FilterHN

The article should start with such a comparison but it just seems like a lot of text with very little numerical comparison, which makes it not very useful to conclude what the case is.

0: https://www.defianceetfs.com/xmag/

▲

omnicognate

2 hours ago

[-]

The MSN link on the post doesn't have the charts the original WaPo article [0] contains, which provide just such a comparison, though over a longer period (from 2019), showing 132% vs 1057%. (No idea if that is right or more/less meaningful, just pointing out it's missed off this link.)

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/11/24/sp500-sto...

▲

rsanek

1 hour ago

[-]

https://archive.is/qOjdE

▲

edoceo

2 hours ago

[-]

Correct! Backtest and compare ratios to common indexes!

▲

anovikov

1 hour ago

[-]

If we made a similar comparison to the SP500 index since its inception in 1926, and made a chart of total returns difference over 1 year sliding window, between index and index minus it's top 7 performing stocks, i bet we will see this recent period isn't at all exceptional. Every economic boom is propelled by one or two sectors that have a limited number of players.

▲

nektro

4 hours ago

[-]

real url https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/11/24/sp500-sto...

▲

jvdvegt

1 hour ago

[-]

Without paywal: https://archive.is/qOjdE

▲

omnicognate

2 hours ago

[-]

Yes, it would be good if the URL could be changed to this as the MSN link misses out all the charts, which are rather crucial.

▲

blue1

24 minutes ago

[-]

So a viable strategy would be to only buy the best 7 stocks? Like the Dogs of the Dow, but reversed? (The Gods of the Dow?)

▲

gblargg

46 minutes ago

[-]

So if we look at companies that didn't do as well, we find that they didn't do as well as those that did really well?

▲

nairboon

35 minutes ago

[-]

The stock market has been dominated by a single industry many times in history: railroads (Union Pacific), oil (Standard Oil, later Exxon), steel (U.S. Steel), banking (JPM), industrials (GE), telecom (ATT), computer hardware (IBM, MSFT, Intel), smartphones (Apple), consumer internet (Facebook, Google, Amazon) and now "AI" (Nvidia, Magnificent 7).

Isn't the interesting question now: what follows? Or does history end with Mag7?

▲

epolanski

24 minutes ago

[-]

I think that the overall point is that gargantuan big tech capex is hiding an overall weakness in the economy.

▲

aeternum

3 hours ago

[-]

Different than when the railroads dominated the market, or the industrials dominance in the 20s and 30s, or the nifty fifty, or the communication dominance in the late 90s?

Does the S&P 493 reveal a different economy or does it reveal that the author published an article based on feelings instead of research?

▲

Mistletoe

3 hours ago

[-]

All those ended pretty badly, right?

▲

milleramp

2 hours ago

[-]

All words, not one chart or graph.

▲

omnicognate

39 minutes ago

[-]

Only because this is a crap link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/11/24/sp500-sto...

https://archive.is/qOjdE

▲

jimbob45

3 hours ago

[-]

In previous years, I could have excused such shoddy journalism. In the age of LLMs that can do the work for you, it’s inexcusable that the author didn’t pick 3-5 sample strong economies from the past to judge today by.

▲

faidit

1 hour ago

[-]

Such as? (edit: to clarify, since you apparently downvoted me for asking [lmao], what exactly are these 3-5 alleged success stories for monopolism/crony capitalism that ChatGPT told you about?)

▲

sokoloff

4 minutes ago

[-]

A user cannot downvote a comment in reply to their own.

It was likely other user(s) who downvoted a comment that they perceived as low-effort and adding little to the discussion, which I could easily see if the entire comment was something like “Such as?”

▲

senordevnyc

2 hours ago

[-]

Why the fuck is TSLA ever included in this list?

▲

readthenotes1

1 hour ago

[-]

Because of how well its stock has done since 2020 compared to the s&p 493.