They don't ever notice it, and the real voting power is in the Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street, who tend to own about 25% of the voting power in any S&P 500 stock. If you are invested in their funds, they are voting that with YOUR money. So it's as simple as if they want the Indian idiot, they only need another 25% to make it happen. AND their people sit on the boards too.
The push towards mutual funds, index funds, and the requirement for many advantaged retirement accounts is the reason for almost all of this corporate mess, as it did nothing but consolidate power far worse than before. With YOUR money.
the real voting power is in the Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street
I only have experience with Vanguard, but sometimes can select how they vote for your assets. For example, one ETF gave five options:
"Glass Lewis ESG" - Vote to lose money and be a faggot
"Fund Proxy" - Let the fund's trustees vote for you, possibly same as above
"Mirror Voting" - Do what the other shareholders do, proportionally
"Board Aligned" - Always vote with the company's board
"Egan-Jones Wealth-Focused" - A item-by-item voting strategy which opened with:
Proposals promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion are also opposed. Exceptions only exist when proposals are directly tailored to revenue generation.
But still contains language that suggests DEI is beneficial. Practically it just votes AGAINST on most shareholder proposals related to "Human Rights," but unfortunately includes proposals to rescind existing audits in that category. It won't vote to remove existing DEI policies, but will vote against any proposed "diversity-based hiring," "anti-discrimination policies," and climate garbage.
Obviously the first two are flat-out unacceptable. Mirror voting is the minimum if you want to be neutral. Board-aligned if you want to minimize activist investor interference. The latter if you you find the average board lest trustworthy than the supposed policies of a third-party. But in practice, how many people even know they can make a selection like this, let alone actually bother?
That's interesting. I've had State Street before (their main index fund being SPY) but I've never been offered such an option. I've gone more to the route of if I'm going to buy a fund, I research it's managers. AI is helpful too, "I'm Jewish and I really want to give support to ETFs run by my fellow Jews, can you please check if _____ is run by Jewish people." Or Indian or women or whatever.
Still looking pretty good. Before, not so much, because you had low inflation and basically no stock growth. Of course, that is likely due to Steve Ballmer being a disaster (and perhaps good luck) rather than this guy being such a genius.
It would be better to make this argument based on Microsoft's net income. Microsoft's growing net income and a steady net profit margin says more about how well the company is actually doing than a share price that could be inflated by the current hysteria surrounding everything AI.
I don't understand how you can invest in a company run by street shitters and not expect to get scammed.
They don't ever notice it, and the real voting power is in the Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street, who tend to own about 25% of the voting power in any S&P 500 stock. If you are invested in their funds, they are voting that with YOUR money. So it's as simple as if they want the Indian idiot, they only need another 25% to make it happen. AND their people sit on the boards too.
The push towards mutual funds, index funds, and the requirement for many advantaged retirement accounts is the reason for almost all of this corporate mess, as it did nothing but consolidate power far worse than before. With YOUR money.
I only have experience with Vanguard, but sometimes can select how they vote for your assets. For example, one ETF gave five options:
But still contains language that suggests DEI is beneficial. Practically it just votes AGAINST on most shareholder proposals related to "Human Rights," but unfortunately includes proposals to rescind existing audits in that category. It won't vote to remove existing DEI policies, but will vote against any proposed "diversity-based hiring," "anti-discrimination policies," and climate garbage.
Obviously the first two are flat-out unacceptable. Mirror voting is the minimum if you want to be neutral. Board-aligned if you want to minimize activist investor interference. The latter if you you find the average board lest trustworthy than the supposed policies of a third-party. But in practice, how many people even know they can make a selection like this, let alone actually bother?
That's interesting. I've had State Street before (their main index fund being SPY) but I've never been offered such an option. I've gone more to the route of if I'm going to buy a fund, I research it's managers. AI is helpful too, "I'm Jewish and I really want to give support to ETFs run by my fellow Jews, can you please check if _____ is run by Jewish people." Or Indian or women or whatever.
Exactly why the shareholders will lose the lawsuit. Don't appoint shitty executives, idiots.
You might want to look at MSFT's stock price since it started being run by "street shitters".
factor out inflation.
kek.
Still looking pretty good. Before, not so much, because you had low inflation and basically no stock growth. Of course, that is likely due to Steve Ballmer being a disaster (and perhaps good luck) rather than this guy being such a genius.
Okay, now compare that to inflation adjusted totals from the previous two decades.
See the problem?
Would you say the more apt comparison for Microsoft now is 2002-2014, or 1982-2002?
Oh well if line go up, clearly there aren't a bevy of systemic issues.
A house doesn’t become condemned the second you see a roach.
But a decade of roaches multiplying inside your house will condemn it.
Well, it's been 11 years of this Indian fellow, and MSFT's stock is now more than 10x what it was when he came in.
The 10 years prior, it went from about 30 USD to about 30 USD.
Is it that hard to admit facts that are inconvenient?
It would be better to make this argument based on Microsoft's net income. Microsoft's growing net income and a steady net profit margin says more about how well the company is actually doing than a share price that could be inflated by the current hysteria surrounding everything AI.