> They are completely neutral in terms of investment quantities. They are not completely neutral since 'they' own large blocks of major companies which gives t

> They are completely neutral in terms of investment quantities. They are not completely neutral since 'they' own large blocks of major companies which gives them commensurate voting power and immense influence over every major company. The simplest fix to this is deny funds any voting rights and to give the votes to the individuals who invest in these funds - index or mutual, closed or open ended. It's a logistic nightmare but either the individuals get the vote or nobody does. > In fact the speaker seems to imply that they have very little, if any, influence on countries like Russia and China. Why would they? They don't have a major presence in these countries. Though I'm sure both want access to china. > Most, if not all, of the actual claims made in this video are not supported beyond being stated. It isn't a secret that these two had undue influence in corporate america. Go to any major company and check their top institutional holders. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/holders?p=META https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/META/holders?p=META You'll almost always see blackrock and vanguard amongst the major shareholders. The problem is that they get to vote when the people who invest in these funds should be the ones given the vote. It's really an industry wide problem, not an individual fund company problem.