one thing. It's not. We have a line of potentially trillion-dollar IPOs raising about as much money as the most valuable tech companies in the world, Alphabet and Meta.
It's reasonable to ask if the definition of a large cap has changed. It's also reasonable to conclude that it hasn't, at least not in respect to minimum-float and profitability requirements.
> Why do you think Musk has made it so clear that he’s strongly weighting that inclusion in his choices?
Musk obviously cares, and almost certainly didn't restrain himself in pushing that care. That doesn't change that these questions and processes predate his engagement with them.
I think it's interesting that people have gotten so emotional over this that they flag my post quoting and linking to the NASDAQ source and FAQ about the change.
Hours worked for full time employees in EU apparently has been falling year over year since at least 2013. Maybe it has increased for part timers though?
Not sure how to square that with the fact that there’s been low productivity growth since 2008.
In the higher income countries the hours worked have fallen, however it may be that in lower income countries they have increased.
That is to say, due to more work opportunities more people have gotten jobs that count towards measured work hours and GDP. Including households who used to have one person working jobs that count towards metrics now have two.
I don’t have numbers for this though, just an informed guess.
Good point. It would be sufficient for there simply to have been an increase in % of households where both parents work. That can lead to fewer hours worked per employee, low productivity growth, and increase in household income.
Maybe I’m just off the mark but this doesn’t seem like the kind of job you clock in at 9 and stay till 5.
reply