Wednesday Morning Rant

Pass Through?

An increasingly common theme over the past several years has been the imposition of progressive policies on the business world. There is the normal alphabet soup of acronyms and terms associated with this. DEI and ESG are the most common, but there are also the old standbys of "climate conscious" and similar older phrases that have been displaced by the new DEI/ESG environment. The progression of DEI and ESG through the business world has many causes, but one cause is institutional demands.

It is pointed out endlessly that much of this profit-destroying - and more importantly, culture-destroying - activity is approved by institutional shareholders. When asking, "who owns Company X," the answer "the usual suspects" typically applies. Alphabet's top three shareholders are Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street. Ford's top three are ... Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street. Proctor and Gamble? Same. This is common. Look at any stock and the odds are good that several of a dozen or so companies make appearances in the top 5 shareholders.

Those institutions own the shares, but they don't own those shares for their own benefit or with their own capital. Vanguard isn't sitting on and investing $8 trillion of its own money and assets. The money and assets belong to Vanguard's customers. Vanguard and others like it aggregate their own customers' capital, make investment decisions, etc. - and wind up as the owners of record and gain enormous institutional power because they get to vote those shares as they see fit. The major investment houses get to direct corporate policy across publicly-traded companies, but they don't actually own many shares in their own right.

What would happen if those those votes were transferred to the customers who own the capital? Would a pass-through voting scheme within the investment houses help break institutional power? What would happen if share votes were proportionally allocated to the fund's actual capital owners based on the share of fund capital that the customer owns, then aggregated for final voting by the institution?

For example, the investment house informs its customers of an election, provides the ballot and vote recommendation (they are advisors, after all) and the customer votes or doesn't. For votes returned, the investment house aggregates them to determine how it must vote the shares held by the investment house. For unreturned ballots (the fund investor does not vote), the vote is not cast. If owners of only 25% of a fund's capital return ballots, then only 25% of fund's shares in the company get voted.

Most shares will probably go unvoted in this scheme and institutional power remains where it is, except with more paperwork. Where it would make a potential difference, however, is during controversy. If an investor or interest group wants to see changes in a company's board, they don't have to break the institutions - they just have to market and argue their case to the real shareholders. What changes could we possibly have already seen at the likes of AB-InBev, Meta, Disney and the like if the actual owners of institutional capital got a say in the vote?

It's entirely possible that such a scheme would be a nightmarish disaster with loads of unintended consequences that make everything worse, even possibly concentrating institutional power thanks to non-returned ballots. There are many obvious potential downsides to a change like this, and likely a whole mess of liability that would need to be sorted out, and plenty of opportunity for fraud.

But pass-through voting or something like it could possibly help break the institutional stranglehold on corporate governance. What else might?

Posted by: Joe Mannix at 11:00 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 1st

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at April 03, 2024 11:00 AM (9yWhg)

2 Hey, Joe Mannix! I'll cull the otters.

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at April 03, 2024 11:01 AM (9yWhg)

3 corgis called

Posted by: SturmToddler at April 03, 2024 11:01 AM (nXhwP)

4 Mannix!

Posted by: Doof at April 03, 2024 11:01 AM (JunzL)

5 Otters culled.

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at April 03, 2024 11:02 AM (9yWhg)

6 This all sounds suspiciously like math...

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at April 03, 2024 11:03 AM (7fElN)

7 I'll have to start taking disbursements from my Vanguard acct next year.

Posted by: BignJames at April 03, 2024 11:03 AM (AwYPR)

8 But pass-through voting or something like it could possibly help break the institutional stranglehold on corporate governance. What else might?

Firing squads for substandard returns?

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:04 AM (CsUN+)

9 But pass-through voting or something like it could possibly help break the institutional stranglehold on corporate governance. What else might?

Stoning, impalement, being rolled down a hill into the river in a barrel filled with nails.

The options are infinite.

Posted by: G'rump928(c) at April 03, 2024 11:04 AM (aD39U)

10 Wasn’t it Larry Fink of BlackRock who said “we must force behaviors to change?”

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:04 AM (8sMut)

11 Firing squads for substandard returns?
Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:04 AM

Cut. Jib. Newsletter?

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 03, 2024 11:04 AM (5sOEG)

12 Your point is valid, but the complexity of voting those shares makes it almost impossible.

For instance, an S&P 500 index fund might have 100,000 subscribers. The investment company would have to provide access for 50,000,000 votes.

That's a lot!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:05 AM (gSZYf)

13 Firing squads for substandard returns?
Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:04 AM (CsUN+)
++++
If there's one thing that *shouldn't* be used to determine a death sentence, it's probably the Lipper Average.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:05 AM (HnUIn)

14 That's a lot!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:05 AM (gSZYf)

They can use computers!

Posted by: G'rump928(c) at April 03, 2024 11:06 AM (aD39U)

15 A lot, I would go so far as to say the vast majority, of the problems we have today are from the principal-agent problem.

The people who make decisions are insulated from the cost of those decisions and the people who pay the cost of the decisions have their power (and costs) diluted so there is not much they can do.

In shorter terms, EVERYHING is too big. Governments, companies, cities, etc...

Posted by: Formerly Virginian at April 03, 2024 11:06 AM (JMAcK)

16 Your point is valid, but the complexity of voting those shares makes it almost impossible.

For instance, an S&P 500 index fund might have 100,000 subscribers. The investment company would have to provide access for 50,000,000 votes.

That's a lot!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:05 AM (gSZYf)
++++
It is, and most of the times the shares will go unvoted. But those with larger holdings will also be more inclined to vote.

I have no idea if it's a good idea or not. Just a thought experiment.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:06 AM (HnUIn)

17 Don’t forget the insidious nature of “stakeholder capitalism”. Socialism by another, more flowery name.

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:07 AM (8sMut)

18 Also, in shorter terms: I don't think returning the vote to the individual share holders will fix the issue.

Posted by: Formerly Virginian at April 03, 2024 11:07 AM (JMAcK)

19 For votes returned, the investment house aggregates them to determine how it must vote the shares held by the investment house.

something something counts them something

Posted by: that stalin fellow at April 03, 2024 11:07 AM (v3pYe)

20 Don’t forget the insidious nature of “stakeholder capitalism”. Socialism by another, more flowery name.
Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:07 AM (8sMut)
++++
"Stakeholder capitalism" doesn't exist. It's a nonsense term created by communists who want to control resources they do not own.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:07 AM (HnUIn)

21 In shorter terms, EVERYHING is too big. Governments, companies, cities, etc...
Posted by: Formerly Virginian

Penguins

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at April 03, 2024 11:07 AM (9yWhg)

22 I would rather be ruled by Penguins than Black Rock.

Posted by: G'rump928(c) at April 03, 2024 11:08 AM (aD39U)

23 Quorum rules around small scale investors?

Posted by: TJM's phone at April 03, 2024 11:08 AM (DoYii)

24 14 That's a lot!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:05 AM (gSZYf)

They can use computers!

indeed.

Posted by: chatgpt, hallucinatory vote counter at April 03, 2024 11:10 AM (v3pYe)

25 I have no idea if it's a good idea or not. Just a thought experiment.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:06 AM (HnUIn)

Oh, I think it is a very good idea. Obviously there would be lunatics voting for the most insane directors, but the majority of Americans are reasonably level-headed.

The issue I think (aside from the monstrous technical ones) would be overt politicking on the part of the investment companies to sign away those votes to their "professional" managers.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:10 AM (gSZYf)

26 The issue I think (aside from the monstrous technical ones) would be overt politicking on the part of the investment companies to sign away those votes to their "professional" managers.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:10 AM (gSZYf)
++++
Proxies exist today. Proxies are also revocable.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:11 AM (HnUIn)

27 1) Limit all corporations to no more than 10k in shares.

