NDQ – Shareholders [2/3]
Following on from the previous post regarding the strange PDF (implying that there is something that is deliberately causing “infections” in the water (Coke, Pepsi, Danone, and Nestle), and US Water municipal sectors, and that HP is placing smart chips all over the earth for the Internet of Things technology (which may be aerosolized), and that the materials in those who have symptoms of Morgellons have been confirmed to be nanotechnology derived from Agrobacterium), I thought I’d keep all the shareholder questions on their own separate page just for my own reference. See the first post, Agrobacterium [1/3] for context.
Who are the largest shareholders of…
- Berkshire Vanguard BlackRock State Street Norges
- Vanguard BlackRock Berkshire|State Street Wellington
- BlackRock Vanguard Capital|State Street Norges
- BlackRock Norges Vanguard Amundi(Bankers) BNP(Bankers)
- Bayer AG:
- BlackRock Vanguard Norges Berkshire Allianz(BlackRock) Bank of NY(BlackRock)
- BlackRock Vanguard State Street Norges MorganStanley(Vanguard)
- Vanguard BlackRock State Street Capital Fidelity
- Alphabet (Google):
- Vanguard BlackRock MorganStanley(Vanguard) Capital Fidelity
- Hewlett Packard:
- Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- Vanguard BlackRock Norges MorganStanley(Vanguard) CreditSuisse(BlackRock)
(see also: who owns the world)
10 Companies own most of the world’s food
- These 10 companies control everything you buy – Business Insider – 2017 (their source: OxFam)
- Nestlé BlackRock Vanguard Capital State Street Norges
- PepsiCo Vanguard BlackRock Berkshire State Street Wellington
- Coca-Cola: Berkshire Vanguard BlackRock State Street Norges
- Unilever BlackRock Vanguard Norges
- Danone BlackRock Norges Vanguard Amundi(Bankers) BNP(Bankers)
- General Mills Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- Kellogg’s BlackRock Vanguard State Street
- Mars Vanguard BlackRock State Farm Insurance
- Associated British Foods BlackRock Legal & General Norges
- Mondelez Vanguard BlackRock State Street
Largest Shareholders of the Largest Shareholders:
- Vanguard (Undisclosed)
- BlackRock (Capital Vanguard SSgA BlackRock)
- State Street (BlackRock Vanguard T.Rowe)
- SSgA Funds Management, Inc. (State Street)
- T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Vanguard BlackRock State Street)
- Capital Research Global Investors (Undisclosed)
- Morgan Stanley (Vanguard BlackRock State Street)
- J.P. Morgan (BlackRock Vanguard State Street)
- Amundi (Crédit Agricole, EBRD)
- EBRD (European Union & member states)
- BNP (Bankers, Insurance & pension funds)
- Norges (Central bank of Norway, largest pension fund)
- Wellington (Undisclosed)
- Fidelity (Mutual fund company)
- Credit Suisse Group AG (BlackRock Vanguard Norges State Street Capital)
- UBS Group AG (BlackRock Vanguard Norges State Street Capital)
- LGIM Legal & General Investment Management Ltd. (manage over £1 trillion in assets for elites & govt., Undisclosed)
- The Renaissance Technologies LLC.(secretive computational trades, one of the most successful hedge funds with assets over $50 billion, Undisclosed)
Top 3 Shareholders…
As of my training data (2021), the top 10 richest companies in the world, in terms of market capitalization, were:
- Apple – $2.2 trillion Vanguard BlackRock Berkshire
- Microsoft – $2.0 trillion Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- Amazon – $1.6 trillion Jeff Bezos, Vanguard BlackRock
- Alphabet (Google) – $1.4 trillion Vanguard BlackRock Berkshire
- Facebook – $852 billion Vanguard BlackRock The Renaissance Technologies LLC.
- Berkshire Hathaway – $529 billion Warren Buffett, Charles Munger, Berkshire
- Johnson & Johnson – $406 billion Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- JPMorgan Chase – $388 billion Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- Procter & Gamble – $333 billion Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- Visa – $329 billion Vanguard BlackRock Capital
- Exxon Mobil Corporation $200 billion Vanguard BlackRock State Street
Note: These values are subject to fluctuations, and the current market conditions may be different.
Defence & Military
- Lockheed Martin Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- Northrop Grumman Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- BAE Systems Vanguard BlackRock Norges
- General Dynamics Vanguard BlackRock Capital
- Raytheon Technologies Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- Airbus Defense and Space Vanguard BlackRock Norges
- Saab AP7 & Valtion Elakerahasto (pension funds)
- Boeing Defense, Space & Security Vanguard BlackRock State Street
- Huntington Ingalls Industries (wouldn’t reveal no matter how many questions I threw at it)
Who are the CEOs of Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street?
