HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
Sorry, I was on holiday and couldn't take part in this thread
This is a grey area that is difficult to sort out in the description of the fund without making the description much too complicated or leaving the fund with little to invest in.
I have taken the reason for the differentiation of not investing in superhero films as two-fold - firstly, it takes away the argument as to whether or not Superman, Batman, etc. are science fiction or not, secondly it stops the 2 funds following a similar trajectory by investing heavily in the latest Marvel blockbuster - which is the reason I didn't invest in GOTGX.
How do we distinguish between what is a superhero film and what isn't? I'm afraid it is very unscientific, I do not have a very good knowledge of comics, so I have taken "superhero" to be ones I recognise - basically Marvel & DC.
As to FMRON, I don't know the graphic novel at all, so I have based my investment in the fund description - which is definitely Sci-Fi!
Sci Fi Fund Aug 03, 16:20
Fund Description "...To differentiate from COMIC, the fund will not invest in superhero films. " {nm} Aug 03, 16:24
There is no COMIC. And this was more SciFi than comic, anyway. {nm} Aug 03, 16:28
Comic can be anything. If it's based on a comic, then it's comic. {nm} Aug 03, 16:30
Okay. Why does SciFi hold Frank Miller's Ronin? Or Micronauts? {nm} Aug 03, 16:35
star wars was a comic. Star Trek has a comic. {nm} Aug 03, 16:42
alien, predator, terminator all have comics {nm} Aug 03, 16:43
None of those franchises you mentioned started out as comics so those aren't good bases for argument. {nm} Aug 03, 16:49
the comics heavily influenced other films in the franchise or were the major influence. {nm} Aug 03, 16:50
besides the argument here is "superhero films". there's a clear distinction between based on a comic or a superhero film Aug 03, 16:54
But the COMIC fund isn't just about superheroes. Aug 03, 17:15
This is a pointless argument of semantics. Guardians is based on a comic therefore it's COMIC. Aug 03, 18:11
ok. if its semantics, then i'm off {nm} Aug 03, 18:25
The question of why SciFi would hold Frank Miller's Ronin or Micronauts is still valid, though. Aug 03, 18:42
The long and the short of it... Aug 03, 19:07
semantics, and all due respect, but your argument "extraordinary talents" would define most movies {nm} Aug 03, 19:31
Sorry, I was on holiday and couldn't take part in this thread Aug 04, 04:07
The purpose of the criteria aren't to make the funds mutually exclusive, but to minimise the overlap {nm} Aug 04, 04:11
exactly, this was not a superhero film. Its a sci-fi space opera {nm} Aug 03, 16:41
At this moment it time - but the moment someone volunteers to run it - it comes back {nm} Aug 04, 04:08
Yeah, the lack of COMIC was what lead me to looking at SciFi as an option. {nm} Aug 03, 19:05
They are still two distinct funds The lack of a BRITS fund doesn't mean EURO could invest in British StarBonds. {nm} Aug 03, 19:47
+1 {nm} Aug 03, 19:55
You're complaining about 1 share. Maybe SCIFI investing in FMRON is an error. Doesn't mean all rules are off. {nm} Aug 03, 21:11
almost as dumb as you Aug 03, 20:12