2) Eliminate the step-up basis on inherited business assets.

3) ban corporations from buying back their stock.

#1 is what allows corporations to ignore shareholders
#2 would force regular sales, keeping pressure on the corporations
#3 would prevent corporations from stock manipulation, especially driving down prices to take the corporation private. And force them to invest in the business, not the stock-- like they have been doing for the last 20 years.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 03, 2024 11:12 AM (ckmow)

28 Vanguard, Blackrock and State colluded to put 2 or 3 green board members on Exxon. What other companies are they salting with people afflicted by the mind virus?

Posted by: Braenyard at April 03, 2024 11:12 AM (khb+X)

29 You know how the Big Guy is outraged by the deaths of seven semi-innocent people in Gaza? Yeah, well . . .

Guy Benson
@guypbenson
Context: When news broke that the US had accidentally droned an innocent family to death in Kabul, amid the deadly chaos of Biden’s Afghanistan abandonment, the president went to the beach for the weekend — leaving military officials to make the announcement & deal with the fallout.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:12 AM (FVME7)

30 I’m well past the “conservative principles” stuff. I want 90% tax rates on billionaires and whatever it takes to blow up companies like Vanguard. Unintended consequences be damned.

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:13 AM (4+s9S)

31 Oh, I think it is a very good idea. Obviously there would be lunatics voting for the most insane directors, but the majority of Americans are reasonably level-headed.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:10 AM (gSZYf)

People do tend to become more level-headed when it's their ox which stands to be gored.

Posted by: I used to have a different nic at April 03, 2024 11:13 AM (IUd0M)

32 If you’re stupid enough to be in Gaza right now I have zero sympathy if you die.

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:14 AM (4+s9S)

33 ... #3 would prevent corporations from stock manipulation, especially driving down prices to take the corporation private. And force them to invest in the business, not the stock-- like they have been doing for the last 20 years.
Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 03, 2024 11:12 AM (ckmow)
++++
Share buybacks are almost always a case of failure of executive leadership and/or a means to offload employee compensation.

If your company has enough money for a buyback, it has money to do something more sensible like invest in the business. If there are no good opportunities for investment, that is what dividends are for. If you have the money to buy your own shares and stick them in the corporate treasury to subsequently hand out as stock-based compensation, you have the money to pay a dividend and reward your owners instead.

And if you're debt-financing your share buybacks, I think you should go to prison for failing your fiduciary responsibility.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:15 AM (HnUIn)

34 Remind me again what this cockamamie bullshit like ESG means.

Posted by: Dr. Bone at April 03, 2024 11:15 AM (e47Rz)

35 That's a lot!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:05 AM

Like a ple-THOR-a??

Posted by: Doof at April 03, 2024 11:16 AM (JunzL)

36 Remind me again what this cockamamie bullshit like ESG means.
Posted by: Dr. Bone at April 03, 2024 11:15 AM (e47Rz)
++++
"Environmental, social, governance."

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:16 AM (HnUIn)

37 Proxies exist today. Proxies are also revocable.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:11 AM (HnUIn)

I vote every share I can, but I am not typical. Most people sign away their votes and then promptly forget about them...forever.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:17 AM (gSZYf)

38 I frequently get communications from my investments asking me to vote for people or issues. The problem is that I have no idea who those people are, and I assume the issues are presented in such a way that you are inclined to vote for whatever the current board wants. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, since there usually isn't enough time in the day or transparency for me to make an informed choice.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:17 AM (CsUN+)

39 "What would happen if those those votes were transferred to the customers who own the capital? Would a pass-through voting scheme within the investment houses help break institutional power? What would happen if share votes were proportionally allocated to the fund's actual capital owners based on the share of fund capital that the customer owns, then aggregated for final voting by the institution?"

This is mostly something they're already trying to implement.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy - The Republic is already dead! at April 03, 2024 11:17 AM (eYoxG)

40 This is mostly something they're already trying to implement.
Posted by: Red Turban Someguy - The Republic is already dead! at April 03, 2024 11:17 AM (eYoxG)
++++
Who are "they?"

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:18 AM (HnUIn)

41 40 ++++
Who are "they?"
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:18 AM (HnUIn)

====

The same people who gave Kramer ghonnorea?

Posted by: TJM's phone at April 03, 2024 11:19 AM (DoYii)

42 "What would happen if those those votes were transferred to the customers who own the capital? Would a pass-through voting scheme within the investment houses help break institutional power? What would happen if share votes were proportionally allocated to the fund's actual capital owners based on the share of fund capital that the customer owns, then aggregated for final voting by the institution?"

This is mostly something they're already trying to implement.

That sounds like it should be trivial to do. What's the holdup?

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:19 AM (CsUN+)

43 I assume the issues are presented in such a way that you are inclined to vote for whatever the current board wants. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, since there usually isn't enough time in the day or transparency for me to make an informed choice.
Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:17 AM (CsUN+)
---
Yep. Undoubtedly the language they use is designed to elicit a specific response. You are probably voting for the complete opposite of what you really want.

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at April 03, 2024 11:19 AM (7fElN)

44 27 1) Limit all corporations to no more than 10k in shares.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 03, 2024 11:12 AM (ckmow)

This'd make shares of Apple $260 million apiece. It defeats the purpose of a lot of the stock market if everything on it is highly illiquid.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy - The Republic is already dead! at April 03, 2024 11:20 AM (eYoxG)

45 That sounds like it should be trivial to do. What's the holdup?
Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:19 AM (CsUN+)
++++
It's non-trivial, but by no means impossible. Technically, it would be challenging.

I'd be more interested in the rules involved internally. What happens with unvoted shares? Is the election binding for the investment house?

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:20 AM (HnUIn)

46 And the Brits killed in gaza were/are called 'semi'-mercenaries. No, I don't feel sorry for them. Hope they got paid well

Posted by: Truck Monkey Report at April 03, 2024 11:20 AM (ZV+pB)

47 On the third hand, I am invested in about 12 different funds between my 401k, 457 and 403b. What a pain in the ass to be constantly pestered about voting every time one of the companies involved with those funds has a shareholder meeting or vote.

Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at April 03, 2024 11:21 AM (jtTfW)

48 This'd make shares of Apple $260 million apiece.

Hang on.
*checks sofa cushions*
Nah, I'll have to pass on this one.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:21 AM (CsUN+)

49 That's a lot!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:05 AM

Like a ple-THOR-a??
Posted by: Doof at April 03, 2024 11:16 AM

Would you say he has a plethora of proxies?

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 03, 2024 11:21 AM (5sOEG)

50 40 This is mostly something they're already trying to implement.
Posted by: Red Turban Someguy - The Republic is already dead! at April 03, 2024 11:17 AM (eYoxG)
++++
Who are "they?"
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:18 AM (HnUIn)

Blackrock and Vanguard. Don't know about State Street.

To be more precise, they're trying to give fund voting control to investors in those funds.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy - The Republic is already dead! at April 03, 2024 11:22 AM (eYoxG)

51 I'm not sure how to solve that problem, since there usually isn't enough time in the day or transparency for me to make an informed choice.
Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:17 AM (CsUN+)

Same on all counts.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette at April 03, 2024 11:22 AM (XjtdB)

52 Break up those companies under anti-trust laws.

Posted by: jj at April 03, 2024 11:22 AM (TCFkS)

53 I assume the issues are presented in such a way that you are inclined to vote for whatever the current board wants.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:17 AM (CsUN+)

I reflexively vote against any board whose company is drifting toward ESG/DEI.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:22 AM (gSZYf)

54 The Big Three should be broken down and their asserts disbursed.
Laws regulating investment houses should be thoroughly reviewed and considered. One institution should not be allowed to control that much of America's assets.

