Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Vanguard founder Jack Bogle explains his nuanced view on index funds vs. ETFs: Jack Bogle, the man who created the index fund, clarifies that his concerns aren't with broad index investing itself. His issue is with how ETFs tempt investors to behave badly and how the industry has weaponized...

BlackEdgeFund's profile picture

Black Edge

208,572 subscribers

13,757 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Warren Buffett on how everyday investors should approach index funds At the Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting, an investor from Cincinnati asked Buffett two questions: Which index fund to pick, and whether the high price-to-earnings ratio of the S&P 500 should change anything. Buffett's answer was simple. "I would just take a very broad index. I would take the S&P 500 as long as I wasn't putting all my money in at one time." His preferred holding period? 20 or 30 years of consistent contributions. But the fund you pick is only half the equation. The other half is cost. "I would be very careful about the costs involved because all they're doing for you is buying that index." He specifically called out Vanguard for its low fees and recommended that anyone investing in funds first read John Bogle's books before putting money in. His reasoning comes down to basic math: "If you have a very high percentage of funds being institutionally managed, and a great many institutions charge a lot of money for doing it and others charge a little, they're going to get very similar gross results but different net results." On timing the market, Buffett was just as direct. Don't try. "I wouldn't toss a chunk in at any one time. I would do it over a period of time because the very nature of index funds is that you are saying, 'I think America's business is going to do well over a long period of time, but I don't know enough to pick the winners and I don't know enough to pick the winning times.'" And on the question of whether a high P/E ratio should make you wait? "I don't think price-earnings ratio determines things. I don't think price-book ratios, price-sales ratios, there's no single metric that will tell you this is a great time to buy stocks or not to buy stocks. It just isn't that easy." That's precisely why he recommends index funds in the first place. "If you are buying an index fund, you are protecting yourself against the fact that you don't know the answers to those questions. But you can do well over time without knowing the answers as long as you consciously recognize that fact." Charlie Munger added a sobering caveat: stocks could become so expensive that index returns disappoint for years. Buffett pointed to Japan, where index returns had been negative for 13 years, as proof it can happen. But for the young investor saving a portion of their income, his advice remained unchanged: "Pick out a very broad index. I would probably use the S&P 500 because as soon as you start getting beyond that and thinking you should be in small caps or large caps at certain times, you're in a game you're not equipped to play."
6:18

Warren Buffett on how everyday investors should approach index funds At the Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting, an investor from Cincinnati asked Buffett two questions: Which index fund to pick, and whether the high price-to-earnings ratio of the S&P 500 should change anything. Buffett's answer was simple. "I would just take a very broad index. I would take the S&P 500 as long as I wasn't putting all my money in at one time." His preferred holding period? 20 or 30 years of consistent contributions. But the fund you pick is only half the equation. The other half is cost. "I would be very careful about the costs involved because all they're doing for you is buying that index." He specifically called out Vanguard for its low fees and recommended that anyone investing in funds first read John Bogle's books before putting money in. His reasoning comes down to basic math: "If you have a very high percentage of funds being institutionally managed, and a great many institutions charge a lot of money for doing it and others charge a little, they're going to get very similar gross results but different net results." On timing the market, Buffett was just as direct. Don't try. "I wouldn't toss a chunk in at any one time. I would do it over a period of time because the very nature of index funds is that you are saying, 'I think America's business is going to do well over a long period of time, but I don't know enough to pick the winners and I don't know enough to pick the winning times.'" And on the question of whether a high P/E ratio should make you wait? "I don't think price-earnings ratio determines things. I don't think price-book ratios, price-sales ratios, there's no single metric that will tell you this is a great time to buy stocks or not to buy stocks. It just isn't that easy." That's precisely why he recommends index funds in the first place. "If you are buying an index fund, you are protecting yourself against the fact that you don't know the answers to those questions. But you can do well over time without knowing the answers as long as you consciously recognize that fact." Charlie Munger added a sobering caveat: stocks could become so expensive that index returns disappoint for years. Buffett pointed to Japan, where index returns had been negative for 13 years, as proof it can happen. But for the young investor saving a portion of their income, his advice remained unchanged: "Pick out a very broad index. I would probably use the S&P 500 because as soon as you start getting beyond that and thinking you should be in small caps or large caps at certain times, you're in a game you're not equipped to play."

Black Edge

11,552 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Tomorrow a company that holds close to 5% of all ethereum is set to join the russell 1000. Once done, index funds that have never had an opinion on crypto will be forced to buy it. Nobody in those funds chose this, a benchmark rule did it for them 👇 ◢ How index inclusion actually works Getting added to a major index is one of the strongest demand events in markets, and it has nothing to do with whether the company is good. Funds that track the russell 1000 have to hold what the russell 1000 holds, or they stop tracking it. So, when a stock joins, every passive fund benchmarked to that index becomes a forced buyer, at whatever the price is, on the schedule the index sets. Passive vehicles tend to hold something like 20 to 25% of a large-cap stock, which for this one points to roughly $2B of buying that arrives because a rule says it must. ◢ The part that makes it crypto Bitmine is not a normal company that happens to get indexed, it's an ethereum treasury, sitting on millions of $ETH as its core balance sheet. So the chain runs like this: the index adds the stock, passive funds are forced to buy the stock, and the stock is essentially a wrapper around a giant pile of ETH. The result is that ordinary equity index money ends up with ethereum exposure without a single person deciding they wanted it. No ETF approval, allocation vote or opinion required. ◢ A side door, not a front door Everyone in crypto watches the spot ETF as the official entrance for institutional money, the thing that needs sign-off and gets headlines. Index inclusion is the entrance nobody guards. strategy walked a bitcoin treasury into the nasdaq 100. Coinbase took a crypto exchange into the s&p 500. now an ethereum treasury is stepping into the russell 1000. Each time, the underlying business didn't change. what changed is who was suddenly required to own it. ◢ Why front-running it is harder than it looks The mechanism is concrete, but the easy trade around it usually isn't. The inclusion isn't final until the reconstitution actually closes, so the flow is conditional, not guaranteed. The stock is already down around 50% on the year, which is a reminder that a one-time wave of buying doesn't repair something tied to ETH's price and to confidence in the treasury model. And there's a quieter problem: "diversified" index funds are now obligated to hold a leveraged, single-asset crypto bet that most of their investors would never have picked on purpose. What it means that the biggest new buyer of a crypto-linked company is a rule, not a person, and that millions of people now hold a slice of ethereum because an index told their fund to?
0:40

