Elon vs. Apple
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
What is this supposed to mean?
It is the same for "alphabet"(google)/apple and many other companies in big tech.
There are the "same" networks of people.
Twitter is privately held. Vanguard and BlackRock have nothing to do with it.
SpaceX is also privately held. Vanguard has nothing to do with it, neither do I think BlackRock. With Tesla, they are holders, but largely through index funds. And Elon has control.
There is a public market index hypothesis, but it pointedly doesn’t apply to Elon or his companies.
So what's you say about Tesla and Elon Musk is like Amazon and JB: they are share holders, but not big enough compared to Elon Musk in Tesla (did not check that) then they cannot setup their ppl on management like their CEOs. This is the same with amazon: JB is in control, but vanguard/blackrock are just behind (and azure), namely once JB sells enough of his shares, vanguard/blackrock get in control and then will setup their ppl as CEO and management (unless azure interfere).
Like alphabet(google)/microsoft/apple/starbucks/etc.
If you want to know more: starbucks, a vanguard/blackrock company, with msft CEO has massive debts and stabucks is paying huge interests all year long.
Public info.
The next CEO was chosen by the board in a very public CEO search. Laxman Narasimhan has the pedigree you’d expect from someone picked for that role including being a ceo of a big company and a long stretch at Pepsi.
Perhaps you can be specific about what you think Vanguard or Blackrock did as part of this process that caused a three time ceo & founder of Starbucks to be chosen as the interim and then followed by what appears to be a highly qualified candidate?
All that is a "small small world".
In Vanguards case, that ownership is a direct pass through to the people buying into those indexes. Do the ultimate ownership is dispersed.
Do you have any point other than “big index funds own the correct percentage of the market they index?”
This is not rocket science.
Robyn Denholm came from Jupiter networks, Vanguard owns ~11%.
James Murdoch came from Fox. Vanguard owns ~7%.
Joe Gebbia was an Airbnb founder, vanguard owns ~6%.
Kathleen Wilson-Thompson is a long time Walgreens exec, Vanguard owns ~7%
So no, that doesn’t seem to be the difference.
On the companies I had a look at, vanguard + blackrock is usually ~30% and both are usually the biggest share holders.
For instance, amazon, vanguard + blackrock are not in control because, one, there is the azur fund which has a bigger part, two, JB has a massive part of the shares, JB is explicitely in control here.
What I could read from the net vanguard and blackrock are still small in tesla compared to musk, so until he sells to them most of his shares, he is still the capitain on board. In the end, we cannot tell if musk is one of them.
There is also a pretty major flaw in your conspiracy theory. Vanguard and Blackrock are competitors…
Do you have a threshold for what counts as a “major shareholder”?
How do Fidelity, T Rowe Price and Northern Trust fit into the picture? Are they part of the cabal or on the outside looking in?
Also, what happens when Vanguard & Blackrock fund holders get to vote their shares? Both have dramatically increased that capability and have major plans for expansion of it next year…
“starbucks, a vanguard/blackrock company, with msft CEO has massive debts and stabucks is paying huge interests all year long”
That implies way more than those companies are influencing the boards.
You only backed off when your basic “facts” were called out. Everyone agrees that big shareholders have influence, so besides that what are your claims?
I don’t think blackrock/vanguard exercise much influence. Do they even meet with management? But each year, Larry Fink writes a letter to companies black rock holds saying they should be sustainable or whatever. But I don’t think there are consequences for the companies for ignoring the letter. Big funds are mostly passive and so just follow their formula. S&P surely have a bigger influence on vanguard’s holdings by what they choose to include in their indexes.
But I do weakly find the ‘index funds reduce competition’ theory plausible. Eg in 2020, Pfizer’s big investors probably most wanted Pfizer to cooperate with competitors to help end covid, causing share prices everywhere to recover, rather than working to get a bigger share of the covid vaccine pie.
It’s not a question that Vanguard engaged with boards of the companies they interact with and it’s a pretty commonly cited concern in corporate governance circles. So much so that the big index funds are piloting giving their votes to fund holders.
The conspiracy theory issue here is that the poster is a) expressing something much more nefarious by implying Starbucks debt is part of a plot by vanguard/Blackrock b) setting up Musk as a white knight fighting these nefarious forces and c) citing fabrications as facts to back up the claims, then devolving to much less striking claims (“big shareholders have influence”) when called on it.
This has all the hallmarks of a classic conspiracy theory.
Usually a good start is gogol (a vanguard/blackrock company!): "who owns tesla".
Amazon for instance: JB is in full control, with azure/vanguard/blackrock right behind.