Uh… No? BlackRock is a fairly passive company. They “own” so much because people buy they ETFs and mutual funds which buy stock in everything. You’re basically saying get rid of pension funds, 401ks and retail investors because those are largely the people using BlackRock and Vanguard funds.
You get rid of those, now you’re left with rich people as the only shareholders for everything.
It’s kind of a problem that they own the stock. It’s not the people that own the ETFs or mutual funds that get to vote with the shares. Instead, a company gets to amass that power using other people’s money.
I don’t know what a good solution is, but it’s very much a problem.
I don’t know how it all works, but I did see on Vanguard there’s an option to change how vanguard votes on your behalf. There’s the default of “maximum profit”, but there’s also “long term stability” and “ethical” (not the exact names). I don’t think every company has options like that, but they probably should, if we’re going to keep this kind of thing around at all.
If you use vanguard, go see what your options are.
Egan-Jones Wealth-Focused Policy
[…] This policy by rule rejects proposals based on environmental, social, or political considerations unless they directly contribute to revenue generation at the company receiving the proposal.
This policy by rule rejects proposals based on environmental, social, or political considerations unless they directly contribute to revenue generation at the company receiving the proposal.
The fact that it exists and they’re making a whole thing of letting you opt out of doing that, tells you a lot about what the standard practice in the industry is.
None of them look super good though
Yeah there’s no option for genuine environmental or social activism, just one that follows some other investment company’s ostensibly ethical voting strategy. Again, this speaks TONS about the Epstein class running these funds, that they’re scared that giving such an option might result in people actually taking it.
The insidious part is that this type of fund manager doesn’t care anything about what each company actually does or even their long-term future, they’re driven entirely by what will get them their bonuses for this year. It’s why we get enshittification. CEOs who don’t deliver YoY growth get voted out in favour of ones who will.
Uh… No? BlackRock is a fairly passive company. They “own” so much because people buy they ETFs and mutual funds which buy stock in everything. You’re basically saying get rid of pension funds, 401ks and retail investors because those are largely the people using BlackRock and Vanguard funds.
You get rid of those, now you’re left with rich people as the only shareholders for everything.
It’s kind of a problem that they own the stock. It’s not the people that own the ETFs or mutual funds that get to vote with the shares. Instead, a company gets to amass that power using other people’s money.
I don’t know what a good solution is, but it’s very much a problem.
I don’t know how it all works, but I did see on Vanguard there’s an option to change how vanguard votes on your behalf. There’s the default of “maximum profit”, but there’s also “long term stability” and “ethical” (not the exact names). I don’t think every company has options like that, but they probably should, if we’re going to keep this kind of thing around at all.
If you use vanguard, go see what your options are.
Edit: think I found it https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/about-our-funds/proxy-voting-across-funds/investor-choice.html#policy-options
None of them look super good though
This might be the most evil thing I’ve learned about this year.
The fact that it exists and they’re making a whole thing of letting you opt out of doing that, tells you a lot about what the standard practice in the industry is.
Yeah there’s no option for genuine environmental or social activism, just one that follows some other investment company’s ostensibly ethical voting strategy. Again, this speaks TONS about the Epstein class running these funds, that they’re scared that giving such an option might result in people actually taking it.
A 401(k) is a magical process wherein one person invests money in the stock market, but another person controls their stockholder voting privileges.
The insidious part is that this type of fund manager doesn’t care anything about what each company actually does or even their long-term future, they’re driven entirely by what will get them their bonuses for this year. It’s why we get enshittification. CEOs who don’t deliver YoY growth get voted out in favour of ones who will.
Looking at your down votes here I don’t think you are correct.