Posted by: Braenyard at April 03, 2024 11:23 AM (khb+X)

55 On the third hand, I am invested in about 12 different funds between my 401k, 457 and 403b. What a pain in the ass to be constantly pestered about voting every time one of the companies involved with those funds has a shareholder meeting or vote.
Posted by: Cat Ass Trophy at April 03, 2024 11:21 AM (jtTfW)
++++
Yup, absolutely. This is one of many reasons that if pass-through voting were to happen, I expect one of three outcomes in most cases:
1. The share is unvoted
2. The vote is ceded via proxy to the investment house
3. The vote is ceded via proxy to a third party that offers assessment and voting as a service to the investor.

The third option would be new, and it's possible that a new market would arise as a result. You could have prog services, conservative services, pro-energy, etc. all soliciting the right to cast your vote.

But for the specific controversies like in so many big companies, you could easily take that vote back and cast it yourself. For the things you care about it, vote it. For the things you don't, allocate those votes to someone else. We'd still end up with way more voters as one possible outcome.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:23 AM (HnUIn)

56 The exterminators are here to get rid of the starlings. Hooray!

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at April 03, 2024 11:24 AM (9yWhg)

57 Would you say he has a plethora of proxies?

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 03, 2024 11:21 AM (5sOEG)

I'd give my proxy to a board member who is foxy and has moxie!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:24 AM (gSZYf)

58 To be more precise, they're trying to give fund voting control to investors in those funds.
Posted by: Red Turban Someguy - The Republic is already dead! at April 03, 2024 11:22 AM (eYoxG)
++++
Good. I don't know why they're "trying" instead of just doing it, but I suspect some internal conflict within the investment houses...

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:24 AM (HnUIn)

59 53
I reflexively vote against any board whose company is drifting toward ESG/DEI.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:22 AM (gSZYf)

I should probably reflexively vote no on everything I get a ballot for at this point.

Posted by: NR Pax at April 03, 2024 11:24 AM (lXCUP)

60 42 "What would happen if those those votes were transferred to the customers who own the capital? Would a pass-through voting scheme within the investment houses help break institutional power? What would happen if share votes were proportionally allocated to the fund's actual capital owners based on the share of fund capital that the customer owns, then aggregated for final voting by the institution?"

"This is mostly something they're already trying to implement."

That sounds like it should be trivial to do. What's the holdup?
Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:19 AM (CsUN+)

I think the technical implementation is there. Check Blackrock's voting choice page, has a graphic with the amount currently in the program, and the amount it could theoretically grow to, which appears to be about half of the indexes they operate.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy - The Republic is already dead! at April 03, 2024 11:24 AM (eYoxG)

61 I reflexively vote against any board whose company is drifting toward ESG/DEI.

Same, but I think they've gotten smarter about drawing attention to that since so many people hate it. If you don't know their stance already, they probably won't tell you.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:25 AM (CsUN+)

62 There is a huge backlash against Didn't Earn It going on right now. Discussions of it in quarterly earnings calls are down about 70%. Boycotts work.

Meanwhile, on every stock I own, I vote my shares, and vote against anyone with any history of leftist activism or participation in any government board during a democrat administration. And there are many of them.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:25 AM (lTGtQ)

63 The exterminators are here to get rid of the starlings. Hooray!

Posted by: Bulgaroctonus at April 03, 2024 11:24 AM (9yWhg)

Lost your 20 gauge in that canoe accident?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:25 AM (gSZYf)

64 No company should be worth $1T or manage assets over $1T. Break them up. Google, Vanguard, all of them.

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:25 AM (4+s9S)

65 This 28-year-old Dutch woman is scheduled to be euthanized in May because she is depressed and it's sad how happy she seems about it

https://tinyurl.com/bdh22b9w

Damn that Hipocratic oath! Always keeping people alive!

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:26 AM (FVME7)

66 The problem with the voting is knowing who you are voting for or against.

Posted by: Braenyard at April 03, 2024 11:26 AM (khb+X)

67 Companies will just do what colleges are doing. Rename DEI. Call it "community engagement" or something.

Posted by: brak at April 03, 2024 11:26 AM (25k9m)

68 If you don't know their stance already, they probably won't tell you.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:25 AM (CsUN+)

Absolutely! But the internet is forever.

I take this sh*t seriously, and I really enjoy voting against board members who are budding little fascists.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:26 AM (gSZYf)

69 Damn that Hipocratic oath! Always keeping people alive!
Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:26 AM (FVME7)
++++
There was an episode of "Arrested Development" where the slutty sister was trying to get someone taken off of life support, so she launched a protest outside the hospital. She described it as a "life mill" like it was an outrageous thing.

She now controls policy in many places.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:27 AM (HnUIn)

70 I reflexively vote against any board whose company is drifting toward ESG/DEI.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:22 AM (gSZYf)

Or vote against incumbency (which brings its own dangers, of course).

I recently got an REI ballot (yeah, yeah, I know). I was already going to vote against everyone because REI would prefer every single last part of America be organized like things were in the GDR. It is turning increasingly evil, which is unfortunate. What changed that to a definite was this: I forgot all their names and I don't care. When I saw each of the three candidates had pronouns in their bios, I was done. "Withhold support".

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:27 AM (8sMut)

71 The problem with the voting is knowing who you are voting for or against.

I don't know why, but that reminded me of this:
You see, you know how to *take* the reservation ... And that's really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:27 AM (CsUN+)

72 "Stakeholder capitalism" doesn't exist. It's a nonsense term created by communists who want to control resources they do not own.
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:07 AM (HnUIn)

I'd personally like to see a Stakeholder Republic. Non?

Funny how top down authority doesn't bother them when it's public life where we're supposed to have the opposite.

It's like they hold a looking glass up to everything and turn it into "their truth". Of course we know "their truth" relies solely on whether they have the power or not.

Posted by: ... at April 03, 2024 11:28 AM (LT5J6)

73 Companies will just do what colleges are doing. Rename DEI. Call it "community engagement" or something.
Posted by: brak at April 03, 2024 11:26 AM (25k9m)

Hot new buzzword is holistic. We look at the applicant in a holistic way. Which really means we are still doing affirmative action but it can’t really be proven. DeSean was more holistically good than Matthew. Had nothing to do with race (wink wink).

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:28 AM (4+s9S)

74 When I saw each of the three candidates had pronouns in their bios, I was done. "Withhold support".

Oooo, that's brilliant!

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:29 AM (CsUN+)

75 That term "stakeholder capitalism" (I think) used to mean something different than what I hear now. Used to be, an average American company had a stake in their local community, and in America. So they contributed to local parks or issues, and resisted selling out to China or the globalists.

The "stake" was in their workers' interests and American Liberty. But now the "stakeholder" somehow decided to make Wokeness more important than profit, more important than American Liberty. Or at least it is the globalists that have a "stake" in fundamentally transforming their company and America into a Woke Fascist regime.

"What's good for GE is good for America" (or maybe it was GM?). But now gas cars are out, GM must lose money on every EV, and GE was manipulating numbers for years.

Posted by: illiniwek at April 03, 2024 11:29 AM (Cus5s)

76 This 28-year-old Dutch woman is scheduled to be euthanized in May because she is depressed and it's sad how happy she seems about it

https://tinyurl.com/bdh22b9w

Damn that Hipocratic oath! Always keeping people alive!
Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:26 AM (FVME7)
++++
In 2022, euthanasia comprised 5% of deaths in the Netherlands.

