While I love the sentiment; I’m reading this decision by S&P as just about not bending their rules. AI is not thriving fast/convincingly enough to break tradition of big finance; I don’t think that makes S&P an ally. And I suspect this means they’ll just be joining a bit later.
S&P Dow Jones has a history of making companies earn it, including previous Elmo ventures.
I’m not bullish on any of it, and I’m desperately trying to exit AI holdings as swiftly as I’m able, but I am deeply comforted by major indexes requiring companies demonstrate profitability or at least meaningful actual revenue beyond the self-dealing that we’ve seen between the IPO hopefuls.
While I love the sentiment; I’m reading this decision by S&P as just about not bending their rules. AI is not thriving fast/convincingly enough to break tradition of big finance; I don’t think that makes S&P an ally. And I suspect this means they’ll just be joining a bit later.
‘A bit later’ is really all the is required to meet the standard. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/21/tesla-isnt-a-gurantee-for-the-sp-500-even-with-year-of-profits.html
S&P Dow Jones has a history of making companies earn it, including previous Elmo ventures.
I’m not bullish on any of it, and I’m desperately trying to exit AI holdings as swiftly as I’m able, but I am deeply comforted by major indexes requiring companies demonstrate profitability or at least meaningful actual revenue beyond the self-dealing that we’ve seen between the IPO hopefuls.
This stock is more fitted to nasdaq anyway, and I think they said they would bend overbackwards for them and change their rules.