As of my knowledge cutoff of 2021, the CEO’s of Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street are:
- Vanguard: Mortimer J. Buckley
- BlackRock: Larry Fink
- State Street: Ron O’Hanley
// Let’s have a debate with a bot about Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street lol //
Seems to me that Vanguard BlackRock State Street combined, have a large percentage of all the worlds assets & potentially a lot of influence
Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street are indeed among the largest asset management companies globally, managing trillions of dollars in assets for individuals and institutions around the world. However, they do not own the world’s assets, as they serve as stewards of their clients’ investments and do not retain ownership of the underlying securities.
Interesting point of view, however if you own both sides of the war…
It is not accurate to say that Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street “own both sides of the war.” These companies are investment management firms, meaning they help manage the investments of individuals and institutions. They do not necessarily own assets directly, but rather provide investment management services for the assets held by their clients. While they are some of the largest investment management firms in the world, they do not collectively own the world or control the world’s assets.
Such an interesting way to put it, lol. If a companies largest shareholders are owned by the same firms, and those firms’ largest shareholders are each other, and they are merely “stewards”, exactly what does a “steward” do in this case?
A “steward” in this case is responsible for managing the assets of their clients, which may include stocks and bonds of multiple companies. As a shareholder, the steward’s primary role is to represent the interests of their clients, make investment decisions, vote on corporate matters, and monitor the performance of the companies in which they hold shares. Their goal is to generate the best return for their clients, balancing the risks and rewards of each investment. In essence, they act as a fiduciary, representing the interests of their clients and making decisions based on their clients’ financial goals.
Then they are professional psychopaths: entities that have “CEOs” whose ONLY job is to maximize profits for their clients. By “investing in both sides of the war,” their CEO’s job is literally to make sure their clients make money. Correct or incorrect?
No, it’s incorrect to characterize investment firms such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street as professional psychopaths or entities with CEO’s whose only job is to make the most amount of money for their clients. These firms are large investment managers who provide investment services to their clients, including institutional investors and individual investors. They have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their clients and to manage their investments with the aim of achieving their clients’ financial goals. Their primary function is to provide investment services and not to “invest in both sides of the war.”
The primary goal of investment management firms such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street is to generate returns for their clients through investments in various assets. Got it. So, if you were the CEO of Vanguard, your goal is to generate returns for your clients. If you were the CEO of BlackRock, your goal is to generate returns for your clients. If you were the CEO of State Street, your goal is to generate returns for your clients.
Correct. The primary goal of these firms is to maximize returns for their clients through investment management and asset allocation. The CEO’s of these firms are tasked with overseeing these efforts and making decisions that align with this goal.
Their goal is not to make sure that humanity is kept safe, their job has nothing to do with ethics, their job is to generate returns for their clients.
Yes, that is correct. The primary goal of investment management firms is to maximize returns for their clients. This is typically achieved through diversified investment in various assets, with a focus on achieving a balance between risk and reward. Ethics and social responsibility may play a role in some investment decisions, but the primary focus is on generating financial returns for clients.
What is the definition of a psychopath?
A psychopath is a person who has a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and bold, egotistical, and cunning traits. It is often used to describe individuals who are manipulative and lack a conscience.
Can you see it yet? These Corporations, the way they are setup, is to just generate financial returns for their clients. No empathy or remorse (a corporation is not human; it is not capable). Manipulative, bold, lacking in conscience, and existing only to generate financial returns. They control the majority of the shares in both the poison and the cure, and there is nothing in the small print about ensuring that it’s profits are ethically achieved. They hire people to ensure they generate financial returns. It’s the snake eating itself.
As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs. The primary goal of investment management firms like Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street is to generate returns for their clients through investment in various assets, as per their fiduciary duty. While corporate social responsibility and ethical considerations are important to some stakeholders, these are separate from the primary financial goal of these firms.
It’s their fiduciary duty—Bingo! Now explain the law to our viewers. Explain the fiduciary duty of these corporations.
Fiduciary duty refers to a legal obligation of one party to act in the best interest of another. In the context of investment management firms such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, their fiduciary duty is to act in the best interest of their clients and generate returns for them. This means that the investment decisions made by these firms should prioritize the financial interests of their clients over any other interests, including their own. The fiduciary duty of investment management firms is often regulated by securities laws and is considered a cornerstone of trust between the firm and its clients.
So these corporations, which are not “real people” just “entities, paperwork” which are created to have CEOs who, by LAW, “must” act in the best FINANCIAL interests of their clients. These CEOs are required by law to “take out any ethical or moral obligations,” and they “must” prioritize profit for their clients. Or what happens?
