So you are saying it could have been worse, and therefor it is not that bad. I feel like this may be a logical fallacy.
It is like saying that the worst thing about twin earthquakes in Venezuela was not the fact that there were two of them, because there could have been three.
Defend your position instead of comparing to earthquakes. The Nasdaq 100 is already quirky in that it’s the largest 100 non-financial companies listed on Nasdaq. So it’s a large-cap growth/tech play or for Nasdaq a showcase piece. I don’t think it’s great they remove the 3 month criteria but also knowing the specific slice of potentially unprofitable companies it highlights does not make it as concerning as the SP500 drastically changing their rules to include.
To clarify: I am not comparing anything to these horrible earthquakes. I am comparing the above rhetoric to a hypothetical rhetoric about the earthquakes.
Nobody would actually say this about these earthquakes, and that is my point.
Again, do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Your words are insulting and just putting words in my mouth. The Nasdaq 100 is not that special or unique. You’re comparing a quirky index to earthquakes which is weird. They don’t have much of any rules, the three month modification is maybe not great but also not that big of a deal. Price discovery is pretty quick and for the Nasdaq 100 it fits for their theme. It’s absolutely not the worst thing. It’s not really great or bad, it’s the Nasdaq 100. It might help to go read up on how they market that index.
I know people tend too see “index” and think it’s a rigorous financial instrument but on a lot of cases it’s not. This index excludes financials so it ends up being this mega cap/tech 100. No other rules historically.
I am pointing out (what I think is) a logical fallacy you made earlier.
This what your parent said:
> The worst about the SpaceX IPO is Nasdaq changing their inclusion rules for the Nasdaq 100.
And you replied with:
> It would be shocking if we were talking about the SP500.
My critique is that this is not a valid refutation of your parent’s original claim.
If you don‘t think this is constructive, then that is on you. In my mind you have not refuted your parent’s original claim, and I have explained why above.
Also let me repeat, since you seem to have missed it when I said it above: I am not comparing anything to earthquake. I am making an obviously ridiculous hypothetical claim I just picked earthquakes because it was more obvious. I could have as well made the hypothetical claim about the worst thing about coffee is that it is only lukewarm, and then the refutation saying: “no actually, it could have been room temperature, so lukewarm is not that bad.“
It is like saying that the worst thing about twin earthquakes in Venezuela was not the fact that there were two of them, because there could have been three.