That's shocking, and a society that permits it is not long for this world.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:29 AM (HnUIn)

77 What a pain in the ass to be constantly pestered about voting every time one of the companies involved with those funds has a shareholder meeting or vote.

It's to make you think that your vote is counted and accurately reported.

Posted by: t-bird at April 03, 2024 11:29 AM (wKqZM)

78 I frequently get communications from my investments asking me to vote for people or issues. The problem is that I have no idea who those people are, and I assume the issues are presented in such a way that you are inclined to vote for whatever the current board wants. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, since there usually isn't enough time in the day or transparency for me to make an informed choice.

Posted by: Archimedes

For board members, look at their profile in the annual report. It will show what other boards they are on, and where they have worked in the past, including non-profits. It will also glowingly tell you which presidential task force they participated in, and the years they did so. You already know which party was in power during those years.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:29 AM (lTGtQ)

79 For board members, look at their profile in the annual report. It will show what other boards they are on, and where they have worked in the past, including non-profits. It will also glowingly tell you which presidential task force they participated in, and the years they did so. You already know which party was in power during those years.

Wow, good ideas are cropping up.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:30 AM (CsUN+)

80 It seems to me that even Joe Schmo with a working-class size investment in a couple of retirement funds would own shares in enough companies that he would get so many notices and ballots and other shit that comes along with being a shareholder, that the noise level would be a huge pain in the ass.

Posted by: ballistic at April 03, 2024 11:30 AM (oqH4h)

81 When I saw each of the three candidates had pronouns in their bios, I was done. "Withhold support".

Hell, I had a vendor representative assigned to my account, and when I saw pronouns, I had them assign me a new one.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:31 AM (lTGtQ)

82 It seems to me that even Joe Schmo with a working-class size investment in a couple of retirement funds would own shares in enough companies that he would get so many notices and ballots and other shit that comes along with being a shareholder, that the noise level would be a huge pain in the ass.

I sense an opportunity here. There should be a company that monitors all of these funds, and it should give you a yes or no based solely on your own political views.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:31 AM (CsUN+)

83 It ain't warm out thar.

It ain't dry neither !

Posted by: JT at April 03, 2024 11:32 AM (T4tVD)

84 Hell, I had a vendor representative assigned to my account, and when I saw pronouns, I had them assign me a new one.
Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:31 AM (lTGtQ)
---
So which pronoun were you assigned?

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at April 03, 2024 11:32 AM (7fElN)

85 82 "It seems to me that even Joe Schmo with a working-class size investment in a couple of retirement funds would own shares in enough companies that he would get so many notices and ballots and other shit that comes along with being a shareholder, that the noise level would be a huge pain in the ass."

I sense an opportunity here. There should be a company that monitors all of these funds, and it should give you a yes or no based solely on your own political views.
Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:31 AM (CsUN+)

We'll probably see that in a few years. There's already an option to vote in line with "third-party policies" which is probably currently professional investment groups and maybe some DEI groups. Plenty of room for other groups, like Catholic policy slates or right-wing policy slates.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy - The Republic is already dead! at April 03, 2024 11:34 AM (eYoxG)

86 Dunkirk Redux.

Crisis in the English Channel: Illegal Boat Migration Rose 43% in Britain Over 2023

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:34 AM (FVME7)

87 64 No company should be worth $1T or manage assets over $1T. Break them up. Google, Vanguard, all of them.
Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:25 AM (4+s9S)

More proof (as if I needed more) that Americans are the world's biggest hypocrites and liars. Americans bullshit themselves and the world talking about how much they love capitalism and business. But the truth will always out. America is an increasingly hate-filled Marxist country which is hostile to business and capitalism. (When the government takes in trillions, you get choked up and your heart swells up, swooning. Should they be made smaller? NEVER!!!)

Who determines how big a company should get? YOU? A bunch of Socialists? This is as arbitrary as the minimum wage argument.

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:35 AM (8sMut)

88 So which pronoun were you assigned?

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel

Heh. I made it clear that I considered someone insisting on pronouns wasn't focused on business.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:35 AM (lTGtQ)

89 It ain't warm out thar.

It ain't dry neither !

Posted by: JT at April 03, 2024 11:32 AM (T4tVD)

Yup. It's killing my plans for tomorrow evening!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:36 AM (gSZYf)

90 82 I sense an opportunity here. There should be a company that monitors all of these funds, and it should give you a yes or no based solely on your own political views.

tanned, rested, and ready

Posted by: chatgpt, hallucinatory vote counter at April 03, 2024 11:36 AM (v3pYe)

91 There should be a company that monitors all of these funds, and it should give you a yes or no based solely on your own political views.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:31 AM (CsUN+)

Excellent idea.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:37 AM (gSZYf)

92 There was a longer and more detailed video about this topic that I saw a couple years ago, but can't find now (maybe YouTube banned it?.

Here's a more condensed similar 10-minute video about it:

youtube.com/watch?v=2bOtyHCtItc

Posted by: ShainS -- Blood-Bath-and-Beyond angel investor at April 03, 2024 11:37 AM (3VPky)

93 You really have to watch them like a hawk.
OTOH, Axios apparently doesn't know the difference between "tenet" and "tenant".

What to know: Roivant Social Ventures, which has a key tenant of ESG in its very name, was launched in 2020 when Ramaswamy was still the parent company's CEO. A prior incarnation was called the Roivant Foundation.

“Anti-woke” Vivek Ramaswamy’s former company has DEI initiatives

https://tinyurl.com/jank4k6z

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:37 AM (CsUN+)

94 This lady in her underwear favors limiting conglomerated institutional power, but doesn't know the best way to go about it:
http://tiny.cc/3kzmxz

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:39 AM (HnUIn)

95 It ain't warm out thar.

It ain't dry neither !

Posted by: JT at April 03, 2024 11:32 AM (T4tVD)

Yup. It's killing my plans for tomorrow evening!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 03, 2024 11:36 AM (gSZYf)

"The best laid plans of Mice and Men " and all that jazzola !

Posted by: JT at April 03, 2024 11:39 AM (T4tVD)

96 Stakeholder Capitalism by any other name has been around a long, long time. The above-mentioned GM (and GE for that matter) subsidiaries in Germany helped that country between world wars and even during WW2. Just as Wall Street underwrote the Bolsheviks.
Unlike BlackRock and State St., Vanguard is a private company so no one really knows who their investors are. But it's fun to guess!

Posted by: JBirks at April 03, 2024 11:39 AM (SoeEF)

97 The "stake" was in their workers' interests and American Liberty. But now the "stakeholder" somehow decided to make Wokeness more important than profit, more important than American Liberty. Or at least it is the globalists that have a "stake" in fundamentally transforming their company and America into a Woke Fascist regime.

I hold a passport and it has visas. Yet I hate stakeholder capitalism (simply, Socialism by another flowery name). Besides, why can't profit exist alongside American Liberty?

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:39 AM (8sMut)

98 We'll probably see that in a few years. There's already an option to vote in line with "third-party policies" which is probably currently professional investment groups and maybe some DEI groups. Plenty of room for other groups, like Catholic policy slates or right-wing policy slates.

Posted by: Red Turban Someguy

This is intriguing. I could see a business popping up that monitored board members and rated them on their business success and their leanings. There is already documented evidence of how certain fads are financially detrimental. Just apply these metrics to the few thousand people that sit on the boards of the Russell 2000, and you can easily vote your shares in line with your values.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:40 AM (lTGtQ)

99 Too big to foil.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at April 03, 2024 11:40 AM (63Dwl)

100
More proof (as if I needed more) that Americans are the world's biggest hypocrites and liars. Americans bullshit themselves and the world talking about how much they love capitalism and business. But the truth will always out. America is an increasingly hate-filled Marxist country which is hostile to business and capitalism. (When the government takes in trillions, you get choked up and your heart swells up, swooning. Should they be made smaller? NEVER!!!)