Tomorrow a company that holds close to 5% of all ethereum is set to join the russell 1000. Once done, index funds that have never had an opinion on crypto will be forced to buy it. Nobody in those funds chose this, a benchmark rule did it for them 👇 ◢ How index inclusion actually works Getting added to a major index is one of the strongest demand events in markets, and it has nothing to do with whether the company is good. Funds that track the russell 1000 have to hold what the russell 1000 holds, or they stop tracking it. So, when a stock joins, every passive fund benchmarked to that index becomes a forced buyer, at whatever the price is, on the schedule the index sets. Passive vehicles tend to hold something like 20 to 25% of a large-cap stock, which for this one points to roughly $2B of buying that arrives because a rule says it must. ◢ The part that makes it crypto Bitmine is not a normal company that happens to get indexed, it's an ethereum treasury, sitting on millions of $ETH as its core balance sheet. So the chain runs like this: the index adds the stock, passive funds are forced to buy the stock, and the stock is essentially a wrapper around a giant pile of ETH. The result is that ordinary equity index money ends up with ethereum exposure without a single person deciding they wanted it. No ETF approval, allocation vote or opinion required. ◢ A side door, not a front door Everyone in crypto watches the spot ETF as the official entrance for institutional money, the thing that needs sign-off and gets headlines. Index inclusion is the entrance nobody guards. strategy walked a bitcoin treasury into the nasdaq 100. Coinbase took a crypto exchange into the s&p 500. now an ethereum treasury is stepping into the russell 1000. Each time, the underlying business didn't change. what changed is who was suddenly required to own it. ◢ Why front-running it is harder than it looks The mechanism is concrete, but the easy trade around it usually isn't. The inclusion isn't final until the reconstitution actually closes, so the flow is conditional, not guaranteed. The stock is already down around 50% on the year, which is a reminder that a one-time wave of buying doesn't repair something tied to ETH's price and to confidence in the treasury model. And there's a quieter problem: "diversified" index funds are now obligated to hold a leveraged, single-asset crypto bet that most of their investors would never have picked on purpose. What it means that the biggest new buyer of a crypto-linked company is a rule, not a person, and that millions of people now hold a slice of ethereum because an index told their fund to?

Onur 🍌🦍

14,337 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?
0:45

This is the most SHAMELESS structural manipulation of a major index I've ever seen. SpaceX is preparing what could be the largest IPO in history. Target valuation: $1.75 trillion. That would make it the sixth-largest company in America on day one. And Nasdaq wants the listing so badly they're literally CHANGING how the Nasdaq-100 works. In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course. Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq. Here's what they're proposing: A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days. No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet. Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion. That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks. And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing. But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part... The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier. Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap. That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy. Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold. Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely. Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%. Do the math on SpaceX: If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading. Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company. But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market. You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float. QQQ alone manages nearly $400 billion. The total Nasdaq-100 ecosystem represents over $1.4 trillion in exposure across ETFs, mutual funds, structured notes, and derivatives. Every single passive vehicle tracking this index would be REQUIRED to buy SpaceX at whatever price the market dictates. On Day 15. With zero price discovery. Zero track record as a public company. And a float so thin you could read through it. So what this actually does is it creates a structural wealth transfer mechanism. The passive bid from index funds pushes the stock price higher. That higher price benefits exactly one group of people: the insiders and early investors who own the other 95% of the shares. And when lock-up periods expire 90 to 180 days later? Those insiders sell into the artificially inflated passive bid. Your 401(k) is the exit liquidity. This is the fundamental corruption of indexing. Indexing used to be brilliant. Low cost. Efficient. You were free-riding on the price discovery done by active managers. The index reflected the market. Now the index IS the market. Trillions of dollars flow blindly into whatever the index tells them to buy. And the people who control the index methodology are changing the rules to serve the interests of a single IPO candidate. The S&P 500 requires companies to have at least 50% of shares available for public trading. It requires 6 to 12 months of seasoning. It uses free-float adjusted weighting so passive investors aren't buying phantom liquidity. Nasdaq is doing the exact opposite. 15 days. No float requirement. 5x multiplier on insider-held shares. Every passive investor in QQQ, QQQM, and every fund benchmarked to the Nasdaq-100 should understand what's about to happen: The rules are being rewritten to benefit IPO issuers and early-stage insiders, and your capital is the tool being USED to enrich them. 45 years in this business and I've watched Wall Street find creative new ways to separate retail investors from their money in every cycle. But usually they at least try to be subtle about it. This one they put in a PDF and called it a "consultation." What's your take?

