> these equity-investors, do they use their own money to buy the (presumably non-voting) stocks?

Yes [1].

> Nobody's pension would be affected by some private investor losing money on a bad investment

...pensions also invest in the stock market.

> if that's not the case, then someone somewhere along the chain is acting as a bank, subject to a vibe-driven run

You're confusing deeply unrelated concepts. Whether or not someone who loses money is politically sympathetic has nothing to do with whether they're at risk of a bank run.

[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/20260319/html/f22...

▲

za_creature an hour ago | parent [-]

I made no mention of anyone being politically sympathetic or otherwise. A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout. The argument for government bailouts used to be that "grandpa would lose his pension", I merely stated the terms that would make this non-applicable.

If pensions invest in the stock market, then they are de-facto acting as a bank. And last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so [please don't do this based on this post alone].

▲

JumpCrisscross 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

> A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout

What does this mean? Who do you think benefits from a bailout?

> If pensions invest in the stock market

Pensions are private investors. And pensions invest in all kinds of things. Plenty are already shareholders in these companies.

> last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so

This is a non sequitur. Nobody disputed this. And 401(k)s are not pensions.

	▲	za_creature 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> 401(k)s are not pensions. Go touch grass