5 ms·

>> They really don't, at least not in the case of index fund investors like Vanguard and BlackRock. Have you ever read about their operations? They run a very l

>> They really don't, at least not in the case of index fund investors like Vanguard and BlackRock. Have you ever read about their operations? They run a very lean ship. > The only reason you're able to invest in index funds with 0.005% fees is because they have essentially nobody on staff, at least compared with the number of companies they invest in. They definitely can't do the kind of investigation and policing you're talking about without radically changing their pricing I think this is exactly what needs to happen. Why should passive investing pay off? The vast amount of 401k money that has poured into the stocks behind the S&P 500 with no strings attached has incentivized a lot of bad behavior and made just about every US citizen with a retierment account complicit. Bad corporate behavior _should_ hurt the bottom line of the owners; it _should_ cost more to invest; investors (all of us) _should_ worry about whether a mutual fund is protecting their investment by divesting from companies that engage in criminal recklessness; our government _should_ disincorporate companies that put lives at risk, especially when those companies are major defense contractors.

Analemma_ 2y ago
Sure, that's how it should work. But how do you intend to make that happen? A double-digit percentage of households has a double-digit percentage of their net worth in index funds. If you say to them, "we're suddenly going to increase your fund fees by a couple orders of magnitude so we can have better corporate governance", you're going to be torn apart by an angry mob (or at least, voted out and replaced with someone who will not do this).
- sevensor 2y ago
  We are, unfortunately, in violent agreement. What's to be done? Tell the world about it, hope people wake up? It's better than nothing. I'm starting with people I see face to face, and the tiny corner of the internet I occupy.
  - Aerbil313 2y ago
    What about dismantling the stock market? These are systemic problems. Free market economy works just fine without stocks. I can't prove it, but I feel there would be plenty of funding organizations to fuel your tech unicorns if the collective wealth of the America wasn't being spent and stored in this house of cards.
    - sevensor 2y ago
      Nah, the stock market is a good idea. Nothing about the idea of a stock market precludes holding owners responsible for the behavior of the company they own. Appropriate regulatory action against large, misbehaving corporations would make irresponsible investment a bad idea, and index funds less of a safe bet as a result.
    - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
      You are basically saying there should be stock market but only for ultra wealthy folks. And others have no right investing or expecting higher returns.
      - Aerbil313 2y ago
        And you are defending the people's retirements be able to be gambled and speculated by the ultra wealthy folks that are the major shareholders. On a tangent, I also think monarchy results in better management of the asset that is the country than democracy. The leader is there for life, the country is his sole property and thus incentivized to improve it and views the country as his life's work. (Obviously there are plenty of exceptions.) On the other hand, democratical leaders more often than not tend to view presidency as a means to acquire wealth, lifetime immunity, power and reputation in a short amount of time. Once elected for a term, they can engage in however much legal corruption they want, they'll be gone in a few years anyways. The POTUS poses an exception in that the country itself is a monarch and a hegemon over the rest of the world. Meanwhile especially third world countries, but even developed countries like Canada and many in the Europe have presidents promising the heaven in the election season and keep being as corrupt as last president once they are elected. Draw the parallels with Venture Capital, board directors and whatever else you want.

Analemma_ 2y ago

Sure, that's how it should work. But how do you intend to make that happen? A double-digit percentage of households has a double-digit percentage of their net worth in index funds. If you say to them, "we're suddenly going to increase your fund fees by a couple orders of magnitude so we can have better corporate governance", you're going to be torn apart by an angry mob (or at least, voted out and replaced with someone who will not do this).

sevensor 2y ago
We are, unfortunately, in violent agreement. What's to be done? Tell the world about it, hope people wake up? It's better than nothing. I'm starting with people I see face to face, and the tiny corner of the internet I occupy.
- Aerbil313 2y ago
  What about dismantling the stock market? These are systemic problems. Free market economy works just fine without stocks. I can't prove it, but I feel there would be plenty of funding organizations to fuel your tech unicorns if the collective wealth of the America wasn't being spent and stored in this house of cards.
  - sevensor 2y ago
    Nah, the stock market is a good idea. Nothing about the idea of a stock market precludes holding owners responsible for the behavior of the company they own. Appropriate regulatory action against large, misbehaving corporations would make irresponsible investment a bad idea, and index funds less of a safe bet as a result.
  - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
    You are basically saying there should be stock market but only for ultra wealthy folks. And others have no right investing or expecting higher returns.
    - Aerbil313 2y ago
      And you are defending the people's retirements be able to be gambled and speculated by the ultra wealthy folks that are the major shareholders. On a tangent, I also think monarchy results in better management of the asset that is the country than democracy. The leader is there for life, the country is his sole property and thus incentivized to improve it and views the country as his life's work. (Obviously there are plenty of exceptions.) On the other hand, democratical leaders more often than not tend to view presidency as a means to acquire wealth, lifetime immunity, power and reputation in a short amount of time. Once elected for a term, they can engage in however much legal corruption they want, they'll be gone in a few years anyways. The POTUS poses an exception in that the country itself is a monarch and a hegemon over the rest of the world. Meanwhile especially third world countries, but even developed countries like Canada and many in the Europe have presidents promising the heaven in the election season and keep being as corrupt as last president once they are elected. Draw the parallels with Venture Capital, board directors and whatever else you want.