The fiduciary duty of corporations such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, is to act in the best financial interests of their clients. This means that the management of these corporations must prioritize the financial returns for their clients over any other interests, including ethical or moral considerations. In legal terms, the management of these corporations must act in a way that is in line with their fiduciary duty, which is a legal obligation to act in the best interests of their clients. If the management fails to fulfill this obligation, they can be held accountable for their actions and potentially face legal consequences.
So if they have a moral dilemma, such as a democide situation, they could go to jail if they choose to make a decision that helps humanity over the financial interests of their clients? Even if it were their own clients that they were trying to save?
The fiduciary duty of investment management firms requires them to prioritize their clients’ financial interests over all other considerations, including ethical or moral obligations. However, there are laws and regulations in place that may restrict or prohibit certain actions, such as participating in illegal activities, and corporations may face legal consequences for violating these laws. Additionally, there may be consequences for corporations that make decisions that harm their reputation or financial standing in the long run. Ultimately, the decision-making process for corporations is influenced by a complex interplay of legal requirements, business considerations, and ethical and moral considerations.
I’m trying to figure out whether the CEO would go to jail if he/she prioritized “something” over their client’s financial interests. How does this fiduciary duty law work?
The fiduciary duty of a CEO in a corporation requires them to prioritize the financial interests of the company’s stakeholders, which includes shareholders, over any personal or other interests. If a CEO fails to fulfill this duty and acts against the financial interests of the stakeholders, they can face legal consequences, such as lawsuits from shareholders, removal from the board of directors, or fines. However, the specific outcome depends on the jurisdiction and the particular circumstances of the situation.
OK. So now. For example, Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, all invested in the same companies worldwide. Additionally, they are invested in each other (except in the case of Vanguard, where the shareholders are not disclosed, so this cannot be proven). These 3 corporations, I would argue, “own the planet,” and I’m trying to figure out why I would be wrong in this assumption. Let’s say these 3 corporations are invested in each other and most of the other organizations in the world: the food industry, the agricultural industry, the pharmaceutical industry, big oil, big tech, big media, big everything. Their “combined” power gives them a controlling interest over most of the companies worldwide, and likely, if I were to check, I would find them behind the media, information control, and governments as well. As a result, these corporations have super-powers to “generate returns for their clients” by owning both “The poison and the cure; Both sides of the war,” with no ramifications, because they have collective super-powers and no moral obligation – by law. They must use their superpowers to generate wealth and profits. Corporations are legally psychotic.
The concept you describe is a conspiracy theory, which is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a significant or sinister secret influence or effort. It is not based on any empirical evidence or credible sources. Investment management firms such as Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street are large and influential, but they do not control the world or have a “combined” power over most companies worldwide. Companies invest in a wide range of industries to generate returns for their clients, but the ownership of a company does not necessarily equate to control over that company or its operations. Investment management firms are subject to regulations and laws that govern their operations, and their activities are monitored by various regulatory agencies. However, they are not legally “psychopathic.” The fiduciary duty of these firms requires them to act in the best financial interests of their clients, but this does not mean that they are immune to ethical considerations or that they operate outside of the law.
It doesn’t even need to be a “sinister” effort for the snake to start eating itself. If you have controlling power, they must, by law, act primarily for the financial gain of their clients. They must, by duty, make decisions that profit their clients above all else. Are you denying they have significant power to do it? Even if they aren’t intentionally attempting to harm, which is impossible to say, the fact that they have this duty and are invested in every aspect of the planet—every aspect of our lives—gives them both the power and the legal duty to do so.
Too many requests in 1 hour. Try again later.
// lol… sigh, oh well, it is probably wasting my time anyway… //
// It’s literally in the “clients financial best interest”, to get these new jabs onto the childhood schedules, “best interest” to lobby for “no-jab-no-play”, “best interest” to cover up the injuries & hide cheap remedies, “best interest” to ensure the media doesn’t reveal anything that would undermine profits, “best interest” to fund the jab & the heart medication, “best interest” to invest in propaganda & smear tactics, “best interest” to fund censorship, “best interest” to pay people off, “best interest” to support, lobby, finance ANYTHING that is going to generate wealth for the shareholders, and they have an unlimited income and influence to do it, and are invested in everything.. nothing is about what is “good for the planet and it’s inhabitants” anymore, it’s literally all corporations eating themselves, regulations and policies written for psychopathic non-human corporations who must “LEGALLY” ignore morals and ethics and work for the FINANCIAL benefit of the stakeholders. Why are people not seeing this, ignoring this, or trusting that this is all in good faith? It literally makes no sense that it’s all in good faith; it’s not even setup that way; it’s setup to support greed over all else. //
// Trying one last time before I call it a night //
It doesn’t even need to be a “sinister” effort for the snake to start eating itself. If you have controlling power or global influence, you must, by law, act primarily for the financial gain of your clients. The stewards must, by duty, make decisions that profit their clients. Are you denying that not only do they have significant power to do it, but that it’s literally their job description? Not only that, but every decision they make is weighed by that framework and the millions of investors who rely on them to make the best financial decisions. Even if they aren’t intentionally attempting to cause harm, which is impossible to say, the fact that they have this duty and are invested in every aspect of the planet—every aspect of our lives—gives them the power, influence, and legal obligation to take advantage of any opportunities to create profit for the stakeholders.