Who determines how big a company should get? YOU? A bunch of Socialists? This is as arbitrary as the minimum wage argument.
Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:35 AM (8sMut)

Ahh muhConsevatibePrinciples. It’s not 2003 anymore man.

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:41 AM (4+s9S)

101 Remind me again what this cockamamie bullshit like ESG means.

Put a chick in it and make her gay and lame.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 03, 2024 11:41 AM (2ocoG)

102 "Stakeholder capitalism" doesn't exist. It's a nonsense term created by communists who want to control resources they do not own.
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:07 AM (HnUIn)

Hence the quotation marks, and my stating that it is in fact Socialism by a newer, more flowery name.

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:41 AM (8sMut)

103 ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:42 AM (CsUN+)

104 Remind me again what this cockamamie bullshit like ESG means.

Put a chick in it and make her gay and lame.
Posted by: Ian S. at April 03, 2024 11:41 AM (2ocoG)
----
That about sums it up.

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at April 03, 2024 11:42 AM (7fElN)

105 This lady in her underwear favors limiting conglomerated institutional power, but doesn't know the best way to go about it:
http://tiny.cc/3kzmxz

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:39 AM (HnUIn)

Ok, so I got here just in time for this. Nice.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at April 03, 2024 11:42 AM (VwHCD)

106 Keep repeating after me:

This is not a systems problem. It's a people problem.

Put in any system you like, if the same people are involved they will find a way to corrupt and turn it like they did the last one.

Posted by: Brother Tim sez Nick Saban for President! at April 03, 2024 11:43 AM (OUMaO)

107 This lady in her underwear favors limiting conglomerated institutional power, but doesn't know the best way to go about it:

She has a bit of an outy, but I'll overlook it.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:43 AM (CsUN+)

108 Put in any system you like, if the same people are involved they will find a way to corrupt and turn it like they did the last one.
Posted by: Brother Tim sez Nick Saban for President! at April 03, 2024 11:43 AM (OUMaO)
++++
Yes, of course. There is no "solving" the human propensity for corruption, vanity, etc.

But the current systems can be reformed and changed.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:44 AM (HnUIn)

109 Fox News
@FoxNews
New York judge says FDNY booing of Letitia James, pro-Trump chants not about politics, 'has to do with race'

-
Men in black dresses. What are you gonna do?

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:45 AM (FVME7)

110 No matter how much you hate them, it isn't enough.

At Insty:
NOT SURPRISING BUT STILL WRONG: JustTheNews published an investigative piece today that shows at least two well-funded and (duh) left-leaning groups are responsible for injecting climate hysteria into news and entertainment. It appears that no narrative is too silly for the MSM to barf out:

“Ahead of the Easter weekend, multiple media outlets reported that chocolate prices are soaring, and according to the coverage, the main culprit driving the inflating costs is climate change.”

There is no data at all that shows cocoa yields have dropped due to climate change, and NPR didn’t even bother to try and find supporting data.

The Guardian, AP, NPR and The Conversation are among the hundreds of media outlets associated with or listed as partners with an organization called Covering Climate Now (CCN), which encourages reporters to insert “climate crisis” narratives into all their stories.

“The group provides advice to reporters on all beats to not only insert a “climate crisis” narrative into every beat, but also how to cover the topic. This includes telling journalists not to platform what it calls “denialists,”

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:45 AM (CsUN+)

111 @FoxNews
New York judge says FDNY booing of Letitia James, pro-Trump chants not about politics, 'has to do with race' ...
Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:45 AM (FVME7)
++++
This is why they prefer minority women to be judges and prosecutors and the like when the Party engages in railroading.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:46 AM (HnUIn)

112 Ahh muhConsevatibePrinciples. It’s not 2003 anymore man.
Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:41 AM (4+s9S)

Ahhh, your Totalitarian principles. It isn't 1984 either, as much as you want to be Big Brother.

So, answer me, who determines how big a business can get? YOU? (The conceit of someone who worships at the altar of Big Government.) A bunch of Socialists? You are smarter and better than everyone else so YOU should be the sole determinant of how big a business should get, am I right?

Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:46 AM (8sMut)

113 This is why they prefer minority women to be judges and prosecutors and the like when the Party engages in railroading.

Ironically, that crowd couldn't make the trains run on time if their lives depended on it.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:47 AM (CsUN+)

114 Governance is kind of a vague word.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot, Jr. at April 03, 2024 11:47 AM (63Dwl)

115 RNC Research
@RNCResearch
In 2022, Biden claimed he had "a plan to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve" after draining it to its lowest level in four decades.
Today, they cancelled that plan because oil is too expensive.

-
I guess it's not all that strategic.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:47 AM (FVME7)

116 Remind me again what this cockamamie bullshit like ESG means.

-

Extortion, Socialism, and Greed.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:48 AM (lTGtQ)

117 hey did you guys see Brianna Wu's tweet in the comments at Insty?!?! (delete space)

https://twitter.com/briannawu/status/ 1775236237562966492

Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 03, 2024 11:48 AM (AcWfM)

118 ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:42 AM (CsUN+)

I thought it was extreme socialist garbage.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at April 03, 2024 11:48 AM (VwHCD)

119 As long as investors continue to let leftist "advisors" hold all the power, ESG, digital currency and DEI is what you get. And everyone must like it because no one has rattled their ivory tower cages. Yet.

Posted by: Jak Sucio at April 03, 2024 11:49 AM (Aoykm)

120 So, answer me, who determines how big a business can get? YOU? (The conceit of someone who worships at the altar of Big Government.) A bunch of Socialists? You are smarter and better than everyone else so YOU should be the sole determinant of how big a business should get, am I right?
Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:46 AM (8sMut)
++++
Not directed at me, but I think the answer is in enforcing antitrust law. Outfits like Google are monopolies, and should be broken up. Network effects (in this case) mean that most subsequent companies will fail and then monopolies will form again and will have to be broken up again, but so be it. There are a lot of monopolies out there and they restrain trade a *lot.* It's already illegal.

But size limits? Nah. I just think having the capital's voting power should probably be in the hands of those who actually own the capital.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:49 AM (HnUIn)

121
So, answer me, who determines how big a business can get? YOU? (The conceit of someone who worships at the altar of Big Government.) A bunch of Socialists? You are smarter and better than everyone else so YOU should be the sole determinant of how big a business should get, am I right?
Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:46 AM (8sMut)

Who am I or the govt to say a company can’t’ 100% of the market? Monopolies are just pure capitalism man. Anti trust laws are communist and tyrannical . Right?

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:50 AM (4+s9S)

122 Trans athlete who went viral for injuring female basketball player has been suspended for "leering at topless girl in changing room"

-
Huh. I guess now he's a man again. At least he's visible.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:50 AM (FVME7)

123 RNCResearch
In 2022, Biden claimed he had "a plan to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve" after draining it to its lowest level in four decades.
Today, they cancelled that plan because oil is too expensive."

What a shockah! Who could have seen that coming?

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 03, 2024 11:50 AM (f547z)

124 ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:42 AM (CsUN+)

I thought it was extreme socialist garbage.

*cough*

Posted by: And at April 03, 2024 11:51 AM (CsUN+)

125 WHAT?? Navy releases factsheet admitting nine "key shipbuilding programs" will be delayed by YEARS

-
Not enough DEI, I guess.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? at April 03, 2024 11:51 AM (FVME7)

126 hey did you guys see Brianna Wu's tweet in the comments at Insty?!?!

