2/ Regarding A. I'm long $TSLA, believe it isn't a bubble and the naysayers are shortsighted and wrong.

Only time will tell about A, but B we already know - $TSLA joined at an ATH of $695 then fell - but it's now at $763, so it ADDED value, not detracted.

BUT..
3/ But the question of whether $TSLA brings risk to the S&P is WRONG by itself. The whole idea of an INDEX FUND like S&P500 is to be passive, and it's THE ACTIVE MANAGER DECISIONS that introduce risk

Being profitable and large TSLA should have been added ON Q2 EARNINGS.
..
4/ Before we analyze implications, consider this:

DataTrek Research estimates that if on Jan 1 2020 an investor had put $5 of every $100 invested in an S&P 500 ETF into $TSLA, their return by Dec 11 2020 would've increased by roughly 31%!
(more by EOY)
https://t.co/nWSFLFFnte
5/ But that's hypothetical bc $TSLA didn't qualify for S&P at Jan 2020, and 5% is more than its share today.

Tesla DID qualify on Q2 earnings but was admitted after Q3. Comparing 12/21 price ($695) to 9/21 price ($449) is wrong bc by 9/21 price fell after news of not including.
6/ So let's take compare the last day b4 the bad news and compare with 3months forward. 9/4 price was $418, while 11/30 price was $599

I other words, S&P Managers deciding to postpone inclusion despite Tesla meeting requirements, robbed Granny of ~43% rise on every $TSLA dollar
7/ Percentages are misleading. Let's assume just the $181 diff - as if buying $TSLA at $514 instead of $695, then reaping that $181 rise.
at $695 $TSLA was 1.65% of S&P, so at $514 it would've been 1.22% of S&P size, and 1.22% of the shares were robbed of 35% gain
8/ Grandma was robbed by the ACTIVE decision of delaying inclusion. But what next?

Since inclusion, $TSLA rose 10% ON RESULTS, NOT VOLATILITY, in <10 trading days - so S&P gained from inclusion

By me ($TSLA LONG, not investment advice) the future looks even more promising!
9/ S&P should be a passive index and act like one

Manager intervention robbed fund holders of profits, but now that fixed $TSLA is set to be one of the engines pulling the index upwards

MSM POV has shifted accordingly - can't wait to see 01/2021's growth engines do their thing
10/ PS While writing this thread shifted from just charting the "what if"s into a somewhat ideological rant. Sorry, lol, but realizing how the "robbing granny" argument was in fact what robbed grannies, gramps and other honest hardworking people - that got to me. Chill now!
11/ @jpr007 @garyblack00 @stekkerauto @TilmanWinkler @stevenmarkryan @heydave7 @Kristennetten @28delayslater @Cosmicstrenght3 @KaleyGoode @TeslaBest @EvaFoxU @wendishen99 @billhuang688 @TeslaPodcast @LimitingThe @elonmusk

@threadreaderapp unroll please

More from Finance

I'm lucky to attain financial freedom before 30.

I credit Fintwit for my learnings.

Here's 10 key concepts every investor must know:

1. $$ needed to retire
2. Researching a business
3. Reading annual reports
4. Reading earnings calls
5. Criteria of a multi bagger

(Read on...)

6. Holding a multi bagger
7. Economic moats
8. When to buy a stock
9. Earnings vs cashflow
10. Traits of quality companies

Here's my 10 favourite threads on these concepts:

1. How much $$ do you need to retire

Before you start, you must know the end game.

To meet your retirement goals...

How much $$ do you need in your portfolio?

10-K Diver does a good job explaining what's a safe withdrawl rate.

Hint: It's NOT


2. Research a business

Your investment returns are a lagging indicator.

Instead, your research skills are the leading predictor of your results.

Conclusion?

To be a good investor, you must be a great business researcher.

Start with


3. Reading annual reports

This is the bread and butter of a good business analyst.

You cannot just listen to opinions from others.

You must learn to deep dive a business and make your own judgments.

Start with the 10k.

Ming Zhao explains it

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x