So version it in a repo e.g. on Github, and ensure continuity in the DJIA index from one version to the next on the date the version is committed. We have technology, we should use it.
I could add a clause that says if a share splits its weight gets multiplied accordingly, and that would have the effect of (a) DJIA stays continuous now (b) DJIA stays continuous through next split. It doesn't disrupt anything now, and prevents future inadvertent disruptions.
Anyone that is insisting we shouldn't change it is stuck in a backward age. Honestly I don't understand why there are so many no-sayers on HN. We should be building the future, not making excuses.
The index you're describing has already been created by Charles Schwab as SCHV in 2009 (and SPCH in 2005 for the S&P, and ...). There are already new indexes -- lots of them. DJIA is useful because it's an index calculated using the same metric for over a hundred years, so you can track performance for reporting and public perception.
> so you can track performance for reporting and public perception
Well you can't track performance if splits wreak havoc on it. Garbage in, garbage out. So __at least__ fix that by adjusting weight when splits happen. THEN you can track performance for reporting.
I could add a clause that says if a share splits its weight gets multiplied accordingly, and that would have the effect of (a) DJIA stays continuous now (b) DJIA stays continuous through next split. It doesn't disrupt anything now, and prevents future inadvertent disruptions.
Anyone that is insisting we shouldn't change it is stuck in a backward age. Honestly I don't understand why there are so many no-sayers on HN. We should be building the future, not making excuses.