| |
| ▲ | paxys 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Hence the mention of "individual". Blackrock, Vanguard etc. don't own the shares themselves, but rather manage mutual funds/index funds/ETFs that millions of people participate in. Otherwise these few companies are the largest holders of basically every security in existence. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Interestingly, the US Govt. is also not "an individual human" and Softbank and Nvidia are both publicly traded companies. > Otherwise these few companies are the largest holders of basically every security in existence. Indeed. Due to inclusion of Intel in S&P500 index funds and ETFs. Together, institutional investors own over 50% of Intel Corporation, giving them a significant collective influence on major board decisions. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/67-institutional-ownership-in... | | |
| ▲ | paxys 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Big difference between the two. A company can own lots of things (assets, IP, real estate, share of other companies), but shareholders of the company don't own or have direct access to that thing. If Intel pays dividends, it will go to Nvidia, not you. If Intel holds a shareholder vote, Nvidia leadership will be the one voting, and they don't have to listen to your opinion. They can also change or sell the holding without your permission. If you own shares of Intel through a Vanguard fund, you do have actual ownership of Intel. You can cast a vote same as every other shareholder. The dividend they issue will be passed on to you. Vanguard is simply acting as a proxy. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Don’t disagree. I think the point I’m trying to make is that the idea of “individual investor” captures a range of attributes, but some of which are also shared by non-individuals or are not shared with “individual humans”. So I generally think wha is more useful is saying in what particular ways “individual investor” is meant when it is used in debate, decision-making, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | hbarka 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Interestingly, the US Govt. is also not "an individual human" The individual human called Citizens United is casting a side eye. | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | mitthrowaway2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who controls the votes? I don't think most ETFs pass voting rights to their owners. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | brokensegue 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ownership through funds shouldn't count | | |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | For sure, it’s just a common conspiracy theory boogeyman from people who don’t know how ETFs work. | | |
| ▲ | alecco 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) team votes even in the name of ETF holders who don't specify their preferences. There are plenty of controversies after reviews of their voting like "voted against a record 91% of all shareholder proposals — and against 93% of those focused on environmental and social issues" (2023). That's from the 2nd result in a simple web search. | | |
| ▲ | ChadNauseam 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why is that controversial? Is it expected that the majority of shareholder proposals would be things that you would be criticized for not voting for? It's a bit like saying that someone voted against 91% of bills in congress. That could be good if they were bad bills! | | |
|
|
|
|
