3 ms·

Then they have no business investing in whatever it is they're investing in. Everyone should do a minimum amount of due diligence on the companies that they ow

Then they have no business investing in whatever it is they're investing in. Everyone should do a minimum amount of due diligence on the companies that they own and that make up their retirement / house purchase / kid's university fund. If not that, then it's better for most to accumulate capital by paying off their home loan or some other scheme that they understand. The answer cannot be to hand off all power to a single megacorp that owns a significant chunk of the US economy and whose CEO gets to dictate the entire boardroom agenda for the whole country.

bombcar 3y ago
https://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/niri-6-03.pdf https://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/... The problem is that most people are too small to have a material impact. The best the smalls can hope for is to invest in companies that are majority owned and run by owners you agree with.
- FredPret 3y ago
  I take your point. But I don't see how diffusion is a problem; it's simply decentralization. I think the main problem is disengaged owners who think they can buy-and-forget. If every owner paid even a modicum of attention (even just skimming the annual report) and every owner voted their opinion, we'd see a much better corporate America after one single year.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    If every person worked collaboratively on things pretty much everything would work better but collective action is intrinsically difficult to achieve.
jncfhnb 3y ago
Seems dubious. Most wealth is held by wealthy interests that prioritize staying wealthy. The collective will of small investors is negligible. And it’s not worth your time to invest in individual companies vs just doing an index fund. It would be nice if there were index funds that promised to vote for socially positive issues on votes. That may be more impactful than social good indices.
- FredPret 3y ago
  According to this [0], 51% of stocks are held by the 1%. So you are correct that the rich control corporations. But 49% voting power is far from negligible. Even a small minority of voters who care about an issue and raise a stink about it can swing a big change. Most shareholders, including rich ones, are happily coasting along on autopilot. If someone with even a single share stands up in an annual meeting and makes a good point, I would pay attention. The parent comment I replied to originally said that return to office is pushed at regular by a fund (Blackrock) that owns office space as well as shares in companies like say Apple or Google, even if that is a suboptimal choice for Apple and Google. If there's a bloc of even 5% of ownership arguing against this at an annual meeting, it would be a major improvement in the state of affairs. Corporate America runs the world. We can't just relegate all important decisions to big owners by default - at the very least give them hell! [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-inequality.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-in...
  - robjan 3y ago
    You're talking about activist investing [0]. It's possible but you still need a significant holding to actually have any leverage. Joe Blogs who owns 100 of 10000000 shares is not going to be allowed to talk at the AGM [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_shareholder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_shareholder
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Why would it make a difference if 5% spoke up?

bombcar 3y ago

https://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/niri-6-03.pdf https://johncbogle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/... The problem is that most people are too small to have a material impact. The best the smalls can hope for is to invest in companies that are majority owned and run by owners you agree with.

FredPret 3y ago
I take your point. But I don't see how diffusion is a problem; it's simply decentralization. I think the main problem is disengaged owners who think they can buy-and-forget. If every owner paid even a modicum of attention (even just skimming the annual report) and every owner voted their opinion, we'd see a much better corporate America after one single year.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  If every person worked collaboratively on things pretty much everything would work better but collective action is intrinsically difficult to achieve.

jncfhnb 3y ago

Seems dubious. Most wealth is held by wealthy interests that prioritize staying wealthy. The collective will of small investors is negligible. And it’s not worth your time to invest in individual companies vs just doing an index fund. It would be nice if there were index funds that promised to vote for socially positive issues on votes. That may be more impactful than social good indices.

FredPret 3y ago
According to this [0], 51% of stocks are held by the 1%. So you are correct that the rich control corporations. But 49% voting power is far from negligible. Even a small minority of voters who care about an issue and raise a stink about it can swing a big change. Most shareholders, including rich ones, are happily coasting along on autopilot. If someone with even a single share stands up in an annual meeting and makes a good point, I would pay attention. The parent comment I replied to originally said that return to office is pushed at regular by a fund (Blackrock) that owns office space as well as shares in companies like say Apple or Google, even if that is a suboptimal choice for Apple and Google. If there's a bloc of even 5% of ownership arguing against this at an annual meeting, it would be a major improvement in the state of affairs. Corporate America runs the world. We can't just relegate all important decisions to big owners by default - at the very least give them hell! [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-inequality.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-in...
- robjan 3y ago
  You're talking about activist investing [0]. It's possible but you still need a significant holding to actually have any leverage. Joe Blogs who owns 100 of 10000000 shares is not going to be allowed to talk at the AGM [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_shareholder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_shareholder
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Why would it make a difference if 5% spoke up?