George Noble

868,803 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Warren Buffett won a $1 million bet by proving a simple S&P 500 beats the 100 best hedge funds - the index returned 126%, the hedge funds 36% this is him breaking down why doing nothing beats the smartest managers on Wall Street "these managers get paid $180M/year merely for breathing - it's a compensation scheme that is unbelievable" the greatest investor of all time just explained why you should never give a hedge fund a dollar "the hedge fund industry is a machine for taking your money - I bet anyone $1 million a simple index would beat any 5 funds they picked - nobody dared" "one man finally took it - 200 hedge funds underneath, all charging huge sums for expertise they don't have" "no consultant will tell you to just buy an index and sit -you don't get a fee that way" hedge funds returned 36% - the index returned 126% - he conceded 7 months early "the people you pay to find winners don't know how - they only know how to sell you" bookmark & watch today ↓
15:35

Warren Buffett won a $1 million bet by proving a simple S&P 500 beats the 100 best hedge funds - the index returned 126%, the hedge funds 36% this is him breaking down why doing nothing beats the smartest managers on Wall Street "these managers get paid $180M/year merely for breathing - it's a compensation scheme that is unbelievable" the greatest investor of all time just explained why you should never give a hedge fund a dollar "the hedge fund industry is a machine for taking your money - I bet anyone $1 million a simple index would beat any 5 funds they picked - nobody dared" "one man finally took it - 200 hedge funds underneath, all charging huge sums for expertise they don't have" "no consultant will tell you to just buy an index and sit -you don't get a fee that way" hedge funds returned 36% - the index returned 126% - he conceded 7 months early "the people you pay to find winners don't know how - they only know how to sell you" bookmark & watch today ↓

bodila

358,840 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen

The S&P100 (OEF) has outperformed the S&P500 this year: 21% compared to 17%. Here's why: It tracks only the largest 100 profitable American companies that survived recessions, crashes, and technological shifts. Average market cap: $135 billion. When you buy an S&P 500 fund, 61% of your money already goes into these top 100 stocks anyway. The other 400 contribute minimal returns. The advantages: - Lower volatility during market chaos. - Better management teams and stronger balance sheets. - Many companies pay dividends with solid growth rates. The tradeoffs: - Higher fees (0.22% vs typical 0.03% for S&P 500 funds). - More concentrated positioning. - Limited growth potential compared to smaller companies. When it makes sense: Use as your core defensive position (40% of portfolio) when market concentration is high and you want quality over quantity. How to buy: Purchase OEF ticker through any brokerage. — This is just one of the ETFs I covered in my 22-minute video on building a simple portfolio that beats the S&P 500. I also covered S&P 500's dangerous concentration in 10 companies, which growth ETFs outperform during rate cuts, and why dividend ETFs exclude the best-performing stocks. Just comment "ETF" and I'll DM it into your inbox in the next few minutes.
3:38

The S&P100 (OEF) has outperformed the S&P500 this year: 21% compared to 17%. Here's why: It tracks only the largest 100 profitable American companies that survived recessions, crashes, and technological shifts. Average market cap: $135 billion. When you buy an S&P 500 fund, 61% of your money already goes into these top 100 stocks anyway. The other 400 contribute minimal returns. The advantages: - Lower volatility during market chaos. - Better management teams and stronger balance sheets. - Many companies pay dividends with solid growth rates. The tradeoffs: - Higher fees (0.22% vs typical 0.03% for S&P 500 funds). - More concentrated positioning. - Limited growth potential compared to smaller companies. When it makes sense: Use as your core defensive position (40% of portfolio) when market concentration is high and you want quality over quantity. How to buy: Purchase OEF ticker through any brokerage. — This is just one of the ETFs I covered in my 22-minute video on building a simple portfolio that beats the S&P 500. I also covered S&P 500's dangerous concentration in 10 companies, which growth ETFs outperform during rate cuts, and why dividend ETFs exclude the best-performing stocks. Just comment "ETF" and I'll DM it into your inbox in the next few minutes.

Felix Prehn 🐶

16,502 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Are spot #Bitcoin ETFs a done deal? The race is already on to compete for market share. Eric Balchunas & James Seyffart of Bloomberg Intelligence join me to break down the ETFs, how they will compete, redemption & creation, in-kind vs cash, seeding the ETFs, the SEC's moves, APs and more. Let us know what you think! TIMESTAMPS (00:00) Intros to James Seyffart & Eric Balchunas (1:15) Spot Bitcoin ETF compared to other ETFs (4:17) What is an ETF? (9:45) ETFs vs. mutual funds (13:06) When will applications get approved? (15:44) BlackRock's application (19:21) SEC Spot ETF approval process (23:18) Will all spot Bitcoin ETFs be approved at same time? (26:24) Spot Bitcoin ETF fees (31:33) Creation and redemption process (39:53) Why is SEC against in-kind redemptions (41:36) APs: JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs (44:34) Seeding the ETFs (50:50) Bitcoin's place in history
59:37