Yeah, that'll last about a day until he/she/whatever gets whipped back into line.

Posted by: Oddbob at April 03, 2024 11:52 AM (/y8xj)

127 MuhConservativePronciples is selling the rope to leftists with which they will hang you.

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 11:52 AM (4+s9S)

128 Not directed at me, but I think the answer is in enforcing antitrust law. Outfits like Google are monopolies, and should be broken up. Network effects (in this case) mean that most subsequent companies will fail and then monopolies will form again and will have to be broken up again, but so be it. There are a lot of monopolies out there and they restrain trade a *lot.* It's already illegal.

But size limits? Nah. I just think having the capital's voting power should probably be in the hands of those who actually own the capital.

Posted by: Joe Mannix

I agree. AT&T was broken up because it controlled over 50 percent of the phone system. Goolag controls more than that level in search, and is documented to be twisting the results.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:53 AM (lTGtQ)

129 Unlike BlackRock and State St., Vanguard is a private company so no one really knows who their investors are.
----------------------------------------

Vanguard exists for itself, just like the others, not the investor.

Posted by: Braenyard at April 03, 2024 11:53 AM (khb+X)

130 Biggest problem with pass through voting - how could you ever verify that the vote was what the Corp said it was? The steps required for verification make the process impossible. Even with federal law supposedly covering elections for public office, we can't get that straight.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 03, 2024 11:53 AM (f547z)

131 At Vanguard the old man died and the Zippers took over.

Posted by: Braenyard at April 03, 2024 11:54 AM (khb+X)

132 Yeah, that'll last about a day until he/she/whatever gets whipped back into line.

Dunno, but I'm starting to conclude that the smarter ones on the left know they've gone way too far, and are trying to dial it back, not out of regret for the excesses, but because they want to positions themselves as the left's future leaders.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:54 AM (CsUN+)

133 125 Key shipbuilding delayed. Maybe DEI. You wanted Charles Bronson, you would settle for Rosie the Riveter, and you get some purple haired sumptin with pronouns.

Posted by: bill in arkansas, not gonna comply with nuttin, waiting for the 0300 knock on the door at April 03, 2024 11:55 AM (0EOe9)

134 Dunno, but I'm starting to conclude that the smarter ones on the left know they've gone way too far, and are trying to dial it back, not out of regret for the excesses, but because they want to positions themselves as the left's future leaders.

I think that's what Fettermonster is doing

did you see his staff angrily left due to his support of Israel not laying down to die?

Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 03, 2024 11:55 AM (AcWfM)

135 I think that's what Fettermonster is doing

did you see his staff angrily left due to his support of Israel not laying down to die?

I didn't, but it sounds plausible.

Posted by: Archimedes at April 03, 2024 11:56 AM (CsUN+)

136 You might recall my obsession with putting Prof. Philip Hamburger on SCOTUS. That's because of his book "Is Administrative Law Unlawful?", which (he concludes), it is.

Mannix argues against investment institutions voting shares they actually to not own, but hold as a fiduciary for the benefit of their customers. Institutions like Vanguard argue in response that they vote these shares for the convenience of actual owners, and to reduce administrative costs. After all, it would be expensive to ask people to vote their shares, and burdensome to the owners! They are doing you a favor by not bothering you for your actual opinion.

That's the same reasoning agency government uses with respect to Congress: "Congress is too busy to consider every decision modern government must make!" says the administrative state, "We are doing Congress a favor!".

Of course, the result is retrograde tyranny, where the administrative state presumes to decide every little thing, including what car or toilet or oven you may be permitted to own.

Posted by: The Frumious Follywood at April 03, 2024 11:57 AM (jeqkR)

137 I think that's what Fettermonster is doing

did you see his staff angrily left due to his support of Israel not laying down to die?

Maybe the only recorded case of someone's mental acuity being improved by a stroke. Second look at The Lump?

Posted by: Oddbob at April 03, 2024 11:58 AM (/y8xj)

138 Lol
Corporate profits are at all time record highs, Jo thinks he knows better how to run those companies
Inflation is high because of 3 main reasons high corporate profits not being reinvested in the companies, wages going up because of tight labor market with low unemployment and high energy prices set by Russia and Saudi Arabia

Posted by: Paul (I Like cock) at April 03, 2024 11:58 AM (Th5EE)

139 FWIW, I try to stay away from funds. I will look at what the funds are invested in, but buy my own shares of stock according to my own tastes and desires. Nor do I churn stocks the way the fund companies do, because I'm in it for the long haul. Instead of playing market-timing games, I actually invest.

This is not hard: if you have an investment account - and if you are in stock & equity funds, you do - they have a facility for direct purchase of stocks. Try it; you'll like it!

I get a little inundated with all the corporate shareholder voting notices, but most of those are for the Board of Directors, re-contracting the CPA firm they use, and then the resolutions. I have a pattern to my voting which makes it fairly simple to vote my shares. This way, Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street do NOT represent me.

Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at April 03, 2024 11:59 AM (TOe+Q)

140 Dunno, but I'm starting to conclude that the smarter ones on the left know they've gone way too far, and are trying to dial it back, not out of regret for the excesses, but because they want to positions themselves as the left's future leaders.

I would phrase that as "because the frog figured out the heat's been turned up", but the outcome is the same.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 03, 2024 11:59 AM (2ocoG)

141 LOL, Paul. Who mentioned inflation *or* profitability? This is about control, and where it belongs.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 11:59 AM (HnUIn)

142 I think that's what Fettermonster is doing

did you see his staff angrily left due to his support of Israel not laying down to die?

Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 03, 2024 11:55 AM (AcWfM)

Its possible the stroke destroyed the stupid part of his brain.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at April 03, 2024 11:59 AM (VwHCD)

143 here's a Fetterman link (inky, remove space):

https://www.inquirer.com/politics/clout/ john-fetterman-staffers-joe-cavello-20240329.html

Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 03, 2024 11:59 AM (AcWfM)

144 When the Fettermonster comes out and says all those M4 modern sporting rifles left in Afghanistan should have been sold to American citizens I'll believe him.

Posted by: bill in arkansas, not gonna comply with nuttin, waiting for the 0300 knock on the door at April 03, 2024 12:00 PM (0EOe9)

145 Maybe the only recorded case of someone's mental acuity being improved by a stroke. Second look at The Lump?

I think it was shot-induced and I think he's Big Mad about it now that he's recovered.

he had his Road to Damascus moment

he's an interesting person, not that I trust him really. trust fund babies are not usually terribly stable.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at April 03, 2024 12:01 PM (AcWfM)

146 Zelensky bought another cool new mansion in England, former property of the king! Let's send the prick more money, right?

Posted by: GOP sux at April 03, 2024 12:01 PM (Zzbjj)

147 136 Mannix argues against investment institutions voting shares they actually to not own, but hold as a fiduciary for the benefit of their customers. Institutions like Vanguard argue in response that they vote these shares for the convenience of actual owners, and to reduce administrative costs. After all, it would be expensive to ask people to vote their shares, and burdensome to the owners! They are doing you a favor by not bothering you for your actual opinion.

That's the same reasoning agency government uses with respect to Congress: "Congress is too busy to consider every decision modern government must make!" says the administrative state, "We are doing Congress a favor!".

that's also the reason we have a congress in the first place.

Posted by: anachronda at April 03, 2024 12:02 PM (v3pYe)

148 I agree. AT&T was broken up because it controlled over 50 percent of the phone system. Goolag controls more than that level in search, and is documented to be twisting the results.
Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 11:53 AM

And? AT&T was no use to us.

