5 ms·

> Sweden’s Northvolt, has raised $1.2bn from North America-based investors including BlackRock. Feels like BlackRock have touched almost everything

defrost 3y ago
What they haven't Blackstone has - they're related private equity groups, aka late capitalist cancer ala Gordon Ecko's 'I produce nothing, I do nothing, I own'.
- FredPret 3y ago
  Owning a stock is a verb. Allocating capital takes a lot of work, and a lot of courage. Gordon Gecko is a fictional character. Having said that, Blackstone/rock has grown far too much. People need to stop sending their money to their index funds.
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    > Allocating capital takes a lot of work How?
    - boeingUH60 3y ago
      It takes a lot of work to decide the right investments and manage the companies you've invested in to ensure they don't go kaboom. Private equity takes active ownership in the companies they own, unlike BlackRock that invests and at most takes a few board seats.
      - l33t7332273 3y ago
        The people investing those large quantities aren’t the ones managing those funds.
        FredPret 3y ago
        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? There is no way to own something without being all over it. Especially if you outsource the management of it, you now have to watch your money managers like a hawk and also accept a lower rate of return.
  - defrost 3y ago
    > Allocating capital takes a lot of work, and a lot of courage. Less so when you've captured government and setting|opposing policy at Senate|POTUS level (in US, in a similar manner elsewhere) to worsen health insurance and housing access to your own benefit. The Ruling Class S01E03 American Buyout did a tidy little episode on the downsides of The Blackstone Group. https://www.mgmplus.com/series/the-ruling-class/watch/season/1/episode/3 https://www.mgmplus.com/series/the-ruling-class/watch/season... I'm not anti-capitalist, but I am opposed to unregulated behemoths warping safeguards by the weight of their own capital and lobbying.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      I'm a capitalist and I agree. Capitalism works best in a democracy so the tragedy of the commons and negative externalities can be controlled.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Having said that, Blackstone/rock has grown far too much. People need to stop sending their money to their index funds. Where else do you send it to? Vanguard, with 7.7T AUM? For reference, Blackrock's AUM is 9.4T.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      My choice was to pick stocks. This is hard so I built a stock analysis platform for myself. But there are much better ways to get a diversified basket of solid stocks than blindly sending your money to the same 500 companies everyone else is sending their money to. There isn’t a simple formulaic answer to the question of how society should most optimally invest it’s excess capital.
      - anthomtb 3y ago
        > There isn’t a simple formulaic answer to the question of how society should most optimally invest it’s excess capital. So then investing in an index fund should be a fine choice for some, even many, correct?
        FredPret 3y ago
        Yes but optimally there would be at least some proliferation in index funds, and they would index differently. There are 2 top funds that invest in the same 500 companies. Many in the US who earns well is sending x% of their income to these funds without forethought. It's far too much mindless capital concentration. Even without the index funds, the S&P 500 is used as a base reference in many investment contexts. When everyone blindly accepts a truth in investing, it's worth keeping an careful eye on it to make sure it stays true.
        gruez 3y ago
        > Yes but optimally there would be at least some proliferation in index funds, and they would index differently. Great, now investors have to choose between which index fund to pick. What makes you think the average investor is qualified to make that choice? By definition one of them will make above average returns, and the other below average returns, so half of investors will make below average returns and the other half will make above average returns. You can't have everyone making above average returns. Why not split the difference and invest in both of them (ie. buy the market), and get average returns without having to worry about which one to choose? That's basically what buying broad market index funds (eg. VTI or ITOT) does.
  - worksonmine 3y ago
    > Allocating capital takes a lot of work, and a lot of courage. I don't think it does. Sitting on this kind of capital is easy, sprinkle it in enough places during good times and you'll get good results. Add some contacts to that (like private phone calls with the FED) and it's even easier. Having capital is a shortcut to making things happen. What's difficult and takes work is bootstrapping without capital.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      > Sitting on this kind of capital is easy, sprinkle it in enough places during good times and you'll get good results. It's easy when you're talking about someone's 401k with half a million dollars in it. With one click you can put it in the S&P 500, a 60/40 split, a target date fund, or if you're young and frisky maybe you put it in a mix of crypto, renewable energy companies with an uncertain future, and some pre-trial drug companies, because you can afford to lose it all. If you're BlackRock with $9T AUM and you know that it's other people's retirement money you're managing, it's a lot harder. That much capital moves markets. You can't go in and out of positions easily, because the very act of you buying or selling alters the price appreciably; that is, you're too big of a player to be an invisible participant in the market. Hell, even a high net worth individual looking to place $50mm isn't going to have an "easy" job, once you realize that the name of the game is actually preserving the purchasing power of that capital. That takes work. It doesn't come for free. > What's difficult and takes work is bootstrapping without capital. This is also true. But if managing capital was that easy, nobody rich would ever not be rich anymore. The Vanderbilt family was at one point estimated to be worth more than 1% of the US GDP; yet by the fourth generation, they sold their famous mansion, The Breakers.
