Comment by thatswrong0
19 hours ago
Yeah, the rules have kind of made the passive investment active. I don't understand OPs point at all. I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things, and OP has provided 0 justification for that.
>I don't understand why we suddenly change the rules and rush things
Because this is how the rulemaking processes for these indices have always worked?
Why are you suddenly making this argument now, and weren't complaining about previous rule changes?
Because the rules are clearly going to result in lots of buying pressure from passive indexes on a large stock with little time for price discovery.
Come on, let's be adults here. Is there a prior example of this on a comparable scale?
It's already well known that passive indexes bleed ~0.5% performance solely to front running and exploitation from the market. This is that writ large.