Are spot #Bitcoin ETFs a done deal? The race is already on to compete for market share. Eric Balchunas & James Seyffart of Bloomberg Intelligence join me to break down the ETFs, how they will compete, redemption & creation, in-kind vs cash, seeding the ETFs, the SEC's moves, APs and more. Let us know what you think! TIMESTAMPS (00:00) Intros to James Seyffart & Eric Balchunas (1:15) Spot Bitcoin ETF compared to other ETFs (4:17) What is an ETF? (9:45) ETFs vs. mutual funds (13:06) When will applications get approved? (15:44) BlackRock's application (19:21) SEC Spot ETF approval process (23:18) Will all spot Bitcoin ETFs be approved at same time? (26:24) Spot Bitcoin ETF fees (31:33) Creation and redemption process (39:53) Why is SEC against in-kind redemptions (41:36) APs: JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs (44:34) Seeding the ETFs (50:50) Bitcoin's place in history

Natalie Brunell ⚡️

309,668 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

"If I get to be 85 and you came to me on my deathbed and said, you know what, you could have made 50 basis points more or 25 basis points more a year by investing in index funds instead of doing what you did, value companies and buy cheap companies. And he asked me, are you okay with that? My answer is yes. I'm okay with not beating the market. And that I think is critical, because if you keep telling yourself, I did the right thing, therefore I should beat the market. Therein lie the seeds for being righteous, for being indignant, for getting angry. I mean, when you get angry at markets, nothing good comes out of that." Full episiode:
2:16

"If I get to be 85 and you came to me on my deathbed and said, you know what, you could have made 50 basis points more or 25 basis points more a year by investing in index funds instead of doing what you did, value companies and buy cheap companies. And he asked me, are you okay with that? My answer is yes. I'm okay with not beating the market. And that I think is critical, because if you keep telling yourself, I did the right thing, therefore I should beat the market. Therein lie the seeds for being righteous, for being indignant, for getting angry. I mean, when you get angry at markets, nothing good comes out of that." Full episiode:

Jack Forehand

211,860 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Sensex fell 500 points today and has disappointed investors in the last 2 years with single digit returns. I asked Vikas Khemani where the problem lies and what’s the way forward ? He says the risk reward is now favourable for the market . It’s during pessimism that one should accumulate and this is a good time to buy the market “Market wisdom has taught us that when 8 out of 10 people on the street are disappointed and pessimistic , that’s the best time to accumulate” Our full conversation out now on TheMoneyMindsetCoach.co ✨
0:58

The Sensex fell 500 points today and has disappointed investors in the last 2 years with single digit returns. I asked Vikas Khemani where the problem lies and what’s the way forward ? He says the risk reward is now favourable for the market . It’s during pessimism that one should accumulate and this is a good time to buy the market “Market wisdom has taught us that when 8 out of 10 people on the street are disappointed and pessimistic , that’s the best time to accumulate” Our full conversation out now on TheMoneyMindsetCoach.co ✨

Sonia Shenoy

40,204 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

How, in 7 Weeks, Bitcoin ETFs Reached Inflows That Took Gold ETFs 3 Years In this episode, Eric Balchunas, senior ETF Analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, discussed the performance of #Bitcoin ETFs since their launch two months ago. Balchunas noted that the ETFs’ performance exceeded his expectations, with a faster and more intense “second wind” than anticipated. He attributed this to a combination of asset managers buying in, retail interest, and the “ETF effect” where the knowledge of incoming flows encourages non-ETF investors to buy. Balchunas also predicted that BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF would likely be the most successful of the nine new spot Bitcoin ETFs, while also doubting that any of the smaller issuers would bow out. He also discussed the potential for spot Ether ETFs, but was less optimistic about their success compared to Bitcoin ETFs. Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 01:35 Bitcoin ETF performance in the first weeks 10:38 Bitcoin's rally to all-time highs 15:15 BlackRock: the winner? 18:14 When options will be approved 19:01 In-kind redemptions 19:55 Outflows from GBTC 22:36 Ether ETFs won't have as much demand? 27:01 Approval of ETH ETFs 36:36 Short-term projection for bitcoin 38:23 Long-term inflows in the ETFs 44:23 Weekly recap
54:36

How, in 7 Weeks, Bitcoin ETFs Reached Inflows That Took Gold ETFs 3 Years In this episode, Eric Balchunas, senior ETF Analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, discussed the performance of #Bitcoin ETFs since their launch two months ago. Balchunas noted that the ETFs’ performance exceeded his expectations, with a faster and more intense “second wind” than anticipated. He attributed this to a combination of asset managers buying in, retail interest, and the “ETF effect” where the knowledge of incoming flows encourages non-ETF investors to buy. Balchunas also predicted that BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF would likely be the most successful of the nine new spot Bitcoin ETFs, while also doubting that any of the smaller issuers would bow out. He also discussed the potential for spot Ether ETFs, but was less optimistic about their success compared to Bitcoin ETFs. Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 01:35 Bitcoin ETF performance in the first weeks 10:38 Bitcoin's rally to all-time highs 15:15 BlackRock: the winner? 18:14 When options will be approved 19:01 In-kind redemptions 19:55 Outflows from GBTC 22:36 Ether ETFs won't have as much demand? 27:01 Approval of ETH ETFs 36:36 Short-term projection for bitcoin 38:23 Long-term inflows in the ETFs 44:23 Weekly recap

