Vanguard is not a public stock and is owned by its funds/customers. So no, Blackrock would have no reason to be a significant owner of Vanguard since that would mean being Vanguard's customer.
That logic doesn't follow:
Vanguard being private, does not equate to Blackrock not having a reason to invest in Vanguard. Nor does it shed light on their overlapping investments in each other meant to obscure ownership from the masses. Which rules guidelines or laws do you think they are following to come to that conclusion?
Are they breaking away from Blackrock?
They own more stock of Walmart than Blackrock does.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/060416/top-4-walmart-shareholders-wmt.asp
*Which could cause major changes to society.
Vanguard and Blackrock are competitors.
With their overlapping investments in each other,? You could have fooled me.
https://archive.ph/GRoQg
Vanguard only owns 8% of Blackrock.
Blackrock is a public stock.
Vanguard, being an index fund manager, owns EVERY stock, which would by definition include Blackrock.
Vanguard is not a public stock and is owned by its funds/customers. So no, Blackrock would have no reason to be a significant owner of Vanguard since that would mean being Vanguard's customer.
That logic doesn't follow:
Vanguard being private, does not equate to Blackrock not having a reason to invest in Vanguard. Nor does it shed light on their overlapping investments in each other meant to obscure ownership from the masses. Which rules guidelines or laws do you think they are following to come to that conclusion?