- The Left

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 03, 2024 12:02 PM (5sOEG)

149 he's an interesting person, not that I trust him really. trust fund babies are not usually terribly stable.

I was being facetious. Unless and until we see much more change in the right direction, he's just another blind squirrel with an acorn.

Posted by: Oddbob at April 03, 2024 12:03 PM (/y8xj)

150 Wow. That Jim Messina guy is one creepy looking character. Like Harry Reid hey kids, jump in the van and I'll give you a puppy creepy.

Posted by: bill in arkansas, not gonna comply with nuttin, waiting for the 0300 knock on the door at April 03, 2024 12:03 PM (0EOe9)

151 Its possible the stroke destroyed the stupid part of his brain.
Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at April 03, 2024 11:59 AM

So it's just the Lump keeping him going now?

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 03, 2024 12:04 PM (5sOEG)

152 Wow. That Jim Messina guy is one creepy looking character.

Yeah, that's why Kenny Loggins dumped him.

Posted by: Oddbob at April 03, 2024 12:04 PM (/y8xj)

153 Its possible the stroke destroyed the stupid part of his brain.
Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at April 03, 2024 11:59 AM

So it's just the Lump keeping him going now?

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 03, 2024 12:04 PM (5sOEG)

He has his Kuato.

Posted by: Berserker-Dragonheads Division at April 03, 2024 12:04 PM (VwHCD)

154 "I hold a passport and it has visas. Yet I hate stakeholder capitalism (simply, Socialism by another flowery name). Besides, why can't profit exist alongside American Liberty?"

Well, I think there should be tariffs or no trade at all with countries using slaves, and countries polluting like crazy. There is a real cost to Liberty and worker rights, and clean air (not talking CO2 nonsense).

So "capitalism" should be subordinate to those things, and that carries a cost.

Posted by: illiniwek at April 03, 2024 12:05 PM (Cus5s)

155 The Lump has assumed control and is on autopilot.

Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at April 03, 2024 12:06 PM (R4t5M)

156 151 It ain't a lump until its a teratoma requiring dental check ups. And barber visits.

Posted by: bill in arkansas, not gonna comply with nuttin, waiting for the 0300 knock on the door at April 03, 2024 12:06 PM (0EOe9)

157 Bloomberg Law, April 2, 2024, 9:37 AM EDT; Updated: April 2, 2024, 11:00 AM EDT: 'Biden Big Bank Exemption Rule for 401(k)s Finalized by DOL (1)'

"Rule clarifies foreign felony policy, sets tough QPAM limits
Major banks, financial institutions oppose DOL restrictions
Wall Street asset managers whose institutions have faced foreign criminal charges will soon find it harder to oversee workplace retirement assets without running afoul of federal benefits law protections.

The US Labor Department has finalized a long-awaited set of stricter conditions on its qualified professional asset manager prohibited transaction exemption, a prized designation big banks and financial advisers use to manage pension assets and 401(k)s.

Major international financial players, including Deutsche Bank AG, UBS Group AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Credit Suisse Group AG, have already been forced to seek individual QPAM exemptions due to foreign crimes under the Biden administration rule. The new rule codifies the president’s subregulatory restrictions.

The final regulation released Tuesday raises the bar for advisers hoping to tap wealthy institutional asset classes..."

Posted by: L - If they do it with you, they'll do it to you, too at April 03, 2024 12:06 PM (GshMh)

158 The Lump has assumed control and is on autopilot.
Posted by: Mr Aspirin Factory, red heifer owner at April 03, 2024 12:06 PM

Do not adjust your senator...

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 03, 2024 12:07 PM (5sOEG)

159 My name is Clarence!

Posted by: The Lump at April 03, 2024 12:08 PM (63Dwl)

160 BTW, I saw Jim Messina play at some dive bar in Corpus Christi around '84-'85. He was in town because his sister (IIRC) was running for some local office.

Posted by: Oddbob at April 03, 2024 12:08 PM (/y8xj)

161 BTW, I saw Jim Messina play at some dive bar in Corpus Christi around '84-'85. He was in town because his sister (IIRC) was running for some local office.
Posted by: Oddbob at April 03, 2024 12:08 PM

We can't process this information until you tell us who he opened for.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState at April 03, 2024 12:10 PM (5sOEG)

162 f 3 main reasons high corporate profits not being reinvested in the companies, wages going up because of tight labor market with low unemployment and high energy prices set by Russia and Saudi Arabia
Posted by: Paul banned at April 03, 2024 11:58 AM (Th5EE)

lol. Russia Russia Russia is back.
Never mind the trillions Joe spent in the past couple of years.

Sad thing is dullards like Paul really believe this shit.

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 12:10 PM (4+s9S)

163 Yeah, that'll last about a day until he/she/whatever gets whipped back into line.
Posted by: Oddbob at April 03, 2024 11:52 AM (/y8xj)

They've been getting whipped for weeks if you check their entire timeline. Not giving in. Yesterday they noted that the current tranny flag is objectively terrible design, and they've been consistent on saying the real root cause of the Gaza situation is UNRWA and others teaching children to hate Jews.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 03, 2024 12:11 PM (2ocoG)

164 Sad thing is dullards like Paul really believe this shit.
Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 12:10 PM (4+s9S)

The selection of which goat to scape doesn't need to make sense. It just needs to be scaped.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at April 03, 2024 12:11 PM (GkFGh)

165 Paul: lemme ax you a question, how come corporations didn’t get greedy until early 2021? How Russia and Saudi Arabia didn’t artificially inflate the price of oil until 2021?

Weird coincidence on timing huh? 🤣🤣

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 12:11 PM (4+s9S)

166 Who determines how big a company should get? YOU? A bunch of Socialists? This is as arbitrary as the minimum wage argument.
Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33
---
Corporations are a legal fiction created at the pleasure of the people. Don't want the people to have a say, don't go public.

Is that some shitty socialism, communism? Yup.

You know what is just as shitty? Corporations big enough to control government, corporations big enough to "partner" with government.

Forcing business--corporate or not-- to stay reasonably small avoids both.

Making money, making profits is NOT inheirently conservative, no matter how many billions the Country Club Republicans pour into that propaganda.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 03, 2024 12:11 PM (I5liq)

167 We can't process this information until you tell us who he opened for.

Pretty sure there was no opener. Also, this was the occasion where I learned that it is possible to get sh*tfaced on Coors Light if your buddy keeps buying.

Posted by: Oddbob at April 03, 2024 12:12 PM (/y8xj)

168 The selection of which goat to scape doesn't need to make sense. It just needs to be scaped.
Posted by: Warai-otoko at April 03, 2024 12:11 PM

We do enjoy the weekly goatscaping.

Posted by: Achmed at April 03, 2024 12:13 PM (5sOEG)

169 So, answer me, who determines how big a business can get? YOU? (The conceit of someone who worships at the altar of Big Government.) A bunch of Socialists? You are smarter and better than everyone else so YOU should be the sole determinant of how big a business should get, am I right?
Posted by: Catch Thirty-Thr33 at April 03, 2024 11:46 AM (8sMut)

I would say that anyone who can see that our culture suffers from massive principal agent problems would be able to determine businesses are too big.

There are myriad causes and very few of them are "market pressures". Most are governmental incentives/costs/punishments.

Incidentally, the government is also WAY too big.

Posted by: Formerly Virginian at April 03, 2024 12:13 PM (JMAcK)

170 It is pointed out endlessly that much of this profit-destroying - and more importantly, culture-destroying - activity is approved by institutional shareholders. When asking, "who owns Company X," the answer "the usual suspects" typically applies. Alphabet's top three shareholders are Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street. Ford's top three are ... Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street. Proctor and Gamble? Same. This is common. Look at any stock and the odds are good that several of a dozen or so companies make appearances in the top 5 shareholders.

