Bud, I know it’s pretty easy to jump down into conspiratorial rabbit holes whenever talking about Blackrock, vanguard, etc but let me ask you this:
Which sounds like a more solid plan? Investing in a platform that was dead in the water from the start, with no financial future. Or just donating to a bunch of politicians that are okay with your business practices?
I’m not saying they aren’t causing a good bit of harm but you don’t become the largest investment management firm on the planet by being that stupid
I mean, the more solid plan is to back the president that cut taxes for the rich, as opposed to a president whose promised to increase taxes for the rich.
So I don’t think a straight value proposition analysis applies to entities whose assets under management exceed the GDP of most countries and who are already deeply involved in the politics in the form of lobbying.
Then let’s assume the people in charge want Trump back in office. Wouldn’t it just make more sense to make political contributions to him and others sympathetic to his platform? That carries less reputational risk than investing in a known to fail platform.
Plus it’s worth mentioning that those are assets under management ; they have to answer to their investors for every time they allocate. They can’t just freely swing that around like most people think
Bud, I know it’s pretty easy to jump down into conspiratorial rabbit holes whenever talking about Blackrock, vanguard, etc but let me ask you this:
Which sounds like a more solid plan? Investing in a platform that was dead in the water from the start, with no financial future. Or just donating to a bunch of politicians that are okay with your business practices?
I’m not saying they aren’t causing a good bit of harm but you don’t become the largest investment management firm on the planet by being that stupid
I mean, the more solid plan is to back the president that cut taxes for the rich, as opposed to a president whose promised to increase taxes for the rich.
So I don’t think a straight value proposition analysis applies to entities whose assets under management exceed the GDP of most countries and who are already deeply involved in the politics in the form of lobbying.
Then let’s assume the people in charge want Trump back in office. Wouldn’t it just make more sense to make political contributions to him and others sympathetic to his platform? That carries less reputational risk than investing in a known to fail platform.
Plus it’s worth mentioning that those are assets under management ; they have to answer to their investors for every time they allocate. They can’t just freely swing that around like most people think