  - jt6rajn45ajaq4 3y ago
    > Allocating capital takes a lot of work That's why most people with a lot of capital hire others to manage it. Also, there are many cases where capital is just "left to sit" and still grows. If you get lucky enough, even dead people can grow their capital. Capitalism might help if you want the strongest loggers to cut the most logs. But it doesn't help the smartest scientists do more science. Science just doesn't work that way. That's why we are transitioning from picies (age of mass production) to aquarius (age of resource mangement). Why will our children have to carry their own water?
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  Don’t be too concerned about what others do with their own money.
bt4u 3y ago
[dead]
RandomLensman 3y ago
If you have them invest your money, isn't that part of what you would expect (economic rationale provided)?
SilverBirch 3y ago
Well sure, because they're an investment company. They manage people's money. A lot of people seem to talk about BlackRock as if they're investing their own money, which would be similar to pretending your bank owns all the money that you put in it. They have $10Tn under management, but they have a market cap of $100bn. So the vast majority of what they're doing is just brokering deals for their investors. The fact that Blackrock did this deal doesn't tell you anything about who is exposed to the upside or downside.
- junofan 3y ago
  $10 tn AUM is way too much. I don’t see what the price of their stock has to do with anything.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jongjong 3y ago
    Agreed. Investing with one of the huge investment firms such as BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street feels like investing in the erosion of democracy and the monopolization of the means of production. The optimal strategy for them is to coerce all the companies that they invest in to only do business with each other in order to completely lock new competitors out of the market. This is very bad for consumers and society.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ericjmorey 3y ago
      Vanguard literally provides for investment in every security. All of them. Every single one. I currently own interest in every equity security available to a US investor by purchasing a single ETF. How is it that Vanguard (which is owned by its funds which in turn are owned by individual investors in those funds) would benefit from coercing literally every publicly traded company from transacting with every other non-publicly business? For instance, of what benefit is it to Vanguard to prevent Sysco from selling food to restaurants that are not publicly traded? Should Apple not sell phones and laptops to any non-publicly traded business? Should Amazon stop transacting with non-publicly traded companies? How does any of that work in my interest as an owner of Vanguard?
boeingUH60 3y ago
When you manage over $9 trillion [1], you will touch everything. 1- https://www.pionline.com/money-management/blackrocks-aum-climbs-11-943-trillion-q2 https://www.pionline.com/money-management/blackrocks-aum-cli...
celtoid 3y ago
Blackrock even manages a large part of Jerome Powell's, the chair of the Federal Reserve, money. It appears to be a conflict of interest but maybe I don't understand the intricacies of the monetary system. "The Fed Is Subsidizing the Money Market Funds Operated by Larry Fink’s BlackRock as BlackRock Manages a Big Part of Jerome Powell’s Wealth" [0] [0] https://wallstreetonparade.com/2021/10/the-fed-is-subsidizing-the-money-market-funds-operated-by-larry-finks-blackrock-funds-as-blackrock-manages-a-big-part-of-jerome-powells-wealth/ https://wallstreetonparade.com/2021/10/the-fed-is-subsidizin...
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  Virtually every rich person in America might have some funds with BlackRock, whether directly or indirectly. The site you linked is doing a favorite exercise of conspiracy therorists; A is related to B which is related to C which is related to D. Therefore, A and D have conspired, despite in reality not having anything to do with each other.
  - coliveira 3y ago
    And you are assuming that the problem is a real conspiracy theory. There is no need to assume any conspiracy to understand that the system is crooked. Even if it is "normal" to have A linked to B then linked to C, with A benefiting C, there is a moral hazard in a system that makes this possible.
  - celtoid 3y ago
    Powell and Blackrock have something to do with each other. It's reasonable to assume a conflict of interest. "Fed Chair Powell Has Upwards of $11.6 Million Invested with BlackRock, the Firm that Will Manage a $750 Billion Corporate Bond Bailout Program for the Fed " [0] [0] https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/05/fed-chair-powell-has-upwards-of-11-6-million-invested-with-blackrock-the-firm-that-will-manage-a-750-billion-corporate-bond-bailout-program-for-the-fed/ https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/05/fed-chair-powell-has-...
    - boeingUH60 3y ago

defrost 3y ago

What they haven't Blackstone has - they're related private equity groups, aka late capitalist cancer ala Gordon Ecko's 'I produce nothing, I do nothing, I own'.

