5 ms·

0.00085% of their Assets under management. If compared to their assets under management growth from 2022 to 2023 it's just over two days of growth

xyst 3y ago
A rounding error. It’s honestly terrifying how much wealth is concentrated in this one company.
- axpy906 3y ago
  This should be the top comment. Don’t forget Vangaurd and State Street too.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Virtually none of that money is in blackrock though. The money is in the companies invested in. Blackrock however does have enormous discretion in which companies get that money. But it's also not exactly opaque, these funds are pretty transparent and overall very bland.
- robotnikman 3y ago
  It has the more money than most countries.
jtbayly 3y ago
Here's to hoping it will be two weeks of growth next, then two months, then two years. The sooner ESG mandates stop infecting companies, the better. Edit: Yesterday you could have said they didn't care because it's only $4B, one day of growth. Today you can say $12.5B, or three days of growth. Yes, it's a trickle, but it might continue to grow.
- johnea 3y ago
  Would you think its better to have a mandate to just set all possibly flammable resources on fire? Mandating transitioning away from petroleum is a no brainer. Installation of renewables is vastly cheaper, faster to market, and has the fringe benefit of not bringing about the end of our ecosystem...
  - 7thaccount 3y ago
    We're not going to fully transition for awhile. Solar, wind, and storage are all terrific, but we'll need to keep natural gas and some amount of coal around for quite a while. It will run less and less, but will be critical when it gets really hot or cold and the wind/sun. Mandating a transition away isn't really necessary as those resources are all starting to retire anyway. It's a pretty complicated industry between the electricity markets and state/regional regulators. Just because wind and solar are cheaper (also heavily subsidized via the IRA) doesn't mean it's all we need. They're intermittent and not dispatchable in the same way the older traditional resources were. One solution is to build a massive amount of batteries or a large DC macro grid, but even then, it won't solve all the problems and the massive projected growth in demand. Making demand more price responsive won't solve the problem either in all cases. There's a lot of folks like NERC (in charge of reliability of the bulk electric system for the US and Canada) and MISO (a large regional organization that handles reliability on a regional level) sounding the alarm on this.
  - clarity20 3y ago
    No cataclysm visited upon the entire world would be enough to fulfill your sweeping demands. Are you sure your wishes are tantamount to a force of nature?
usefulcat 3y ago
8.5B / 10T = 0.0085 = 0.85% Edit: DOH! chowchowchow is right, I made pretty much the same mistake. Correction below: 8.5B / 10T = 8.5 / 10000 = 0.00085 = 0.085%
- chowchowchow 3y ago
  .085%. 1% of 10T is 100B. Big numbers are big.

xyst 3y ago

A rounding error. It’s honestly terrifying how much wealth is concentrated in this one company.

axpy906 3y ago
This should be the top comment. Don’t forget Vangaurd and State Street too.
Workaccount2 3y ago
Virtually none of that money is in blackrock though. The money is in the companies invested in. Blackrock however does have enormous discretion in which companies get that money. But it's also not exactly opaque, these funds are pretty transparent and overall very bland.
robotnikman 3y ago
It has the more money than most countries.

jtbayly 3y ago

Here's to hoping it will be two weeks of growth next, then two months, then two years. The sooner ESG mandates stop infecting companies, the better. Edit: Yesterday you could have said they didn't care because it's only $4B, one day of growth. Today you can say $12.5B, or three days of growth. Yes, it's a trickle, but it might continue to grow.

johnea 3y ago
Would you think its better to have a mandate to just set all possibly flammable resources on fire? Mandating transitioning away from petroleum is a no brainer. Installation of renewables is vastly cheaper, faster to market, and has the fringe benefit of not bringing about the end of our ecosystem...
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  We're not going to fully transition for awhile. Solar, wind, and storage are all terrific, but we'll need to keep natural gas and some amount of coal around for quite a while. It will run less and less, but will be critical when it gets really hot or cold and the wind/sun. Mandating a transition away isn't really necessary as those resources are all starting to retire anyway. It's a pretty complicated industry between the electricity markets and state/regional regulators. Just because wind and solar are cheaper (also heavily subsidized via the IRA) doesn't mean it's all we need. They're intermittent and not dispatchable in the same way the older traditional resources were. One solution is to build a massive amount of batteries or a large DC macro grid, but even then, it won't solve all the problems and the massive projected growth in demand. Making demand more price responsive won't solve the problem either in all cases. There's a lot of folks like NERC (in charge of reliability of the bulk electric system for the US and Canada) and MISO (a large regional organization that handles reliability on a regional level) sounding the alarm on this.
- clarity20 3y ago
  No cataclysm visited upon the entire world would be enough to fulfill your sweeping demands. Are you sure your wishes are tantamount to a force of nature?

usefulcat 3y ago

8.5B / 10T = 0.0085 = 0.85% Edit: DOH! chowchowchow is right, I made pretty much the same mistake. Correction below: 8.5B / 10T = 8.5 / 10000 = 0.00085 = 0.085%

chowchowchow 3y ago
.085%. 1% of 10T is 100B. Big numbers are big.