[SwellJoe]

Which, again, benefits the wealthy and well-informed and well-connected.

The suckers who have their retirement savings in some kind of index fund because all the experts have been saying, "Buy index ETFs and forget about it" for decades are gonna get fleeced, and the wealthiest get wealthier.

[rnewme]

What to do then, if "Boogleheads" are wrong?

[SwellJoe]

Bogleheads aren't wrong, historically. At least, not in the general sense that buying index funds and mostly forgetting about it is smarter than trying to beat the market with individual stock picks and timing the market.

But, that philosophy came about in an era when there were protections for small investors that prevented the richest man on earth from dipping into your retirement fund to make himself even richer. I don't know how to be a smart investor when the game is so thoroughly rigged for a handful of billionaires.

[chadgpt3]

Perhaps a return to first principles: a smart investment is an asset that generates value. For example I have a powerful PC - that is a smart investment, and not only because I bought lots of RAM before the RAM shortage. Others might have a farm tractor and land, or a restaurant building and tables and chairs and fridges. A house is a smart investment for almost anyone (problem is they're too expensive to be worth it). A car, if your city isn't walkable or your job involves carrying equipment around. A sound system if you own a nightclub.

[im3w1l]

I think the way to adjust the boglehead philosophy for this scenario is to construct a shadow index which would be the same as the normal index except with the grifts removed or at least underweighted. And then buy stock to track the shadow index.

[SwellJoe]

I assume not all indexes will make this deal with the devil, as Nasdaq is doing. At least, not immediately. But, given how lax regulation has become and how corruption and lies from the biggest companies has become commonplace, I have to assume it will be harder to not let Elon Musk have a taste of everything just because he's too rich for anyone to ever say no to him.

[xienze]

I suppose everyone reading this thread counts as "well-informed" then, right? All I have to do is move my 401k into the bond-heavy fund right now and then back into the stock-heavy one when everything craters is what I'm hearing. It's what you're doing, right?

[bluecalm]

You are giving up equity premium for the time till everything settles. You will also not know when that is. It's going to be more like a long term ticking bomb that may take years to detonate.

[xienze]

Years? The way people are talking in this thread it's all an AI exit scam, which shouldn't take years to play out. It's a popping bubble, remember?

[bluecalm]

Yeah it's years because they will slowly unload it to entities that are forced to buy (and as they do those entities will be forced to buy more). If you have money invested in those ETFs I think you may want to pay a bit more attention rather than making sarcastic comments unless you want to end up with 5%+ of your portfolio being invested in hopium by the end of 2028.

The threat is to end up with the bag, not that the bag explodes this month or the next.

[xienze]

> Yeah it's years because they will slowly unload it to entities that are forced to buy

I get your logic, but why all the handwringing over the short time frame for inclusion in these funds (days instead of a year)? None of that should be relevant if it's going to take so long to play out.

> unless you want to end up with 5%+ of your portfolio being invested in hopium by the end of 2028.

OK so, going back to the original question: the play is what? Move into bonds around IPO time and move back in when everything craters?

[bluecalm]

>>I get your logic, but why all the handwringing over the short time frame for inclusion in these funds (days instead of a year)? None of that should be relevant if it's going to take so long to play out.

It matters at what price the forced buying starts.

>>OK so, going back to the original question: the play is what? Move into bonds around IPO time and move back in when everything craters?

It's hard to say what's the play is because:

1)For many people making any kind of "play" triggers a tax event

2)It's not clear what ETFs to choose as currently there aren't many good options.

Imo one decent choice out of available ones are ETFs based on MSCI World Quality Factor index. It's not ideal because it still excludes companies like Berkshire Hathaway (because of accounting rules) but it avoids many suspicious companies (like MSTR) as well as mega IPOs. Unfortunately those are more costly (0.3% instead of like 0.05%). If you are in EU you and want world wide exposure you still need something for emerging markets (EU based ETFs based on that methodology exclude emerging markets).

You can also become an active investor but that's a job and I don't think many people want to take on it.

The main problem with going with bonds is that you are giving up equity premium and you still need to time the market for a comeback and that's very difficult.

[SwellJoe]

It is a liquidity event for Elon Musk, and people like Elon Musk. What they do with it, hard to say. But, the forced buying by institutional investors will push the price of SpaceX upward based on nothing. SpaceX revenue was $15.8 billion last year, and its profit was negative $2.4 billion, its AI business is an also-ran, Twitter has declined to a fraction of its value before the acquisition.

There's no there there, so anything that props up the valuation of SpaceX puts money in scammers pockets at the expense of everyone else exposed to the stock.

[SwellJoe]

I'm informed enough to see what they're doing and why, but I'm not informed enough to know how to prevent them from wrecking the economy for normal folks while enriching themselves. I don't think information alone can solve the problem for the majority of people. Retirement accounts aren't often easy to change, non-retirement accounts have tax consequences, timing the market as a normal retail investor is risky.

I don't really have advice. If I were directly holding an index that tracks the Nasdaq 100, I would get out of it, and take the tax hit. But, I suspect the impact and risk will cascade outward. Nvidia has exploded in price based on actual revenue (though I suspect it will be temporary, and have to come back to earth in time). SpaceX is entirely fantasy land. It doesn't have revenue to justify anything like the price they're launching the IPO, and when indexes are forced to buy it, everyone holding those indexes provides exit liquidity for the same scammers who've been hyping it.

[eru]

If you are subject to capital gains taxes, this would likely be a bad idea? (Though I have no clue how American 401k work in this regard.)

[lftl]

401ks are tax exempt so there would be no tax for switching investments.

[eru]

Thanks!

[eudamoniac]

Wouldn't it make more sense to move it after the IPO? The supposed scam here is that Elon et al will dump their shares and crash the value, but that cannot happen for 90(?) days after IPO. So I think you should let your index buy the inflated IPO, then sell it before the crash, not sit it out entirely.

[SwellJoe]

No.

The insiders don't need it to go up from the IPO price. It can fall quite a bit, and they still win. Your ETF will likely be catching a falling knife. All the funds that track the Nasdaq 100 will prop up the price so it doesn't completely collapse.

This stock is a terrible deal for investors, whether as part of an ETF or as a buyer in the public offering. It's possible people will fall for it... they're still falling for TSLA despite everything.

Regardless, I want nothing to do with it.

[eudamoniac]

How would the knife be falling before any insiders can sell one share? You're assuming outsiders are going to pump and dump before you can sell anything yourself?

[btheconqueror]

isn't this also "timing the market"? which most people agree is a bad idea

[eudamoniac]

The whole concept of passive investing depends upon some large number of people timing the market. Just not you. It is predicated upon the concept that you are not good enough to make your own decisions. Usually that's true, but sometimes it isn't.