FredPret 3y ago
Owning a stock is a verb. Allocating capital takes a lot of work, and a lot of courage. Gordon Gecko is a fictional character. Having said that, Blackstone/rock has grown far too much. People need to stop sending their money to their index funds.
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  > Allocating capital takes a lot of work How?
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    It takes a lot of work to decide the right investments and manage the companies you've invested in to ensure they don't go kaboom. Private equity takes active ownership in the companies they own, unlike BlackRock that invests and at most takes a few board seats.
    - l33t7332273 3y ago
      The people investing those large quantities aren’t the ones managing those funds.
      - FredPret 3y ago
        Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? There is no way to own something without being all over it. Especially if you outsource the management of it, you now have to watch your money managers like a hawk and also accept a lower rate of return.
- defrost 3y ago
  > Allocating capital takes a lot of work, and a lot of courage. Less so when you've captured government and setting|opposing policy at Senate|POTUS level (in US, in a similar manner elsewhere) to worsen health insurance and housing access to your own benefit. The Ruling Class S01E03 American Buyout did a tidy little episode on the downsides of The Blackstone Group. https://www.mgmplus.com/series/the-ruling-class/watch/season/1/episode/3 https://www.mgmplus.com/series/the-ruling-class/watch/season... I'm not anti-capitalist, but I am opposed to unregulated behemoths warping safeguards by the weight of their own capital and lobbying.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    I'm a capitalist and I agree. Capitalism works best in a democracy so the tragedy of the commons and negative externalities can be controlled.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Having said that, Blackstone/rock has grown far too much. People need to stop sending their money to their index funds. Where else do you send it to? Vanguard, with 7.7T AUM? For reference, Blackrock's AUM is 9.4T.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    My choice was to pick stocks. This is hard so I built a stock analysis platform for myself. But there are much better ways to get a diversified basket of solid stocks than blindly sending your money to the same 500 companies everyone else is sending their money to. There isn’t a simple formulaic answer to the question of how society should most optimally invest it’s excess capital.
    - anthomtb 3y ago
      > There isn’t a simple formulaic answer to the question of how society should most optimally invest it’s excess capital. So then investing in an index fund should be a fine choice for some, even many, correct?
      - FredPret 3y ago
        Yes but optimally there would be at least some proliferation in index funds, and they would index differently. There are 2 top funds that invest in the same 500 companies. Many in the US who earns well is sending x% of their income to these funds without forethought. It's far too much mindless capital concentration. Even without the index funds, the S&P 500 is used as a base reference in many investment contexts. When everyone blindly accepts a truth in investing, it's worth keeping an careful eye on it to make sure it stays true.
        gruez 3y ago
        > Yes but optimally there would be at least some proliferation in index funds, and they would index differently. Great, now investors have to choose between which index fund to pick. What makes you think the average investor is qualified to make that choice? By definition one of them will make above average returns, and the other below average returns, so half of investors will make below average returns and the other half will make above average returns. You can't have everyone making above average returns. Why not split the difference and invest in both of them (ie. buy the market), and get average returns without having to worry about which one to choose? That's basically what buying broad market index funds (eg. VTI or ITOT) does.
- worksonmine 3y ago
  > Allocating capital takes a lot of work, and a lot of courage. I don't think it does. Sitting on this kind of capital is easy, sprinkle it in enough places during good times and you'll get good results. Add some contacts to that (like private phone calls with the FED) and it's even easier. Having capital is a shortcut to making things happen. What's difficult and takes work is bootstrapping without capital.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > Sitting on this kind of capital is easy, sprinkle it in enough places during good times and you'll get good results. It's easy when you're talking about someone's 401k with half a million dollars in it. With one click you can put it in the S&P 500, a 60/40 split, a target date fund, or if you're young and frisky maybe you put it in a mix of crypto, renewable energy companies with an uncertain future, and some pre-trial drug companies, because you can afford to lose it all. If you're BlackRock with $9T AUM and you know that it's other people's retirement money you're managing, it's a lot harder. That much capital moves markets. You can't go in and out of positions easily, because the very act of you buying or selling alters the price appreciably; that is, you're too big of a player to be an invisible participant in the market. Hell, even a high net worth individual looking to place $50mm isn't going to have an "easy" job, once you realize that the name of the game is actually preserving the purchasing power of that capital. That takes work. It doesn't come for free. > What's difficult and takes work is bootstrapping without capital. This is also true. But if managing capital was that easy, nobody rich would ever not be rich anymore. The Vanderbilt family was at one point estimated to be worth more than 1% of the US GDP; yet by the fourth generation, they sold their famous mansion, The Breakers.
- jt6rajn45ajaq4 3y ago
  > Allocating capital takes a lot of work That's why most people with a lot of capital hire others to manage it. Also, there are many cases where capital is just "left to sit" and still grows. If you get lucky enough, even dead people can grow their capital. Capitalism might help if you want the strongest loggers to cut the most logs. But it doesn't help the smartest scientists do more science. Science just doesn't work that way. That's why we are transitioning from picies (age of mass production) to aquarius (age of resource mangement). Why will our children have to carry their own water?
alphanullmeric 3y ago
Don’t be too concerned about what others do with their own money.

