this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
181 points (96.9% liked)

World News

40018 readers
2386 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Global tech stocks plunged after the launch of DeepSeek, a low-cost AI model by Chinese startup DeepSeek, sparked investor concerns over the dominance and valuation of AI giants like Nvidia.

Nvidia shares fell 17%, wiping $593 billion in market value—the largest single-day loss for any company.

The selloff impacted chipmakers, AI firms, and datacenter companies globally.

Analysts view DeepSeek's cost-efficient model as intensifying competition, potentially challenging U.S. tech dominance.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (6 children)

... Also bad for some people with 401ks and similar retirement funds.

A lot of of families unable to hire bespoke financial advice put their savings into traditionally safer index funds like the S&P500 which have been increasingly weighted towards those companies.

Those lost trillions of dollars of value represent a lot of lo "retail" that is to say, not particularly wealthy, investors. Also a fair number of pension funds are probably similarly exposed, think teachers, nurses etc.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If retirement is years away, this is barely going to be a blip on the radar. Outside of a full blown depression, the market will recover. Hell, even after a depression, the market will recover if given enough time. If you had your entire retirement invested in a single sector or company, you deserve to lose 17% of it overnight tbh.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

They'll bounce back.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago

I don't see a problem. Index funds are precisely there to follow over and underevaluations, so that in the end the best mix gets out, tracking long term real value.

This also means, that the ones who got to sell at the high price get to reinvest that money somewhere else, which in a broad index fund, leads to increases in another place.

However this shows again that it is fatal to think of the market price as being an indicator for a companies worth. The market price only reflects the value of the currently sold stocks. If a large amount of stocks would be pushed onto the market or pulled from it, the price naturally goes up and down. But it is impossible to buy or sell an entire company at the current market price.

The sooner we stop basing economic decisions on the idea that the market price reflects the market cap and that would reflect the actual worth of a company, the less likely we would run into stupid decisions based on bubbles.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

Volatility has always been built into investing, including index funds.

If retirement is a long way away, then this is a non event. If retirement is close and your 401k was in a target date fund, you are heavily invested in bonds at this point, precisely to deal with this sort of situation.

If you are close to retirement, and heavily weighed to tech heavy indecies, then this will probably delay your retirement a few years. If you're already retired and so invested, you may have a problem.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

While I understand your point here, but a 10% drop amongst tech companies should not be a huge drop for a properly diversified 100% stock based global index fund.

A 10% drop in general is expected for index funds, that's why you should have a long time horizon. If a drop of 50% is more than you can handle then the stock allocation should be lowered from 100% and bonds increased by the same amount. S&P500 is not enough diversification, not nearly enough. Funds that track MSCI ACWI is a lot better in terms of diversification, and diversification is the ONLY free meal in investing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Oh, a 10% drop is not super concerning. It's more "what happens next." The magnificent 7 have gone through the roof in terms of valuation since 2022... should those come back to Earth abruptly, it's not just tech bros who suffer.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Honestly the funds fault. Tech companies are bound to fuck up and fall at some point.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

That's not really how index trackers work

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sure but that doesn't help the people who trusted their pensions would be safe.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Jup. I hope that is a wake up call for fonds and private people to invest more in conservative/stable stocks and to check what their fonds are investing in. Of course not possible for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

More stock diversification is the answer, not manual filtrering or a tilt towards "stable" stocks. If that does not provide a risk that is tolerable for an investor, then a lower stock allocation is the next step.

For a long time people have trusted their money in the 500 biggest US companies, but ignoring the world and ignoring smaller companies. This does not really make that much sense, but actually makes more sense if you are not an American.

Americans work in the US economy, and often invest in the US economy. Doing so makes you take on additional risk. An allocation towards the entire global stock market gives roughly 50% exposure to US stocks already.

If the US stock market takes a huge dive, then the value of your assets drop, and at the same time you have an increased risk of losing your job.