This is the correct answer. People still don't realise just how much power over virtually every public company in America (and therefore the economy) is concentrated in the hands of a handful of people at Vanguard you've never heard of, for example.
For those who may not be aware of what you are talking about: 3 fund companies (BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard) are the largest shareholder in over 80% of SP500 companies and collectively own around 28% of the SP500 market cap.
> Also, how did Blackrock get so wealthy so fast? They've only been around since 1988.
It is not their money. They have roughly $11.5 trillion of assets under management, but their market cap is only $161.5b (on net income of about $6b). Compare that to xAI, which has existed for less than two years and has a valuation around $50b.
I am interested in learning about what you are referring to, but you linked his entire Substack and Twitter account. Would you please link a specific post?
Yes. If they collectively decide stock price matters more than anything else (sustainability, the planet, long term viability of the business), they get it, whatever the short or long term costs.
There was a comparison between Amundi (France based) and BlackRock, and their voting patterns, and BlackRock was consistently voting against any ESG or in any way ecology related proposals. Anything that isn't directly about making more money is just not their thing. Contrast that with Amundi who overwhelmingly voted for ESG or similar measures.
Electronic trading and passive investing drove commissions to zero so Blackrock helped create ESG because ESG requires paying commission for the service of certifying an investment as ESG.
It's been a concern that I've had for a bit - if everyone recommends index funds, then you lose a lot of the underlying "value" behind them. You have fewer people making decisions about what stocks to buy. You get this really top heavy system.
It's not like most of the people making those decisions are doing any better than just throwing dice at a wall and seeing what sticks.
In the immortal words of Warren Buffett and Jack Bogle respectively: "The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient." and "The daily machinations of the stock market are like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
You can either gamble and blame yourself or ride the market (invest in index funds) and excuse yourself from losses. If you're just interested in making some money using some disposable cash, it makes even more sense to just ride the market.
Broad market index funds are the inflation protected asset due to US federal government bailout. Your savings account is not going to keep up with inflation, nor are TIPS or US treasuries (not for land/healthcare/education), but an SP500 fund will do a better job over the course of decades.
TIPS are literally designed to track inflation, Treasury I-Bonds are also designed to track and surpass inflation.
The US total stock market (ex-US stock market is a crapshoot) and its subset the S&P 500 index will generally do a better job than any bonds given a long enough timeframe, but that doesn't mean appropriate bonds can't do the job either.
That is why I specified land/healthcare/education. I guess I should have specified that it matters more for metropolitan areas, especially high cost of living regions.
TIPS won’t come close to making one be able to compete with other buyers in those markets for the non mass produced/imported resources.
If someone invested their money in TIPS over the last 30 or 40 years thinking they will be able to buy real estate because TIPS protected them from inflation, they would have been sorely disappointed for pretty much all non Midwest/interior northeast metros.
This is a demographic/political issue for all developed countries, they must reduce the purchasing power of their currency as a tax to be able to deliver the benefits expected by the more populous, older voting populace.
> If someone invested their money in TIPS over the last 30 or 40 years thinking they will be able to buy real estate because TIPS protected them from inflation
Does that change the reality that a 1997 30 year TIPS would have been ineffective at helping purchase what was once a below $100 per square foot home in 1997 that is now $300+ per square foot in most US population centers?
Replace home price change (or land price change) with education price change or healthcare price change. Probably even trades’ worker price change.
If a nursing home cost $x per month in 1997, and you thought putting away an equivalent amount of cash in TIPS will ensure you can afford a nursing home in 2027 or 2037, it’s probably not going to be fun to find out how much they cost now.
It worked great if you wanted to ensure being able to buy electronics, other manufactured goods, and probably groceries. But those are beneficiaries of automation and foreign labor.
3.6% annual return since Dec 2003. 1.036^20=2.0286.
Home prices have more than doubled since then, for a large portion of the US. Source for that is going to Zillow, searching a home in a major metro, and looking at price history.
Ok fair enough. But please explain like you might to a child, since these fund managers are exercising their power and since they are picking short term focused, parasitic, extractive boards like the Boeing/Intel ones, what impact are they trying to have on their funds? What fruit will the Vanguard 3030 fund reap when Intel and Boeing tank, say, maybe this year?
A fund manager can throw their weight behind short term gains, and when those gains dry up they can sell their Intel stake and put it in the next company to be sucked dry. They don’t have to care about long term success.
Fund managers are obligated to act according to their fund's prospectus[1], of which the specifics will vary with each fund.
For a TDF (Target Date Fund), because that was brought up (Vanguard 2030): Both actively and passively managed ones must generally be managed such that shareholders can start withdrawing adequate funds (selling shares) upon and after reaching the "target date".
For an S&P 500 index fund like the one I mentioned and hold (SWPPX), the fund manager is required to imitate the actual S&P 500 index as much as reasonably possible.
In short, "don't have to care about long term success" is not a generally usable argument for fund management.
If the prospectus says "follow the S&P 500" the fund manager is also not interested in long term success, they are interested in tracking the index.
But the fund managers tracking an index are not the main problem, they are just putting a lot of passive votes behind the funds that are actively working on electing board members in the interest of short term growth/profit (which brings more people to invest in their funds and gets them big bonuses).
You have to sell before the “gains dry up”, otherwise you won’t have much money to invest in a new company to have enough of a voice to suck it dry.
But for an index fund, there is no fund manager choosing when and if to sell. The investors of the fund are just following the markets, not really earning a lot (in real terms), but also not losing much.
