[throwaway981211]

I’m not sure what’s the point of your comment. As an American I’m also lucky that my country isn’t facing the issues innocent people in Syria, Iraq, etc face being caught in a civil war. I’m lucky we have vaccines, clean water, contracts, courts, cops, etc etc.

None of that excuses Boeing’s gross negligence and lack of accountability.

I’ve dumped them from my portfolio although I still - unfortunately - have exposure since they’re in the SP500.

At some point, I’m hoping heads roll at Boeing.

[zaroth]

There should be an S&P500-N fund where you can select up to N specific companies you want to exclude, and they give you a dynamic ticker which tracks that sub-set.

I wonder if it’s technically feasible without absurd transaction costs, to either explicitly or effectively net out specific company exposure from an S&P500 basket.

Even just a calculator which could tell you, for every share of SPY of you want to not have Boeing exposure you need to short-sell X shares of Boeing.

[domlebo70]

Not a finance expert, but I don't think the transaction costs would factor would they? You would own "units" in the fund, rather than the underlying security itself. The makeup of the unit however, would be dynamic

[toast0]

A fully realized s&p 500 ex-FOO fund for every company (or every combination of two or three companies) would probably not have sufficient demand to make it efficient.

You would need to have some sort of clever accounting to make it work, although, while retail commissions are at zero, and fractional shares may become available, assembling your own index fund may be possible with only a significant time cost.

[ctchocula]

Maybe they could implement it with S&P 500 and tqking a short position to cancel out ownership of stock XYZ. This way they don't have the demand problem you alluded to. Then they can charge customers an additional fee for this customization, which would cover the cost of the short. I imagine some would pay this additional customization fee since it's a small price to feel morally consistent.

[yourapostasy]

> ...I’m hoping heads roll at Boeing.

None of the heads rolling will count unless they are from the very top. Make no mistake, there was a willful and calculated structuring of incentives and punitive pressure that originated from the top that had a decisive hand in establishing the culture that enabled all the combinations of poor decisions to pass through, like many air vehicle accidents. If only middle management heads roll, this will simply eventually repeat, with even more deniability accruing to the top as they vaccinate themselves from lessons learned out of this.

It is long past time that Henry II of England-style management ("Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?") by euphemism-laden punitive measures be scrutinized for their actual effects as structured cultural edifices, and not the legalistic interpretation of words designed for maximum deniability while indirectly pressuring for ridding the corporate body of turbulent priests.

Go to where the real power sits, and change why and how it is wielded to make lasting cultural change. Into this group I also lump in major shareholders who share in the accountability of crafting and maintaining a culture.

[dredmorbius]

The CEO's been removed from his (previously simultaneous) chairman role, though he remains as CEO:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-ceo/boeing-board-s...

That's a possible sign of spine, though a rather weak one.