No, the point is that if the fund hasn't been sued for the past few decades of its existence for holding non-well known companies (or whatever your definition of "blue chip is"), they're probably not going to get sued for holding x holdings, inc.
I think that could be the point if the question was "Will the fund be sued for [...]?" but the question was "Can the fund be sued for [...]?", which likely was intended to ask if such a lawsuit could reasonably be expected to win.
It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible.
That said, I don't see many entities with the will and funding to pursue this lawsuit. The SEC has way more obvious problems to solve than clarifying the definition of "blue chip" in court, institutional investors aren't usually going to pursue a suit on moral outrage, and the average individual has no chance in court against Fidelity's legal team.
>It seems to me that the presence of other even less "blue-chip" holdings in Fidelity's blue chip funds would make a lawsuit more credible, not less credible.
From the prospectus:
>Principal Investment Strategies
> [...]
> Normally investing at least 80% of assets in blue chip companies (companies that, in Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC (FMR)'s view, are well-known, well-established and well-capitalized), which generally have large or medium market capitalizations.
Fidelity has wide latitude to decide what counts as "blue chip". On top of that, even if there are companies that aren't "blue chip", it's fine as they're below 20%.
No. Whataboutism is an attempt to change the topic. "Why are you wasting time on A when B is so much more important?"
The comment you're replying to is more "that reasoning would imply Z, which does not appear to be the case."
(If it was assumed that people already knew about those other companies, then the comment would be more calling out an isolated demand for rigor... which is also not whataboutism despite occasionally being denounced as such.)
> The answer to "can X be sued for Y" is always yes.
...which is why taking that question literally probably isn't being a good listener. If someone is asking a question with an obvious answer if taken literally, probably that means they're not intending to ask that question literally. Yes, they could ask their question more specifically, but it's up to us as listeners to try to understand people too. Communication, famously, is not a one-person activity[1].
Typically I'd assume "can X be sued for Y?" means "can one reasonably hope to win a civil suit against X for Y?" unless I have reason to believe that the speaker is very un-knowledgeable about U.S. law.