Laura Shin

49,589 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

🚨 MAJOR S&P 500 CRASH INCOMING 35% of the entire S&P 500 is concentrated in 7 stocks and the first one just cracked Meta dropped ~10% in market cap over the past weeks Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, Tesla, Broadcom are holding up the entire index This isn't a diversified market - it's a handful of companies with a stock market attached Phase 6 of the cycle: euphoria top. Every major index peak in history has looked exactly like this right before Phase 7 When concentration this extreme starts unwinding it doesn't dip - it cascades Each mega-cap that rolls over forces index funds to rebalance, triggers margin calls, amplifies the move Follow and turn notifs on - if this spreads, it becomes a global risk event fast
0:26

🚨 MAJOR S&P 500 CRASH INCOMING 35% of the entire S&P 500 is concentrated in 7 stocks and the first one just cracked Meta dropped ~10% in market cap over the past weeks Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, Tesla, Broadcom are holding up the entire index This isn't a diversified market - it's a handful of companies with a stock market attached Phase 6 of the cycle: euphoria top. Every major index peak in history has looked exactly like this right before Phase 7 When concentration this extreme starts unwinding it doesn't dip - it cascades Each mega-cap that rolls over forces index funds to rebalance, triggers margin calls, amplifies the move Follow and turn notifs on - if this spreads, it becomes a global risk event fast

Linton Worm (🍏,🪱)

42,461 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

💭 IF THERE ARE STRONG $XRP ETF INFLOWS, WHY DOESN'T THE PRICE GO UP? This is a frequently asked question about various cryptos and their corresponding ETFs. Matt Hougan of Bitwise explains how his company purchases its cryptocurrencies. The purchases are done via an "OTC" trade. This is to prevent huge swings in the price and to essentially get them a "better deal" on such a large purchase. Once Bitwise selects its market maker, it will go into the market and buy the XRP off the exchange. So, they're the ones that are in the market buying the XRP. And then, they take that XRP and they send it to Bitwise's custodian. 📽️: Good Evening Crypto
0:36

💭 IF THERE ARE STRONG $XRP ETF INFLOWS, WHY DOESN'T THE PRICE GO UP? This is a frequently asked question about various cryptos and their corresponding ETFs. Matt Hougan of Bitwise explains how his company purchases its cryptocurrencies. The purchases are done via an "OTC" trade. This is to prevent huge swings in the price and to essentially get them a "better deal" on such a large purchase. Once Bitwise selects its market maker, it will go into the market and buy the XRP off the exchange. So, they're the ones that are in the market buying the XRP. And then, they take that XRP and they send it to Bitwise's custodian. 📽️: Good Evening Crypto

CryptosRus

138,528 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

If you can't beat the market, here's how to NOT lose your money at least. Barry Ritholtz manages $8B in funds, and calls it the Christmas tree strategy: The trunk is a broad index fund. Boring, cheap, holding everything up. That's 50-70% of your money. The lights and ornaments are your flavor. Momentum, tech, a bet on India or Japan. Decorate however you want. Just know every ornament is a bet against the odds. So keep it mostly trunk. Full episode: Sam Parr Shaan Puri
2:15

If you can't beat the market, here's how to NOT lose your money at least. Barry Ritholtz manages $8B in funds, and calls it the Christmas tree strategy: The trunk is a broad index fund. Boring, cheap, holding everything up. That's 50-70% of your money. The lights and ornaments are your flavor. Momentum, tech, a bet on India or Japan. Decorate however you want. Just know every ornament is a bet against the odds. So keep it mostly trunk. Full episode: Sam Parr Shaan Puri

My First Million

14,675 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

THIS IS HOW THE AI BUBBLE ENDS Here is how it all comes together Three companies are about to go public at the same time: - SpaceX - OpenAI - Anthropic Why does this matter? Because when they enter the market, they bring $200 billion of new supply all at once And here's the question nobody is asking Where does that $200 billion come from? Funds don't print cash. They sell what already won And you can probably guess what that means They start selling the winners they've been holding for years NVIDIA first. Then Micron. Then every AI name that ran When the leaders get sold - the index follows. No exceptions And we've seen this before Remember the COVID bubble Back then the same thing happened - hype IPOs flooded the market, funds rotated out of winners, and everything that ran the hardest came down the fastest The AI crowd is bigger this time. The exit is smaller Watch the IPO calendar. That's your only warning NOTIFS ON!
0:43

THIS IS HOW THE AI BUBBLE ENDS Here is how it all comes together Three companies are about to go public at the same time: - SpaceX - OpenAI - Anthropic Why does this matter? Because when they enter the market, they bring $200 billion of new supply all at once And here's the question nobody is asking Where does that $200 billion come from? Funds don't print cash. They sell what already won And you can probably guess what that means They start selling the winners they've been holding for years NVIDIA first. Then Micron. Then every AI name that ran When the leaders get sold - the index follows. No exceptions And we've seen this before Remember the COVID bubble Back then the same thing happened - hype IPOs flooded the market, funds rotated out of winners, and everything that ran the hardest came down the fastest The AI crowd is bigger this time. The exit is smaller Watch the IPO calendar. That's your only warning NOTIFS ON!