———-

A max $100 billion of capitalization of any investment house.

Posted by: MAGA_Ken at April 03, 2024 12:13 PM (6Z/q9)

171 Fidelity is also private ... supposedly safer than some, but how can I know. I can't see if they are doing massive Proprietary Trading behind the scenes.

And I'd really rather hold my own stocks, not have Fidelity lend them to someone who can short them, helping sink my investment. That was the gamestock thing, showing how even if people just want to own a company, they can have it destroyed by the hedge fund players (till the go too far on naked shorts, or whatever they did).

Posted by: illiniwek at April 03, 2024 12:14 PM (Cus5s)

172 AT&T was broken up because it controlled over 50 percent of the phone system.

I saw an interesting writeup on that recently. AT&T management welcomed the breakup because they thought all the money would be in long distance and the local phone companies were just money pits.

Now long distance is basically free and those local phone companies all merged into cellphone carriers, which is where the actual money is.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 03, 2024 12:14 PM (2ocoG)

173 If the big bad corporations would stay in their fucking lane, it wouldn't matter how big and bad they were.

But they insist on using the power they amass to work towards creepy social engineering shit instead of just making things and then selling the things to people who want them.

The size isn't inherently the issue. It's where they're trying to stick it that is of concern.

Posted by: Warai-otoko at April 03, 2024 12:15 PM (GkFGh)

174 I'll point out an Iron Law of Corporations:

The Chamber of Commerce never met a tax increase or spending increase they couldn't support.

Because the first funds the second which funds their VIP members.

Big business is only second in evil to Big government.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 03, 2024 12:15 PM (I5liq)

175 Poor Biden. So much bad luck. Inflation was 1-2% for 10 years. Then in 2021 in goes to 10%. Totally outbid his hands though. Right Paul? 🤣🤣

Posted by: Montec at April 03, 2024 12:15 PM (4+s9S)

176 >What else might?

I'd say eliminating employer control over 401(k) money i.e., let people use the current roll-over IRAs rules w/o having to actually leave your job. Right now, HR weenies reward pro-ESG voting.

Pensions, and particularly government pensions, will be a harder problem.

Posted by: OldCurmudgeon at April 03, 2024 12:15 PM (fQ0xm)

177 162
Don’t quote the troll 🧌

Posted by: Dr. Claw at April 03, 2024 12:16 PM (jbnUc)

178 I saw an interesting writeup on that recently. AT&T management welcomed the breakup because they thought all the money would be in long distance and the local phone companies were just money pits.

Now long distance is basically free and those local phone companies all merged into cellphone carriers, which is where the actual money is.
Posted by: Ian S. at April 03, 2024 12:14 PM (2ocoG)
++++
Sort of. This is true, but there was cross-subsidy.

But AT&T was a chartered, formal, official and regulated monopoly. AT&T was sitting on something insanely valuable at Bell Labs: the UNIX operating system and tremendous experience in IC design. The company wanted to get into the computer business, but it wasn't allowed to do so because of the restrictions regarding its formal monopoly status. AT&T wanted to be broken up, because they wanted to go big into the computer business.

Had the breakup happened in 1980 instead of 1984, it might have worked out for them. It took too long. The market was in the process of stabilizing just as AT&T was able to make entries.

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 12:16 PM (HnUIn)

179 Received a work email informing us that the 'Unconscious Bias' class has been cancelled and will be rescheduled in the future. Yes, FedGov. Oh darn!! I wanted to learn how my whiteness makes me biased towards everyone that isn't white, swinging a dick under a skirt, unwelcoming against illegals, etc.

Posted by: Cheri at April 03, 2024 12:17 PM (oiNtH)

180 Incidentally, a company getting large from vertical integration generally doesn't suffer from the same issues as a company that has gotten large from horizonal mergers. Vertical integration means that they control how they produce their product. Horizontal integration means they (eventually) control the market for their product.

Additionally, monopolistic tendencies owing from outcompeting your competitors tend to be far less than the monopolistic tendencies from BUYING your competitors.

Which of these have been the dominant corporate growth in the past 40 years? (And especially the past 20.)

Posted by: Formerly Virginian at April 03, 2024 12:17 PM (JMAcK)

181 If the big bad corporations would stay in their fucking lane, it wouldn't matter how big and bad they were.

But they insist on using the power they amass to work towards creepy social engineering shit instead of just making things and then selling the things to people who want them.

Exactly. Related: YouTube just announced that it's their sacred duty to try and tilt the election.

Posted by: Ian S. at April 03, 2024 12:17 PM (2ocoG)

182 NOOD ROWLING

Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!) at April 03, 2024 12:17 PM (HnUIn)

183 Watch live: Joe Biden delivers speech on US healthcare costs

Joe's yelling off and on, still talking about the future (2025 and farther) of prescription drugs on market. (He's always talking about the future, delaying action now. O's and Joe's prior administration tactics.)

Bernie spoke prior, as did a 'civilian' on several specialized medications.

Why do Americans pay 6 xs for the same inhaler sold in Germany, they rant. (It's hard to equate healthcare in much smaller, more strict nations to US healthcare?)

Love all of the benefits that allegedly go to Medicare recipients. I've been under the impression they start diminishing by the time many are able to retire with full SS benefits.

Not a penny more in taxes if salary is under $400,000 a year! (ha, ha!)

Caps in costs for everyone, not just seniors. Healthcare is a right for everyone.

Posted by: L - If they do it with you, they'll do it to you, too at April 03, 2024 12:18 PM (GshMh)

184 I saw an interesting writeup on that recently. AT&T management welcomed the breakup because they thought all the money would be in long distance and the local phone companies were just money pits.

Now long distance is basically free and those local phone companies all merged into cellphone carriers, which is where the actual money is.

Posted by: Ian S.

My father was an exec there. He laughed ironically, because the breakup happened due to the judge seeing monopoly profits in land lines. In reality, satellite and long distance had subsidized land lines for years. Now, land lines are just relics.

Posted by: Thomas Paine at April 03, 2024 12:18 PM (lTGtQ)

185 Didja see that Fetterman's Brazilian wife shut up good? I wonder if he slapped her around a bit, he needed to.

Posted by: Tom Servo at April 03, 2024 12:20 PM (f547z)

186 146 Zelensky bought another cool new mansion in England, former property of the king! Let's send the prick more money, right?
---
He's going to fight Russia to the last US dollar.
And flee the country the day before.

And the American left will pretend he never existed.
While browbeating for more Ukraine funds, now over that fucking Pottery Barn Rule-- they broke it but we pay for it, again.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at April 03, 2024 12:21 PM (I5liq)

187 COROPORATE GREED RAWK! RUSSIA RAWK!

Posted by: Propaganda Parrot at April 03, 2024 12:21 PM (aD39U)

188 "hey did you guys see Brianna Wu's tweet in the comments at Insty?!?! (delete space)"

By adding an extra space all you accomplished was blowing the margin by an extra space.

Posted by: Outside of Life at April 03, 2024 12:23 PM (89Sog)

189 Just found out what we owe for taxes... I'm gonna go throw up now...you're welcome ukraine

Posted by: lin-duh at April 03, 2024 01:06 PM (y60WL)

190 Just announced 3APR2024 Nelson Peltz lost his Disney fight to replace some of the current Disney Board members. One wonders how many shares were voted by the big 3...in favor of Bob Iger and not the changes that Nelson Peltz wanted...

Posted by: PETE at April 03, 2024 02:04 PM (0Ctrb)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0428 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0145 seconds, 198 records returned.
Page size 126 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.