bt4u 3y ago

[dead]

RandomLensman 3y ago

If you have them invest your money, isn't that part of what you would expect (economic rationale provided)?

SilverBirch 3y ago

Well sure, because they're an investment company. They manage people's money. A lot of people seem to talk about BlackRock as if they're investing their own money, which would be similar to pretending your bank owns all the money that you put in it. They have $10Tn under management, but they have a market cap of $100bn. So the vast majority of what they're doing is just brokering deals for their investors. The fact that Blackrock did this deal doesn't tell you anything about who is exposed to the upside or downside.

junofan 3y ago
$10 tn AUM is way too much. I don’t see what the price of their stock has to do with anything.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jongjong 3y ago
  Agreed. Investing with one of the huge investment firms such as BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street feels like investing in the erosion of democracy and the monopolization of the means of production. The optimal strategy for them is to coerce all the companies that they invest in to only do business with each other in order to completely lock new competitors out of the market. This is very bad for consumers and society.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ericjmorey 3y ago
    Vanguard literally provides for investment in every security. All of them. Every single one. I currently own interest in every equity security available to a US investor by purchasing a single ETF. How is it that Vanguard (which is owned by its funds which in turn are owned by individual investors in those funds) would benefit from coercing literally every publicly traded company from transacting with every other non-publicly business? For instance, of what benefit is it to Vanguard to prevent Sysco from selling food to restaurants that are not publicly traded? Should Apple not sell phones and laptops to any non-publicly traded business? Should Amazon stop transacting with non-publicly traded companies? How does any of that work in my interest as an owner of Vanguard?

boeingUH60 3y ago

When you manage over $9 trillion [1], you will touch everything. 1- https://www.pionline.com/money-management/blackrocks-aum-climbs-11-943-trillion-q2 https://www.pionline.com/money-management/blackrocks-aum-cli...

celtoid 3y ago

Blackrock even manages a large part of Jerome Powell's, the chair of the Federal Reserve, money. It appears to be a conflict of interest but maybe I don't understand the intricacies of the monetary system. "The Fed Is Subsidizing the Money Market Funds Operated by Larry Fink’s BlackRock as BlackRock Manages a Big Part of Jerome Powell’s Wealth" [0] [0] https://wallstreetonparade.com/2021/10/the-fed-is-subsidizing-the-money-market-funds-operated-by-larry-finks-blackrock-funds-as-blackrock-manages-a-big-part-of-jerome-powells-wealth/ https://wallstreetonparade.com/2021/10/the-fed-is-subsidizin...

boeingUH60 3y ago
Virtually every rich person in America might have some funds with BlackRock, whether directly or indirectly. The site you linked is doing a favorite exercise of conspiracy therorists; A is related to B which is related to C which is related to D. Therefore, A and D have conspired, despite in reality not having anything to do with each other.
- coliveira 3y ago
  And you are assuming that the problem is a real conspiracy theory. There is no need to assume any conspiracy to understand that the system is crooked. Even if it is "normal" to have A linked to B then linked to C, with A benefiting C, there is a moral hazard in a system that makes this possible.
- celtoid 3y ago
  Powell and Blackrock have something to do with each other. It's reasonable to assume a conflict of interest. "Fed Chair Powell Has Upwards of $11.6 Million Invested with BlackRock, the Firm that Will Manage a $750 Billion Corporate Bond Bailout Program for the Fed " [0] [0] https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/05/fed-chair-powell-has-upwards-of-11-6-million-invested-with-blackrock-the-firm-that-will-manage-a-750-billion-corporate-bond-bailout-program-for-the-fed/ https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/05/fed-chair-powell-has-...
  - boeingUH60 3y ago