[sylware]

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.

[strawpeople]

> 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?

Your position is simply not based in reality.

[sylware]

Vanguard and blackrock are the major share holders across the whole of big tech.

As I said, this is public info and people can check that whatever you can post on this forum.

And again, I am not on the unbelievable side here, you are: you have to proove this duo which are the major owners in all of big tech, do not have any say in the steering of the companies they _own_.

Edit: I did a quick re-check, 5 minutes of "googling" (lol), and 1 new site brought something new in 2023 the other sites did not put forward for alphabet (unlike for meta/facebook for instance, which I did not mention for this reason), founders are still in control (like metafacebook) because their shares are actually voting super-shares (first time I see that mention for alphabet). So vanguard/blackrock, it's apple/intel/msft/amd/nvidia/etc (starbucks/pepsi...) and you can exclude metafacebook/amazon and very probably alphabet(google), waiting for the other sites to sync on this information though.

Funny, in the context of this news: it would mean alphabet(google) founders are going straight against one critical apple software component which is in control of their own major share holders. Wow, the smell of this is... so filthy...

[strawpeople]

> Vanguard and blackrock are the major share holders across the whole of big tech.

This is simply a false statement. Holding a single digit percentage of a company doesn’t make you “the major shareholder”.

> As I said, this is public info and people can check that whatever you can post on this forum.

They should check, and so should you.

> And again, I am not on the unbelievable side here, you are: you have to proove this duo which are the major owners in all of big tech,

They aren’t ‘major owners’. They own a minority of shares, whether considered together or separately.

> do not have any say in the steering of the companies they _own_

They don’t own the companies.

They own a small percentage of the shares of each of the companies, completely insufficient to win any votes.

I see you’ve walked back your claim about Google now that you’ve checked the facts. At some point hopefully you’ll see that wherever you got this whole argument from, you have been misinformed.

[sylware]

The only thing which _may_ change (need more sources to confirm, since only 1 new site did pop up very recently with that new info) is about alphabet(google) because the other sites were missing the alphabet(google) super voting shares, but I knew it was the case about metafacebook though.

As I said in my previous post, that would make the context of the news even more awkward and weird.

And you are wrong, it does not change anything for all the other companies without "super voting shares" from big tech, actually, it expanded (unless the super voting shares information is missing too for amd, intel, nvidia, etc) and it does not change the fact, again, that you are pushing something that nobody sane would believe: major owners of a company would have no say in the company steering and management?? I am not the stubborn guy here mate, actually, I start to feel sorry for you.

[strawpeople]

> you are pushing something that nobody sane would believe: major owners of a company would have no say in the company steering and management??

No. I’m saying you’re just wrong about them being major owners. If it was true, you’d be able to easily show us some evidence.

Blackrock and Vanguard are minority shareholders in the companies you list and don’t have enough votes to control the boards or fire executives.

You are simply making false claims about who owns these companies. That’s all that’s happening.

[sylware]

And again and again and again (and it is over), you are the one who is not in the believable zone , _YOU_ are to prove _YOUR_ claim that the major owners (which takes 5 minutes of googling to check on several different sites, and which is public info, even the debts as it is significant info for "investors") do NOT have any say in the companies they own.