The Triumvirate Running America Is Not Who You Think

2,244 Views | 13 Replies | Last: 21 days ago by YouBet
Athanasius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A very good read. Maybe the most important article to read this week.

Quote:

With more than $23 trillion in assets under their collective management, the Big Three investment managers BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are undisputed financial heavyweights. State Street has more assets under management than the entire annual gross domestic product of Germany. And together, they've become known for imposing a woke political agenda on corporate America.
The Big Three have heavily invested in America's banks. At some of them, BlackRock and Vanguard hold more than 10% of the voting stock. State Street also holds substantial amounts of shares of many banks. That's important because, under the Change in Bank Control Act, companies are prohibited from acquiring "control" of a bank unless certain federal regulators approve beforehand. Federal regulators long ago adopted regulations that rebuttably presume "control" when a firm holds more than 10% of the voting stock of a publicly held company.

Jonathan McKernan, a Republican on the FDIC's board of directors, recently called for enhanced monitoring of the Big Three, and for temporarily prohibiting further investments by the investment manager behemoths in FDIC-regulated banks in excess of 10%. Democrat board member Rohit Chopra appears to be on board as well.

The bipartisan duo has it right. These investment managers have used voting power that they should have never been permitted to wield. Instead of using it solely for the benefit of their customers, they anointed themselves rogue, unaccountable emperors whose woke whims at banks could include choking off credit and denying banking services to businesses they politically disfavor, including oil companies, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders and other businesses not to their personal liking. The corrupting influence of their undeserved power should and can at long last be curbed in the case of banks.

The FDIC was weaponized during the Obama administration's "Operation Choke Point" to actively discourage banks from serving clients with business classifications at ideological odds with the White House. After the operation's discovery, it collapsed under the weight of legal action. But today, the acquisition of controlling blocks of bank stock by proudly woke investment managers raises the specter of a return to Operation Choke Point by different means.

Full Article
Sims
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Passive investing is and will continue to be an issue both in financial markets and politically.

The technical issues in financial markets are for the other board but for most of America to just blindly pour their 401ks on a weekly basis into these passive funds and give control of massive amounts of capital to a few guys with certain political bias is a disaster.

On one hand, we can raise hell and then on the other, check our 401k portfolios to see if our Vanguard target date funds are doing ok.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obama-Klain-Jarrett

I'm Gipper
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Im Gipper said:

Obama-Klain-Jarrett


Boomer pilled.
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
shack009 said:

Im Gipper said:

Obama-Klain-Jarrett


Boomer pilled.
Sarcasm duly noted.
Old McDonald
How long do you want to ignore this user?
these firms exercise their voting power as a proxy for the shareholders whose assets they manage, which is part of the terms and agreements customers agree to when they open accounts there. in return, the firms publicly share details about their voting criteria and disclose their voting records.

if customers don't like how the firms are voting on their behalf, they have the ability to revoke proxy and vote directly or take their money elsewhere. do we really need government intervention to fix this?
DrEvazanPhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Old McDonald said:

these firms exercise their voting power as a proxy for the shareholders whose assets they manage, which is part of the terms and agreements customers agree to when they open accounts there. in return, the firms publicly share details about their voting criteria and disclose their voting records.

if customers don't like how the firms are voting on their behalf, they have the ability to revoke proxy and vote directly or take their money elsewhere. do we really need government intervention to fix this?
So you're cool with croneyism now?
Artorias
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Intelligence Agencies run the country.
AggieVictor10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag87H2O
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Artorias said:

The Intelligence Agencies run the country.

"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, .." - Chuck Schumer

They have become the enforcement arm for the Obama/McClain/Jarrett led shadow government. Just like thugs for the mafia bosses. Do what we say or else.
Old McDonald
How long do you want to ignore this user?
what cronyism from these firms are you talking about?
DrEvazanPhD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Old McDonald said:

what cronyism from these firms are you talking about?


You……..can't be serious.

Wait…yeah, you probably are. Eesh.
MaroonStain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Artorias said:

The Intelligence Agencies run the country do as they are instructed.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old McDonald said:

these firms exercise their voting power as a proxy for the shareholders whose assets they manage, which is part of the terms and agreements customers agree to when they open accounts there. in return, the firms publicly share details about their voting criteria and disclose their voting records.

if customers don't like how the firms are voting on their behalf, they have the ability to revoke proxy and vote directly or take their money elsewhere. do we really need government intervention to fix this?


Do you ask this question on the hundreds of other topics where Democrats want more government intervention or only when the outcome suits your politics?
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.