[darawk]

> Limit the voting power of corporate shares held by index managers. But such a step would, in substance, transfer voting rights from corporate stock owners, who care about the long-term, to corporate stock renters, who do not... an absurd outcome.

This sounds like the most viable strategy to me. Just don't let index funds vote. I don't understand his objection at all. The index fund managers are not long term investors in these corporations. The people who own the index's shares are, and they are deferring their votes to the managers right now.

[xkjkls]

Exactly. Once an index fund is making active decisions about the management of a company, it's no longer a passive investment vehicle (though they never really are in the first place, given indexes like the S&P 500 are decided by a committee).

[walshemj]

How long has AT&T been in the dow jones index or IBM or Coca Cola ?

[darawk]

A long time. What are you getting at?

[walshemj]

So index funds would have to hold AT&T long term.

[darawk]

Did you read what I said about that?

> The index fund managers are not long term investors in these corporations. The people who own the index's shares are, and they are deferring their votes to the managers right now.