Major owners of US companies basically choose the CEOs and have a say on everything they want to.
For instance, msft CEO is on the board of directors of starbucks. And everything is like that in blackrock/vanguard galaxy. It is public info on internet, and you can start on wikipedia.
Then it is more the other way around which is unlikely to have any truth to it: it would be hardly believable that actual owners of big tech companies do not have any say to big tech steering.
There is some kind of exception: amazon, still mostly own my Mr Bezos, then driven by himself. Once he sells his shares, vanguard and blackrock will become the actual owners of amazon (they are right behind Bezos)... but I don't know what kind of relationship between him and vanguard/blackrock (you would have needed heavy investment to build amazon from somewhere and "be chosen" to get the money to be able to do that).
Blackrock and Vanguard didn’t choose Tim Cook, Jobs did. Sundar Pichai was chosen by Larry and Sergei, who still have control of the voting shares in Google.
Even if they did have the power to fire one of these CEOs, that doesn’t give them any leverage at all over small details like browser strategy, because their only option would to replace the CEO with someone who understands much less about the company. I.e. they can really only do anything if the CEO is manifestly failing.
Honestly your argument doesn’t work, and doesn’t reflect shareholder influence.
When I say those people are their own, I meant they do implement what the owners of the company want.
It is actually your argument which does not work: no one would believe the actual owners have no saying about to where and how _theirs_ companies are steered.
msft is using blink already, I would not be surprised to see apple align on that. But they have to care about anti-trust stuff, financing geeko may not be enough.
Actually, it is the other way around, you would have to give evidence that major owners of big techs companies (blackrock/vanguard) don't do anything at steering the companies... which they own... and one of the efficient ways is to push forward a CEO they "own".
I am not the one on the unbelievable side here, mate.
Why do you thing msft CEO is at starbucks board, and you can look deeper via internet public info and this habit of CEOs members of the board of the other companies which are owned by the same companies is kind of smelly and not an sole case. This behavior is not limited to blackrock/vanguard and the USA, you know the cumulative wages are very "motivational", but it gives good hints at who belongs a CEO.
If I recall properly, vanguard is usually the biggest major owner something like between 10% and 20% and blackrock not far behind, but the percentage is stable among most companies I did check, and in most cases (exception with amazon in which Mr Bezos has still control). But they are THE major owners in control and that almost EVERYWHERE.
As I said, this is public info on internet, you can start on wikipedia but you have web sites (which work even without google blink/geeko or apple webkit, aka absurdely and grotesquely massive and complex web engines) which reference the same info (A quick search on google... lol). You can do easily your research (I wish EU companies were as "search-enabled" than the US companies).
Another stinking stuff, hard to find, then it would require to get more verifications, would be some giga-fishy "debts" sucking out a company profits: one day I got a site with starbucks gigantic "debts" sucking out tons of money out via chronic interest rates: some of those debts were most in us currency, but some not (japanese yen as far as I can recall). I will keep that in mind for any further digging.
> If I recall properly, vanguard is usually the biggest major owner something like between 10% and 20% and blackrock not far behind
Wrong.
Just as you are wrong about Blackrock or Vanguard having the ability to fire Google’s CEO, or having chosen Apple’s CEO. I note that you continue to evade this point despite it being central to your reasoning.
Why make these silly conspiratorial arguments if they can be debunked using easily googled facts? Why double down when you’ve been caught out? Are you just hoping people won’t check?
For instance, msft CEO is on the board of directors of starbucks. And everything is like that in blackrock/vanguard galaxy. It is public info on internet, and you can start on wikipedia.
Then it is more the other way around which is unlikely to have any truth to it: it would be hardly believable that actual owners of big tech companies do not have any say to big tech steering.
There is some kind of exception: amazon, still mostly own my Mr Bezos, then driven by himself. Once he sells his shares, vanguard and blackrock will become the actual owners of amazon (they are right behind Bezos)... but I don't know what kind of relationship between him and vanguard/blackrock (you would have needed heavy investment to build amazon from somewhere and "be chosen" to get the money to be able to do that).