[sylware]

It has to be the major share holders, or they cannot push their ppl at the head of the company and steer it strongely the way they want. And it seems that some of those ppl can be members of several boards at the same time.

On the companies I had a look at, vanguard + blackrock is usually ~30% and both are usually the biggest share holders.

For instance, amazon, vanguard + blackrock are not in control because, one, there is the azur fund which has a bigger part, two, JB has a massive part of the shares, JB is explicitely in control here.

What I could read from the net vanguard and blackrock are still small in tesla compared to musk, so until he sells to them most of his shares, he is still the capitain on board. In the end, we cannot tell if musk is one of them.

[kasey_junk]

Can you sight which companies where Vanguard + Blackrock is more than 30% of the ownership? That would require a few things a) they be very big components of the index b) they’d have to be in several very popular indexes. Structurally that would be huge Nasdaq listed firms. That would get them into the us total market indexes, s&p 1000/500 indexes and the Nasdaq/qqq indexes. That’s literally just going to be Amazon, Apple, Msft, Alphabet & Meta. Vanguard/Blackrock own no more than 12% combined in any of those companies and the range is between 9-12% for all of them. A 30% ownership stake would be structurally strange.

There is also a pretty major flaw in your conspiracy theory. Vanguard and Blackrock are competitors…

Do you have a threshold for what counts as a “major shareholder”?

How do Fidelity, T Rowe Price and Northern Trust fit into the picture? Are they part of the cabal or on the outside looking in?

Also, what happens when Vanguard & Blackrock fund holders get to vote their shares? Both have dramatically increased that capability and have major plans for expansion of it next year…

[sylware]

If you don't want to understand (calling that conspiracy) that the biggest shalerholders, and to a certain extend major shareholders, of a company get to decide on CEO/board members/Management teams, then do decide where this company is going, I cannot do much about it.

[kasey_junk]

You implied a much stronger statement to that before being called on it.

“starbucks, a vanguard/blackrock company, with msft CEO has massive debts and stabucks is paying huge interests all year long”

That implies way more than those companies are influencing the boards.

You only backed off when your basic “facts” were called out. Everyone agrees that big shareholders have influence, so besides that what are your claims?

[sylware]

"That implies way more than those companies are influencing the boards.", you mean that based on the pertinence of those debts to the company business (and the identity of their creditors), a regulatory administration could decide if it is some tax evasion scheme or something else?