Big Pharma and mainstream media are largely owned by two asset management firms: BlackRock and Vanguard.
(childrenshealthdefense.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (12)
sorted by:
I was accurate, just not complete. Yes, you do have input into some funds in a similar way to owning stock in a company has input into that company (though not exactly the same, see below), but you have no input into how they manage their assets (the stocks that make up the fund). Owning part of a fund is a little bit like owning part of a shell corporation (unless you own a whole lot of it by yourself, in which case you might have meaningful input by leverage (aka not "legal" but rather "effective" ownership)).
Shell corporation:
A fund does not own the stocks (e.g. Mutual Fund)
The key (legal) word there is represents. A share of a fund represents investment in many different stocks. It isn't actual investment in many different stocks, it represents it.
It symbolizes ownership in the underlying stocks, which is to say, its not in any way shape or form actual ownership in the stocks. Not one iota.
The fund manager, which might be a corporation (i.e. BlackRock) owns the stock. Whatever name is on the stock purchase order owns the stock (it must be a person (a Corporation is a legal person, a fund is not)).
A fund is just a pool of money. That is all it is. It owns nothing, it holds no assets, its not anything at all. Just like a shell company.
The company that created the fund has contracts they must follow as a legal corporation, but the fund itself (that which you are buying) is nothing. The fund manager may have contractual obligations to purchasers of a funds "stock" (which may give you "voting rights" to influence the fund manager), but the fund itself is nothing. It's a shell, and that is what a stock in a mutual fund is; a piece of a money pool (where you don't actually own any of the money, you only have withdrawal rights). The money you put in belongs to the corporation that set up the fund to do with as they please (within the bounds of the contract that sets up the fund).
From the SEC on the definition of funds (page 8):
It may seem like I am splitting hairs here, but this has fundamental implications for the ownership of the underlying stocks (the REAL companies) and the money that resides in the pool of money itself (aka the fund).
The money you give them is theirs to do with as they please. You have no input into their use of the money you give them. The only thing you can do with that money is withdraw it (sell your share). When you sell a share, it doesn't in any way change any of the stock ownership of the fund (unless you sell so many that it forces them to sell shares to fulfill their contract to give you money for that withdrawal).
The point of both this video and my paper on this topic (which goes into much greater detail than the video) is that these funds own these other companies.
For example, BlackRock owns almost 8% of General Motors. They don't really, if you read my report, because BlackRock doesn't own BlackRock. But the legal entity BlackRock does have ALL legal ownership of 8% of the stock of General Motors. It doesn't matter if most of the money they used to buy that stock is from a mutual fund that got 30% of its funding from selling shares in that fund to 401k's. That funding source is irrelevant to who owns the stock; to who owns GM.
Thank you.
I agree that shareholders of mutual funds do not have direct ownership of the mutual fund's assets. The service that mutual funds provide to the general public is the ability to pool money and implement an investment strategy that would be too expensive for individual (usually retail) investors, such as matching the S&P500 index. In exchange for this service mutual fund shareholders forfeit an expense ratio, possibly other fees, and voting/ownership rights of the underlying assets.
My frustration in my top comment was that these posts come up every few weeks, and the implication is that because BlackRock and Vanguard own significant percentages of public companies something nefarious is going on. But I've yet to see anything nefarious. Yes the fund managers decide how to vote for their stocks, but those votes are almost always aligned to recommendations made by the management of those public companies.
So what's the complaint? Where's the nefarious activity going on? Is it that BlackRock and Vanguard can go rogue and vote against the interests of the mutual fund shareholders? Is it that these companies can run off into the sunset with everyone's money?
Please read Part 1 of my report. It doesn't prove nefarious activity of the companies, that is way too small scale thinking. My report provides substantial evidence that this ownership is a true transfer of all assets in the world to the PTB. Mutual funds help them own the world.
If you think this is insufficient evidence to truly support that claim (you'd be right), please note that this is Part 1 of a four part series I am writing. Hopefully I can get Part 2 out soon. I am stuck on one part, which is quite frustrating, but its coming along.
Money is a fraud (intentional lie to commit a crime). They care nothing about money. They care about a transfer all real assets out of the hands of We The People to the PTB (legally). It is so that they can drive us into such desperation that we will be willing to give up all of our rights for their "peace and security." It is to make us a willing slave state (atm we are an unwitting slave state, for them, that's an upgrade).