Posted on 09/05/2024 11:53:25 AM PDT by JV3MRC
The leftist extremism of ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC (and its cable affiliate MSNBC) is well-documented. However, what rarely gets mentioned is that the woke reporting emanating from these networks aligns with that of the leftist ESG asset manager giants that own the biggest portion of their stock.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Actually, this isn't true.
These are fund managers. They created and manage the mutual funds and ETFs that own these shares. The shares in question are actually owned by the investors who own those funds...not the fund managers.
Never watch those channels but the sheep are being programmed daily.
Further, 1.9 billion shares would mean nothing if the total outstanding float of shares was 200 billion.
It’s so disappointing when “conservative” new media reveals how stoopid they can be.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102715/top-5-disney-shareholders.asp
Top 3 Institutional Shareholders
Institutional investors hold the majority of Disney’s shares at about 67.49% of total shares outstanding as of March 2024.
Vanguard Group
Vanguard Group owns 146.3 million shares of Disney, representing 8% of total shares outstanding, according to the company’s preliminary proxy filing for 2024.
The company is primarily a mutual fund and exchange-traded fund (ETF) management company with about $7.6 trillion in global assets under management (AUM).
The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is one of the company’s largest exchange-traded funds (ETFs) with about $1.1 trillion as of February 2024.
BlackRock
BlackRock owns 120.9 million shares of Disney, representing 6.6% of total shares outstanding, according to the company’s preliminary proxy filing for 2024.
The company is primarily a mutual fund and ETF management company with approximately $9.09 trillion in AUM.
11
The iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is among one of BlackRock’s largest ETFs with approximately $404.4 billion in AUM as of March 2024.
State Street
State Street owns 75.67 million shares of Disney, representing 4.13% of total shares outstanding.
The company is primarily a manager of mutual funds, ETFs, and other assets with approximately $4.13 trillion in AUM.
The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) is among one of State Street’s largest ETFs with approximately $479.2 billion in AUM.
People don't understand that just because an ETF or mutual fund holds certain shares does not mean that the fund managers of those funds and ETFs "own" those shares.
The shares are actually owned by the investors who own the mutual funds and ETFs...not BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street.
Zaktly.
Now, to be fair, institutional advisors CAN influence a firm. But the IA has a fiduciary duty to the investor. If the investors wielded the power they hold to trash management for bad ESG policies, that’d be legit AND the IA would have to start selling.
It gets a little complicated thereafter, but it’s not insurmountably complex
The bottom line is that these facts seem to confound conservative press. Indeed, this one from last year - https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4137820/posts - is a great example of NewsBusters (Again) getting it wrong.
Agreed
Bkmk
This is really a distinction without a difference. The asset managers are the ones making these moves to buy up the shares on behalf of the investors whose assets they manage, but it’s those asset managers that own the controlling stakes by definition.
Or control.
“ Institutional ownership is the amount of stock owned by large entities that manage funds on behalf of others.” — Investopedia. Emphasis on the word “ownership.”
bump
Fund managers manage assets on behalf of investors but do not own the shares themselves. The actual ownership of the shares resides with the investors in the fund. Therefore, when a fund manager exercises control over the shares (like voting on corporate issues), they are acting as a fiduciary for the investors, not as an owner.
If they prioritize personal political views over the best interests of the fund's investors, they breach their fiduciary duty and could be liable for malfeasance.
The comment’s assertion that "asset managers... own the controlling stakes by definition" is incorrect. Fund managers may control voting rights associated with shares on behalf of the investors, but they do not own the shares themselves. Misusing this control for personal political motives is indeed a serious violation of fiduciary responsibility.
Here's a positive note on this issue.
As a journalist covering this issue, you have a great opportunity to expose how these fund managers may be putting personal political agendas ahead of investor interests, violating their fiduciary duty. Revealing these practices could spark a major industry shift toward greater transparency and accountability, making it a compelling and impactful story.
In addition, Mississippi issued a cease-and-desist order, accusing BlackRock of making false claims that ESG factors provided financial benefits without sufficient proof. Other states, such as Texas, have also scrutinized BlackRock for its ESG policies, leading to actions like withdrawing state investments from the firm.
Sources: Tennessee Officials Sue BlackRock for ‘Misleading’ ESG Strategy, Insurance Journal, BlackRock Gets Legal Warning Over ESG Funds From Mississippi, Insurance Journal, and Tennessee Sues BlackRock for Misleading Customers on ESG, National Review
This is really splitting hairs. Did you not read the Investopedia article I just shared? It literally characterizes what the asset managers have in these stocks as “institutional ownership,” regardless of the fact that they’re managing wealth on behalf of others. We’re arguing over the meaning of the word “ownership” and we’re talking past each other.
“When institutions represent the majority of ownership in a given security, there can be a number of issues that arise. With the resources available to institutions, it could be possible for nearly all outstanding shares of a security to be acquired and controlled by these entities, including borrowed shares that short sellers were using to bet against the stock. Such a concentration of ownership may lead to peak ownership where there is little room for new retail investors or any significant trading activity.”
I spent my career on Wall St. and make my living managing a portfolio. I understand the issues at a deeper level than Investopedia.
My point is that Larry Fink et al have violated their fiduciary responsibility by making the assumption that they do indeed control shares as "constructive owners."
They don't.
Some really huge class action lawsuits are developing re: this matter.
If I am talking past you, I apologize. I certainly have a bee in my bonnet over what BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, et al. have done.
I just went to your link and read the Investopedia article (quickly). No issues with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.