bee🐝

51,298 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

[MBN News] Chuncheon City’s mayor acknowledges Taehyung’s power and thanks him for providing an opportunity to rejuvenate Chuncheon Pungmul Market. He said "I realized the power of V, and with this incident as an opportunity, our traditional market, Pungmul Market, is really more culturally popular in terms of tourism...." [Anchor] BTS V, who is serving in the military in Chuncheon, Gangwon-do, posted a photo taken while traveling around Chuncheon on SNS. Chuncheon City, which was preparing to revive the traditional market, actively utilized it. [Reporter] A picture taken of a man in military uniform. This is BTS V, a global group of BTS serving in Chuncheon. The background is the camellia mural of Kim Yoo-jung, a novelist from Chuncheon, and it is Chuncheon's representative 5-day market, Pungmul Market. Only people have changed in the photo with the same background. This is Yuk Donghan, Chuncheon’s mayor. He posted two of these photos on his SNS and expressed his gratitude to V, and the reaction was hot. ▶ Interview: Yuk Dong-han / Gangwon Chuncheon Market - "I realized the power of V, and with this incident as an opportunity, our traditional market, Pungmul Market, is really more culturally popular in terms of tourism...." On days when the market is not frequented, we decided to use the effect of visiting BTS V in the bleak Pungmul market. As the number of fans visiting the places where BTS went has increased, it has become a famous place, so they will make the traditional market a tourist attraction. ▶ Interview: Choi Ji-sook / Chuncheon City Market Market Manager Team Leader - "BTS V said that while checking the place where the photo was taken, he would eat at an existing restaurant or a place like this and buy food...." With a budget of 1 billion won secured through the cultural tourism-type specialized market promotion project last year, V photo zone, foreign flea market, and flea market will be opened. Also, as close as the station and terminal are close, we plan to develop food that will catch the appetite of foreigners and grow a night market. 🔗
1:52

[MBN News] Chuncheon City’s mayor acknowledges Taehyung’s power and thanks him for providing an opportunity to rejuvenate Chuncheon Pungmul Market. He said "I realized the power of V, and with this incident as an opportunity, our traditional market, Pungmul Market, is really more culturally popular in terms of tourism...." [Anchor] BTS V, who is serving in the military in Chuncheon, Gangwon-do, posted a photo taken while traveling around Chuncheon on SNS. Chuncheon City, which was preparing to revive the traditional market, actively utilized it. [Reporter] A picture taken of a man in military uniform. This is BTS V, a global group of BTS serving in Chuncheon. The background is the camellia mural of Kim Yoo-jung, a novelist from Chuncheon, and it is Chuncheon's representative 5-day market, Pungmul Market. Only people have changed in the photo with the same background. This is Yuk Donghan, Chuncheon’s mayor. He posted two of these photos on his SNS and expressed his gratitude to V, and the reaction was hot. ▶ Interview: Yuk Dong-han / Gangwon Chuncheon Market - "I realized the power of V, and with this incident as an opportunity, our traditional market, Pungmul Market, is really more culturally popular in terms of tourism...." On days when the market is not frequented, we decided to use the effect of visiting BTS V in the bleak Pungmul market. As the number of fans visiting the places where BTS went has increased, it has become a famous place, so they will make the traditional market a tourist attraction. ▶ Interview: Choi Ji-sook / Chuncheon City Market Market Manager Team Leader - "BTS V said that while checking the place where the photo was taken, he would eat at an existing restaurant or a place like this and buy food...." With a budget of 1 billion won secured through the cultural tourism-type specialized market promotion project last year, V photo zone, foreign flea market, and flea market will be opened. Also, as close as the station and terminal are close, we plan to develop food that will catch the appetite of foreigners and grow a night market. 🔗

Taehyung Naver || 네이버 김태형

41,088 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨 BREAKING — BRAD GARLINGHOUSE JUST SAID THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD 💥 Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse is calling 2026 the most bullish year in crypto history and the reasoning is absolutely explosive for XRP. Here’s why his statement matters more than people realize: 1. The giants are here Franklin Templeton BlackRock Vanguard These aren’t “crypto-curious” funds These are the institutions that decide where global capital flows. Their entry means crypto is not a niche anymore it is becoming a pillar of global finance. 2. ETFs are just getting started Brad expects crypto ETFs to grow well beyond one to two percent of the entire ETF market. Let that sink in. The ETF market is over ten trillion dollars. Even a small share flowing into crypto becomes a liquidity hurricane. 3. Early inflows show something massive — pent up demand Not hype Not retail mania But institutional appetite. And yes Brad explicitly said that demand is showing up in XRP products as well. 4. This signals what comes next When BlackRock, Vanguard and Franklin Templeton lock onto an asset class… they don’t nibble they reshape the entire market structure. And XRP is now officially part of that structure. XRP ETFs Ripple Prime GTreasury RLUSD DNA Protocol global licensing institutional corridors the groundwork is done. Brad isn’t making a prediction He’s telling you what the data already shows. 2026 won’t just be bullish It will be the capital rotation event the XRP community has waited a decade for. The tide isn’t coming It’s already rising. 🔥
1:48

🚨 BREAKING — BRAD GARLINGHOUSE JUST SAID THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD 💥 Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse is calling 2026 the most bullish year in crypto history and the reasoning is absolutely explosive for XRP. Here’s why his statement matters more than people realize: 1. The giants are here Franklin Templeton BlackRock Vanguard These aren’t “crypto-curious” funds These are the institutions that decide where global capital flows. Their entry means crypto is not a niche anymore it is becoming a pillar of global finance. 2. ETFs are just getting started Brad expects crypto ETFs to grow well beyond one to two percent of the entire ETF market. Let that sink in. The ETF market is over ten trillion dollars. Even a small share flowing into crypto becomes a liquidity hurricane. 3. Early inflows show something massive — pent up demand Not hype Not retail mania But institutional appetite. And yes Brad explicitly said that demand is showing up in XRP products as well. 4. This signals what comes next When BlackRock, Vanguard and Franklin Templeton lock onto an asset class… they don’t nibble they reshape the entire market structure. And XRP is now officially part of that structure. XRP ETFs Ripple Prime GTreasury RLUSD DNA Protocol global licensing institutional corridors the groundwork is done. Brad isn’t making a prediction He’s telling you what the data already shows. 2026 won’t just be bullish It will be the capital rotation event the XRP community has waited a decade for. The tide isn’t coming It’s already rising. 🔥

