NBS
It amazes me how often I see Vanguard and BlackRock conspiracy nonsense when 99% of the data being discussed is publicly available in online.
Vanguard and BlackRock are asset managers, the owners are the account holders, aka the customers. I own some VTI, a Vanguard ETF, therefore I’m a part owner like most Americans.
I’m not defending BlackRock, but so many are quick to just say “They control the world!” with zero data or understanding of the corporate structure. It’s all online. For free.
NBS
Good point and totally agree. Custodians technically own it all on behalf of others.
![GreyKnight33 [TX]](https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/6459-48-20220819211401.webp){kind=small}
GreyKnight33 [TX]
@NBS true, conspiracy nuts love to blow things out of proportion i guess to attract attention (then sell seeds or God knows what else), but having massive ownership so heavily diversified gives significant influence in policy setting for each company. plus, it can serve to push an agenda and spark more consumerism. now one can play scientist with the markets without recourse. enact some wild policy, ppl react and buy your other product. sounds like the perfect monopoly
NBS
BlackRock doesn’t own the shares it holds, the customers who invest in those funds do. Buy a BlackRock ETF and watch your mail, you’ll get a letter or email about voting rights and it’s illegal for BlackRock to not provide you this notice. You can allow proxy voting, but you have to sign off on this specifically.
So BlackRock at best has a large minority ownership in some corporations, and can’t enact change Willy Nilly.
![Matt Hamilton [Maryland]](https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/2324-48-20230922010214.webp){kind=small}
Matt Hamilton [Maryland]
@NBS @greyknight33 Small technicality, what customers/investors own is a contract for beneficial rights, not the shares themselves. And to be even more technical, BlackRock doesn't own the shares either; most stocks are owned by Cede & Co. So unless BlackRock specifically recalls shares and takes them out of the DTC/street name, Cede & Co (/DTC/prime brokers) own the shares and is who the SEC has a mandate to protect.
Matt Hamilton [Maryland]
@NBS @greyknight33 I agree with your point too, Blackrock, Vanguard, and individual prime brokers aren't shadow entities running the corporations they hold shares for.
The DTCC (collection of prime brokers) is the true shadow entity that holds all the shares/power, and like any good shadow entity, 99.9% of people don't even know they exist.
Matt Hamilton [Maryland]
@greyknight33 @NBS for all investors know, this happens all the time. There are many historical instances where corporations received more votes than there are shares during annual votes. This means that there are phantom shares floating around among the prime brokers (illegal naked short-selling) which are unbacked by bonafide shares.
Here's a clip from Eagletech CEO in 2006. Nothing about market structure has changed since then. Reg SHO is a joke.
GreyKnight33 [TX]
@eriner @NBS sorry, reading these and replying in chronological order.
kinda blew my mind a bit here as i didn't really think about it. so what event would cause certificate depository to say "eff you all 'shareholders', we are cutting you off"? kinda feels like an event that triggers that is the end of all investor trust. seems like cede & co is more interested in the commissions for transctions.
GreyKnight33 [TX]
@eriner @NBS your definition of rental is not true, a rental is never the renter's property. renter is paying for right to use.
correct me if i'm wrong but isn't cede & co profiting on commissions or some kind of transaction fees? if so, high liquidity is in their best interest.
Matt Hamilton [Maryland]
@greyknight33 @NBS No, you're not renting them. Renting would imply that they're temporarily your property, which isn't the case.
Unless you directly register shares in your own name at the issuer's transfer agent, Cede & Co. (the DTC) owns the shares. They have a contract with the broker, and the broker has a contract with you (to proxy your vote and pay you dividends).
Another way to think about it, if they "steal" your shares, they haven't legally stolen them; they've violated a contract.
GreyKnight33 [TX]
@eriner @NBS hhmm this is a good point. so really, you just have a right to the shares and the certificate depository actually owns them. so in essence you are renting them?
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.