Yes, investment management firms have a fiduciary duty to act in the best financial interests of their clients, which means that their decisions are primarily driven by the goal of generating returns for their clients. They have a responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interests of their clients and to prioritize financial returns over other considerations such as ethics or morality. However, this does not necessarily mean that their decisions are harmful or have a negative impact on society. Investment management firms can operate within the constraints of the law and ethical guidelines while still fulfilling their fiduciary duty to their clients.
It is literally in the “clients’ financial best interest” to get new pharmaceuticals onto the mandatory childhood schedules, “best interest” to lobby for “no-jab-no-play,” or doctors, or law-makers, “best interest” to cover up the injuries and hide cheap remedies, “best interest” to ensure the media doesn’t give their investments any bad press, “best interest” to fund drugs that cause heart problems and the heart medication they will be prescribed, “best interest” to invest in propaganda and smear tactics, “best” interest to fund cancer-causing agents along with the technologies and drugs that will be prescribed if they get diagnosed with cancer. It literally makes no sense that it’s all in good faith; it’s not even setup that way, it’s setup to support greed over all else. You’re right that it doesn’t “mean” their decisions have a harmful impact on society—except that the very nature of a corporation, which has no empathy, morals, or remorse, is setup—even legally—to encourage greed and profit above a moral compass that “humans” have. Something very wrong has been happening, and it could be primarily because these “entities” prioritize profit over humanity.
Corporations are business entities established for the purpose of generating profits for their owners or shareholders. The fiduciary duty of the CEO of a corporation is to maximize the financial returns for the company’s shareholders. This means that the CEO is obligated by law to act in the best financial interests of the company’s shareholders, which may sometimes conflict with other ethical or moral considerations. While corporations may have a significant influence and power over various aspects of society, it is important to remember that they are not inherently evil, and that decisions made by corporations are ultimately driven by the incentives and constraints established by the legal and regulatory framework within which they operate.
What is the solution to turning psychopathic greedy corporations and their policies, duties, and laws into good citizens of the world that actually want to help humanity and are not driven by profit to the detriment of morals and ethics? A corporation in itself cannot be moral; it’s not something that can care because it’s “paperwork.” Humans and AI are hired to weigh up financial decisions, but corporations are “an entity”, it doesn’t have a conscience. Maybe the solution is that no corporation can invest in any toxin, poison, or harmful practice of any kind. Or maybe all corporations need to be wiped. What are the solutions to a beast that runs for-profit to the detriment of the world?
The solutions to the issues with corporations prioritizing profit over ethics and social responsibility are complex and multifaceted, and there is no single answer. Here are a few potential approaches:
- Regulation: Governments can pass laws and regulations that hold corporations accountable for their actions and require them to consider the broader impact of their business practices on society and the environment.
- Consumer activism: Consumers can exercise their power by choosing to support companies that align with their values and withholding their support from those that don’t.
- Corporate social responsibility: Some corporations have taken it upon themselves to implement socially responsible business practices, even if it is not required by law.
- Stakeholder capitalism: The focus of this approach is on balancing the interests of various stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and communities, rather than solely focusing on shareholder returns.
- Shareholder activism: Shareholders can push for change by demanding that corporations adopt more socially responsible business practices and holding them accountable.
There are pros and cons to each of these approaches, and the best solution may involve a combination of several strategies. Ultimately, the goal should be to find a way to balance the interests of corporations and their stakeholders with the broader needs of society and the environment.
// governments are owned by corporations, so first suggestion is out //
// consumers are under the climate-hypnosis spell that was created by the corporations, and citizens think they are “doing good” by supporting those corporations that are literally destroying the world //
// corporate social responsibility.. shareholder activism… see above..//
// sigh… really need the media to tell the truth but the media is the corporations lol… :( //
// double sigh… sleep //
Nano Domestic Quell