Pumpius

96,442 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

The All-In Crystal Ball The Mag 7 were holding the stock market on their shoulders. Now, that group has cracked and the market is in a free fall. If you've been listening to All-In, you saw this coming. Let's walk through it: 1) Berkshire Sours on Apple: Chamath's Analysis of Buffett's Annual Letter Chamath Palihapitiya on March 8th: "You can tell when (Warren) Buffett has gotten disengaged with a company based on the number of times he mentions it in his annual letter." "I think this 'Buffett Index' is a really important one for Apple, which is, it went from a forever holding to barely getting mentioned." "Unfortunately, it speaks for a very bad next 5-10 years for this company unless they figure something out." 2) The AI Bubble: Massive Spend with No Revenue = Recipe for Disaster Chamath Palihapitiya on May 31st: "If you do not start seeing revenue flow to the bottom line of these companies that are spending $26B/quarter, the market cap of Nvidia is not what the market cap of Nvidia should be." "And all of these other companies are going to get punished for spending this kind of money." "Where are all these newfangled things that we're supposed to see that justifies the $100B of chips spend/year, $200B of energy spend, $100B of all this other stuff?" "And we've seen nothing to show for it except that you can mimic somebody's voice. It doesn't all hang together yet." 3) The Underlying Recession: The Mag 7 Shielded the Market from a Bad Economy… Until They Didn’t Chamath Palihapitiya on July 12th: "I think the bigger question, though, is if we are on the verge of a real contraction in the economy." "Even though the stock market for seven companies is hitting all-time highs, the stock market for every other company that isn't those seven companies have not." "People are unemployed, there is no money, and the question is whether you have some sort of contraction economically that is measured by a recession or not." "People have been tracking the S&P 500 Index versus the equal-weighted index." "And what's interesting is the spread right now is the most extreme since March of 2000 right before dot-com crash"
1:38

The All-In Crystal Ball The Mag 7 were holding the stock market on their shoulders. Now, that group has cracked and the market is in a free fall. If you've been listening to All-In, you saw this coming. Let's walk through it: 1) Berkshire Sours on Apple: Chamath's Analysis of Buffett's Annual Letter Chamath Palihapitiya on March 8th: "You can tell when (Warren) Buffett has gotten disengaged with a company based on the number of times he mentions it in his annual letter." "I think this 'Buffett Index' is a really important one for Apple, which is, it went from a forever holding to barely getting mentioned." "Unfortunately, it speaks for a very bad next 5-10 years for this company unless they figure something out." 2) The AI Bubble: Massive Spend with No Revenue = Recipe for Disaster Chamath Palihapitiya on May 31st: "If you do not start seeing revenue flow to the bottom line of these companies that are spending $26B/quarter, the market cap of Nvidia is not what the market cap of Nvidia should be." "And all of these other companies are going to get punished for spending this kind of money." "Where are all these newfangled things that we're supposed to see that justifies the $100B of chips spend/year, $200B of energy spend, $100B of all this other stuff?" "And we've seen nothing to show for it except that you can mimic somebody's voice. It doesn't all hang together yet." 3) The Underlying Recession: The Mag 7 Shielded the Market from a Bad Economy… Until They Didn’t Chamath Palihapitiya on July 12th: "I think the bigger question, though, is if we are on the verge of a real contraction in the economy." "Even though the stock market for seven companies is hitting all-time highs, the stock market for every other company that isn't those seven companies have not." "People are unemployed, there is no money, and the question is whether you have some sort of contraction economically that is measured by a recession or not." "People have been tracking the S&P 500 Index versus the equal-weighted index." "And what's interesting is the spread right now is the most extreme since March of 2000 right before dot-com crash"

The All-In Podcast

516,130 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

BREAKING: Elon Musk is about to force everyone in America to buy SpaceX stock. Even if you don't want to, you will own something of it. And the three biggest pension funds in the country are trying to stop him. Here's why... On Wednesday, three of the largest public pension systems in the United States sent Elon Musk a letter. New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. New York City Comptroller Mark Levine. CalPERS CEO Marcie Frost. Together, they oversee more than $1 trillion in retirement assets for teachers, firefighters, nurses, and public workers. They asked Musk to scrap the governance structure SpaceX is planning to use for its IPO. Their exact words: it would constitute "the most management-favorable governance structure ever" at this scale. Here's what's actually in the filing. SpaceX is targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation. It plans to raise $75 billion. That makes it the largest IPO in human history. Bigger than Saudi Aramco. Roughly the size of the entire GDP of South Korea. Twenty-one investment banks have been assembled to underwrite it. The target listing month is June. Now look at the share structure. There are two classes of stock. Class A is what gets sold to the public. One vote per share. Class B is held by Musk and a handful of insiders. Ten votes per share. Musk owns 42.5% of the equity. He controls 83.8% of the voting power. After the IPO, he keeps more than 50% of voting control. The only person who can fire Elon Musk from SpaceX is Elon Musk. Then there's the litigation structure. SpaceX reincorporated in Texas. New Texas laws say shareholders must hold up to 3% of outstanding stock to pursue derivative lawsuits. At a $1.75 trillion valuation, that's $52.5 billion in holdings. This is the package. All of it, in one IPO. Voting locked. Courthouse locked. Boardroom locked. And here's the part that should stop every retail investor reading this. SpaceX has applied for early inclusion in the Nasdaq 100. That means as soon as the listing clears, every passive index fund that tracks the Nasdaq 100 has to buy the stock. Every S&P 500 fund that picks it up has to buy the stock. Every target-date retirement fund that holds those indexes has to buy the stock. Every 401k allocation that defaults to "diversified index exposure" has to buy the stock. The American Federation of Teachers, whose members participate in retirement funds worth roughly $3 trillion in assets, has already filed a formal objection. Their argument is that index rules will "force" their members to invest in SpaceX at a proportion that has nothing to do with the company's fundamentals. You will own SpaceX through your 401k. You will own SpaceX through your pension. You will own SpaceX through your index fund. This is the structural innovation of the whole deal. Most IPOs ask you to buy the stock. This one is engineered so you buy it whether you ask to or not. That's why the pension funds are panicking. They wrote the letter because that's the only lever they have left. Now zoom out. The wealthy have always understood something most retail investors haven't. Passive investing is not neutral. When you buy an index fund, you're not making a neutral bet on America. You're buying whatever the index committee decides to admit. In whatever weight they decide to assign. SpaceX is the best example yet. It's about to land in millions of retirement accounts in June. Whether anyone asked for it or not. The lesson is not "don't buy SpaceX." The decision has been made. The lesson is to actually look at what you own. They picked the default 401k option years ago and never looked again. They think they own "the market." They actually own a committee's decision about what the market should be. The wealthy don't operate that way, they know exactly what they own. They build deliberate, rules-based allocations. Not because they're smarter. Because they decided a long time ago that owning something by accident is not the same as owning it on purpose. The question is which group you want to be in. Surmount was built for the second one. Rules-based strategies you actually pick....
5:15

BREAKING: Elon Musk is about to force everyone in America to buy SpaceX stock. Even if you don't want to, you will own something of it. And the three biggest pension funds in the country are trying to stop him. Here's why... On Wednesday, three of the largest public pension systems in the United States sent Elon Musk a letter. New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. New York City Comptroller Mark Levine. CalPERS CEO Marcie Frost. Together, they oversee more than $1 trillion in retirement assets for teachers, firefighters, nurses, and public workers. They asked Musk to scrap the governance structure SpaceX is planning to use for its IPO. Their exact words: it would constitute "the most management-favorable governance structure ever" at this scale. Here's what's actually in the filing. SpaceX is targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation. It plans to raise $75 billion. That makes it the largest IPO in human history. Bigger than Saudi Aramco. Roughly the size of the entire GDP of South Korea. Twenty-one investment banks have been assembled to underwrite it. The target listing month is June. Now look at the share structure. There are two classes of stock. Class A is what gets sold to the public. One vote per share. Class B is held by Musk and a handful of insiders. Ten votes per share. Musk owns 42.5% of the equity. He controls 83.8% of the voting power. After the IPO, he keeps more than 50% of voting control. The only person who can fire Elon Musk from SpaceX is Elon Musk. Then there's the litigation structure. SpaceX reincorporated in Texas. New Texas laws say shareholders must hold up to 3% of outstanding stock to pursue derivative lawsuits. At a $1.75 trillion valuation, that's $52.5 billion in holdings. This is the package. All of it, in one IPO. Voting locked. Courthouse locked. Boardroom locked. And here's the part that should stop every retail investor reading this. SpaceX has applied for early inclusion in the Nasdaq 100. That means as soon as the listing clears, every passive index fund that tracks the Nasdaq 100 has to buy the stock. Every S&P 500 fund that picks it up has to buy the stock. Every target-date retirement fund that holds those indexes has to buy the stock. Every 401k allocation that defaults to "diversified index exposure" has to buy the stock. The American Federation of Teachers, whose members participate in retirement funds worth roughly $3 trillion in assets, has already filed a formal objection. Their argument is that index rules will "force" their members to invest in SpaceX at a proportion that has nothing to do with the company's fundamentals. You will own SpaceX through your 401k. You will own SpaceX through your pension. You will own SpaceX through your index fund. This is the structural innovation of the whole deal. Most IPOs ask you to buy the stock. This one is engineered so you buy it whether you ask to or not. That's why the pension funds are panicking. They wrote the letter because that's the only lever they have left. Now zoom out. The wealthy have always understood something most retail investors haven't. Passive investing is not neutral. When you buy an index fund, you're not making a neutral bet on America. You're buying whatever the index committee decides to admit. In whatever weight they decide to assign. SpaceX is the best example yet. It's about to land in millions of retirement accounts in June. Whether anyone asked for it or not. The lesson is not "don't buy SpaceX." The decision has been made. The lesson is to actually look at what you own. They picked the default 401k option years ago and never looked again. They think they own "the market." They actually own a committee's decision about what the market should be. The wealthy don't operate that way, they know exactly what they own. They build deliberate, rules-based allocations. Not because they're smarter. Because they decided a long time ago that owning something by accident is not the same as owning it on purpose. The question is which group you want to be in. Surmount was built for the second one. Rules-based strategies you actually pick....

Logan Weaver

15,945 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten