tHe MoSt EvIL cOmPaNiEs In theWoRLD!! BlackStone vs BlackRock
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 дек 2022
- Upgrade the way you learn with Brilliant! To get started for FREE go to www.brilliant.org/howmoneyworks
Sign up for my newsletter compoundeddaily.com 👈
-----
Blackrock and Blackstone are finance companies that control trillions of dollars worth of assets between them. There is a good chance that some of your money is controlled by one of these companies without you even knowing about it.
Blackrock was one of the largest investors in the ill fated FTX and Blackstone has been blamed for single handily causing the housing affordability crisis.
But how do these companies actually work and are they really the most evil businesses in the world?
Well no… sorry to ruin the fun, but if you remove the ominous sounding background music and carefully selected headlines, these are just regular investment firms like any other, not bad, not terrible.
But I think the best way for you to realise this is to get a clear breakdown of how these companies operate.
So it’s time to learn How Money Works to find out how these companies make their money, and who they answer to, so that you can make up your own mind.
-----
#blackrock #finance #howmoneyworks
Edited By: Andrew Gonzales
Music Courtesy of: Epidemic Sound
Select Footage Courtesy of: Getty Images
For sponsorship inquiries, please contact sponsors@worksmedia.group
All materials in these videos are for educational purposes only and fall within the guidelines of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. This video does not provide investment or financial advice of any kind.
Upgrade the way you learn with Brilliant! To get started for FREE go to www.brilliant.org/howmoneyworks
Are there any ways on Brilliant to learn about Blackrock's ESG system, and how funding from entities like Blackrock are very closely tied to their ESG scores?
Maybe even a clip on Brilliant demonstrating why content creators are afraid of bringing ESG up when discussing the company who created the system?
@@toughgamma Because ESGs are a scam, duhh!
12:40 Did you mean Blackstone?
How much have you been paid to say this?
@@ajrobbins368 ruclips.net/video/iYqVNrI-pKk/видео.html as well; it's all in the section on BlackStone which is in the business of alternative investments rather than index funds.
I got to the end and still don't know the difference between a stone and a rock. A stone is smaller, right?
Lmaoooo
i am starting to think that finance is harder than rocket science
The pioneers used to ride rocks for miles. Can't say the same about stones.
Come for the video, Stay for the Boyle wit
It's around the size of a small boulder.
Imagine there is a master company controlling both BlackRock and BlackStone called BlackBoulder
In the first half - I thought that it was a bigger thing that's actually happening.... read the "boulder", lost my shit xD
and secretly ruled by a cabal that is called Black Mountain.
It's called BlackCock
Both these companies are soon going to be labeled BlackBalls (left & right).
What about BlackPebble
Black1
Counterpoint: If blackrock overpays for a house in a neighborhood and the recent sale data is what real east are agents use to gauge prices. If they buy 1 home in 50% of the local areas in the country, then they are indeed directly responsible for housing becoming more expensive due to the relative price of the real estate
First of all, it's Blackstone that's doing it, the video got it mixed up in the end.
Secondly, it's really not just one or two houses that will increase the cost overall in an area. It has to be more than that. But yeah, you are right in that they can influence more than the very small number of 0.02% shows.
Honestly, I didn't know it was such a small number. I had the impression it was a lot higher than that
@@chicoktcRateables are what real estate agents use to determine the selling price of a home. It’s basically the price other homes in similar condition are going for so BlackRock or whoever paying inflated prices is driving up other peoples home values.
The 0.02% number was the total number of homes in America. I’m wondering what the true percentage of houses for sale in certain markets is. Like, a neighborhood of 1000 homes has 10 houses for sale at any given time, that 0.02% jumps to 20%. Therefore it’s affecting the price on 2 of those 10 for sale and agents are going to notice the mark ups both for their selling clients and their commissions.
@@chicoktc fun fact: the only people upset over high housing prices are new buyers. People who already own their homes (2/3 of Americans) are just fine with higher home prices. With any transaction, there are always at least two sides: buyer and seller. One person's gloom and doom is another person's joy and delight. Funny... the media never talks about that.
@@chicoktc Its a small number but strategically done to drive up houses with being able to use that small number to seem like they are innocent. They control just enough of major cities, and towns to have quite the grip on the housing market without having to buy everything up. They just need to drive up prices and undercut slightly what they don't own.
@@sidwhiting665 Correction - thousand of americans gloom and doom is one persons joy and delight
For anyone looking to invest in US stocks, it's crucial to diversify your portfolio to mitigate risk. Consider a mix of blue-chip stocks for stability, growth stocks for potential high returns, and some dividend-paying stocks for steady income. Always stay informed about market trends and consult with a financial advisor to tailor your strategy to your specific goals and risk tolerance. Happy investing!
Great advice! Diversifying my portfolio with blue-chip, growth, and dividend-paying stocks has paid off. Starting with $100,000 and staying informed with help from a financial advisor, my investment has grown to around $900,000. Diversification and informed decisions are key
The hidden truth is that working with a financial advisor can significantly amplify your success. Personalized advice and strategic decisions make a huge difference
Amazing results! Could you share how I can get in touch with your financial advisor? I'd love to work with them.
Angela Lynn Schilling is the Iicensed coach l use. Just research the name. You'd find necessary detaiIs to work with a correspondence to set up an appointment.
I searched for her full name online, found her page, and sent an email to schedule a meeting. Hopefully, she responds soon. Thank you..
9:55 You went right past the issue - if the holders don't vote, BlackRock gets to decide. That gives them immense power over the direction of companies. They also have control - they can shuffle companies out of the indexes, punishing their stocks greatly. This is where corporate culture comes in. Vanguard was founded to get cheap and effective investments to the masses. Bogle was a hero for the little guy. BlackStone and BlackRock were formed to work with the Elites of society and make a ton of money, and control a lot of money, to further solidify their positions. The companies grew and attracted talent respectively, with those goals in mind. Today BlackRock could very easily destroy the viability of a stock investment if they wished - just make something up about it not meeting investment criteria, and kick it out. Most fund holders would appreciate them looking out for them, not realizing that more is happening behind the scenes.
12:00 You flipped BlackRock and BlackStone.
13:40 It's more the combination of pressure to keep zoning locked down tight, while moving in and scooping up homes, that has an outsized impact. If we continue to hamstring developers and underbuild 1% per year, while allowing them to continue buying up tens of thousands of homes, eventually all the marginal supply will be owned by them.
Needs more upvotes.
@@THETRIVIALTHINGS Needs more upvotes.
Needs more upvotes.
This!
How on earth could BR kick a company out of the indexes? They are not S&P
13:32 Blackstone controlling 0.02% of the single housing homes is a very bad argument and hides how much control the company has over the market. While Blackstone may technically control 0.02% of single-family homes, they have huge control over the whole market considering how even slight changes in trends of availability, vacancy, developments, etc can drive huge changes throughout the market. The issue with 0.02% or 0.5% figure for Blackstone and institutionalized owners is:
1) It says nothing about commercial properties and non-single-family homes.
2) It deliberately hides types of housing and total control of housing ownership. If you would rephrase the question to "what percentage of single home housing Blackstone controls in terms of total dollar amount?" you would get a much higher answer as Blackstone focuses on more expensive newer upper-middle-class developments.
3) It ignores homes that are already fully owned by regular folks and realistically will never enter the market because the sale would be impractical.
4) It ignores that a huge percentage of homes are essentially useless for the purposes of market calculations, as those could be in undesirable areas, at the end of their useful lifecycle, etc.
5) It ignores how even the smallest trends in investment impact choices made by housing developers. Developers would prefer building more expensive housing out of reach for most new homebuyers, especially when there is an almost guaranteed asset management company that will buy out those regardless. The issue isn't just that the cost of housing increases, but that the type of housing being built recently (including pre-2008) is stereotypical upper-middle-class McMansions that most people will never be able to afford
6) It ignores the vacancy rate of those homes. As houses function as an investment that will rise regardless of buyers/tenants, there is less incentive to rent those homes to people. I would be interested in what's the vacancy rate in those houses especially combined with the issues above.
Also the Concentration, .02% in a country could be way higher concentration*** in certain regions, from then its just the snowball effect
And what dose this mean
@@davisdelp8131 It means the stat makes BlackRock seem less "evil", than it supposedly is.
Also taking the above comment into consideration, home valuations vary by region. 0.02% of a country may not seem that bad considering BlackRock's size, but that figure gives you fuck-all about their actual influence on the housing market.
He got you there
Yours is a bad argument because you're effectively making it such that anyone owning anything makes too much of a difference in the market.
.02% is way too small to fucking matter.
Every company that owns more than 10% of a market has monopoly power in your eyes.
"This video is brought to you by Black Rock"
I guess one of the problems is, companies are expected to do everything legal and in their power to make more money for their investors, but only over the short-term. If they crash their own market or bubble their assets, they won't be the only ones who suffer.
That's why an asset manager should forget alpha gains and focus on maximizing efficiency.
@@samsonsoturian6013 none of these words are in the bible
@@zakkart vhut?
Yeah, they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, but no responsibility whatsoever to society. That's a dire systemic problem that we have to address. You should have a system that encourages companies to use overseas child slave labor to maximize profits for rich people at home
I would say That is not the problem. Investing is very much a long term game, even if you’re trading on short time horizons.
It's never good when money, power and centralization is in play.
Asset managers favor economies of scale because the overhead is about the same regardless how many zeros you add to them.
I'd say more, that it tends to be temporary good. But overall not good for everyday peoples long-term.
Shareholders should be the state
The "evilness" of their intentions might be exaggerated, but the truth is that they have immense power and are certainly able to abuse it if they wanted to
all corporations are by definition evil because their sole aim is profit, that's why regulations are necessary. if a person behaved like a corporation they would be considered a psychopath. what happened to the honest capitalists who just admit that but say self interest leads to greater good?
Sir they control the housing market, what we eat what we think, how is that not evil?
that could be true for any investment company, billionaire or average politician. They're no different, so the precautions have to be similar
An insignificant voting share isn't immense power lol. They own something like 5% of any given company. if there are other groups with 5% you're still 1/20.
@@sor39995% is still a hefty amount and a lot of say when we're talking about owning chunks of a company.
5 companies control over 20 tril in assets and have a finger on the direction of the entire economy and are required by law to prioritize profit over anything else....but nah their name is the reason why is unsophisticated folk find them scary.
This video is a perfect example of how smart people are the most vulnerable to mental gymnastics.
Also the whole take on the market issue with DarkPebble is really shallow and dismissive. For a channel about economics it feels like a hard miss and the example is also really narrowminded
He was probably paid to create this video.
I'm subscribing from this fluff-filled garbage of a financial channel. The earlier videos were interesting. Now, the clown publishes anything to get more views.
@@CalebePriester its illegal to not disclose a sponsorship, its very unlikely he'd risk severe fines and his reputation just to not put the sponsor in the video.
@@sirbean5563 check who own brilliant, is there some black word in it's investor lol
So the whole video is corporate propaganda
This sounds like a promotional piece for BlackRock.
I was going to write this myself. Yeah they clearly had a hand in this
Fr
This guy is just as much a finance bro as any other wall street guy.
It's not about whether they are "evil" or not. They are indeed making very similar decisions as other funds who are just out to maximize profits and that, i think, it's the issue. That it's practically all of these companies that in the name of making more money for investors are engaging in practices that are destroying and/or fundamentally changing the communities and societies around them.
Welcome to capitalism
Exactly! Well said.
And, that’s a bad thing!? [evil "I’m doing fine, what’s the problem?" laugh]
@@AS89898 *Corporatism. Capitalism would have the barrier for entry for any competitors to these companies remain equal and low, rather than have government-favored megacorporations get special treatment and bailouts while the startups and smaller companies get next to nothing as far as support or favor.
@@Darkrunn Quite a shock, then, that every system of capitalism that has ever seen use has led to corporatism. It's almost as though one is a logical consequence of the other.
Also, gotta love how your solution to rampant capitalism is less regulation. I'm sure that'll prevent the monopolies from forming.
The problem is that these companies have lobbied the government to make pensions mandatory and controlled by a third party. Now everyone is forced to give up some of their salary to a pension fund, which ultimately ends up under the control of blackrock. People should have control of their own pension money instead of giving all this power to large corporations.
I agree with the last part but pensions have all but disappeared for the entire private sector. The only people still in pensions are public sector (government) union employees and trade unions.
So 98% of the workforce does have control of their "pensions". They are called 401k funds.
You seem to imply pensions are bad. They are actually better for the workers if company and fund are managed competently. Private companies didn't shred their pension benefits because it was better for the company.
Index investing was created and developed by Jack Bogle, the founder of Vanguard. Initially he was laughed at by the then Wall Street investing giants who relished the gravy train of "fund management fees" coming in from their actively managed funds.
Later on, all of them would bow down to the inevitable and launch their own index fund products.
Ironically, Jack Bogle in his later years would express concern about the concentration of voting power in the financial companies stemming from their huge index fund holdings.
Asset managers don't vote on shareholders behalf withoit specific permission to do so
@@samsonsoturian6013 Hit me up on ☝️📩
@@samsonsoturian6013 ehh that really depends on which index fund your talking about and how they structure the funds.
Interesting how you didn't mention Blackrocks ESG system..
Exactly. The fact that the world economic forum ties didn’t come up means I will trust this channel for information on how markets work and how things technically function, but opinion wise I trust it as far as I can throw it. This was the biggest white wash I’ve ever seen. It’s like saying Ted Bundy didn’t deserve his reputation even though he forgot to shovel his sidewalk after it snowed, as if that was the big evil. I almost broke my finger smashing the down vote button on this video.
Hmmm 🤔
Why would they? The whole video is about how big they are and how much they supposedly control. Maybe get off the Fox News kool-aid scaremongering for a second.
Yep, that's where their evilness shines
It's the main reason Blackrock gets so much hate, way to completely miss the point... probably on purpose
When you have so many assets to generate cash and buy off legislators, it's much easier to conform to laws you practically drafted yourself.
There's no need to lie in this instance
Not practically. Their lobbying attorneys LITERALLY write the laws and then bribe politicians to back them.
@@hopefully2224 liars burn in hell
@@samsonsoturian6013 what about all the money these guys spend on supper packs
Idk man, when I started the baby seal clubbing society all of my members took on a fiduciary responsibility to club baby seals to death with even cuter seals. Nothing evil about doing your duty, they were just following orders after all.
😂😂😂😂
Did the last minute of this video seriously pull the, "well, They're doing something that's much worse so we're not that bad" card? They might not have evil intentions when just trying to maximize the portfolio of all their investors, but they did incredibly unethical things in order to do it. I would say that is still very evil.
Less bad doesn't mean there aren't still issues, basically. And you can't just ignore them.
Yes, he actually made that argument. Just shows that he might actually be a untrustworthy RUclipsr all along. Also the part that supposedly shows how little percent BlackStone controls is BlackStone's own clever misdirection to fool people into thinking that they don't have that much of an impact on house prices.
Exactly this. Dude said that they're not evil while also describing the greediest shit I've heard all year.
-These companies are not evil, they are just doing the same everyone else is doing, but more efficiently.
-Ok, but you understand that that is worse, right?
He doesn’t realize that whatever way he puts it, these investment companies have immense influence over shit that we consume daily now, affecting the public perception and propaganda. Literally everything around us is trying to say “You need this! or this is bad/good” i think he’s forgetting the psychological aspect of it
Exactly this. Dude said that they're not evil while also describing the greediest shit I've heard all year.
There is something to be said about the philosophy of always trying to grow and expand instead of sometimes just taking a step back (atleast in the short-term) that is worrisome. It's caused a lot of problems in Tech and clearly also leads to companies like Blackstone screwing over people looking for housing
It is gluttony.
@@sethtrey It is a necessity in an economic system which can only function if it grows. Almost like a Ponzi scheme rly. Trying to execute this never ending growth on a planet with finite resources is this collective madness going on for a while and what we call the "current socioeconomic paradigm", or shortly just rampant capitalism.
@@CraftyF0X this is literally wrong its not necessary for it to grow nigga but its regard as good when it is growing
@@tkokflux6322 Yea you know a lot about economy I can tell right away..... It is a necessity, and if you don't understand why that's fine, time to do some research and reading befor you call someone wrong.
Welcome to capitalism, I guess? The line must always go up. If it doesn't, you're failing your investors and aren't worth anything as a company.
Our current business model is evil so even if these companies are just "legally doing business" doesn't make it not evil. The clip saying the danger of that much ownership was glossed over as well
What you described would be true if such a thing as ESG didn't exist. This is just another name for social credit score. Without it you're right, it's just another investment company, with it it's a partisan political actor.
I was waiting the whole clip for HMW to mention ESG even in his typical objective way. The power for Blackrock to demand [woke] values from the companies it holds or risk being sold off is dangerous.
As we sadly have to deal with ESGs influencing our lives and the companies management.
I hope ESGs fail by proving to be a hindrance in the long term. Like Disney shoving propaganda in every piece of culture just leading to a long and painful failure for Disney.
They’re not evil for maximizing profits. They’re evil by aiming ever so strongly to make everyone an alienated, indebted consumer with little else to be.
@@rdln4313 for sure. Recently, my company outed that they have a senior management head of ESG. I hope it's mostly for show, because otherwise the culture will be getting more distracting.
@@rdln4313 🤦🏼 You just said they're not evil for trying to maximize profits and then call them evil for the exact things that they do to maximize profits... ESG is a failed attempt to make capitalism less exploitative, because capitalism is inherently exploiting.
@@WanderingExistence the issue here is the very attempt to make capitalism less exploitative ends up making it more exploitative. Especially given how there's more not-wealthy white people than not-wealthy not-white people in America
>Only casually mentions the huge problem of blackrock, vanguard and the like standing closest to the fed money printer and getting cheap debt...
>Pretends like blackrock doesn't meddle to much in other companies through their power as shareholders while disregarding Larry's yearly ESG threat letters...
It's previously been very clear that you have a liberal bias but this video is just total bull, how much are they paying ya' big guy?
Atleast he isnt personally advocating for the World Economic Forum like Johnny Harris or using sources directly from biased billionaires like kurzgesagt
Omission of information is one of the lesser crimes in comparison :/
Blackstone strategy is that rents won't go down because the housing supply will not increase.
Legally obligated to do anything to increase the companies value within the law. When the law doesn't agree; lobby to change the law. Do we see the problem here?
I heard the problem was black rock and vanguard own all the companies and so own companies that compete with each other and so would vote for monopolistic practices instead of competition
They manage the companies assets, they don't own them. That doesn't mean they can't influence things, but companies can still act independently.
@@starmorpheus the stock owners (i.e. Black Rock) are the owners...
Like Microsoft and apple, people think they are different companies that compete with each other when both their assets and stocks are owned by the same people...
14:45 You just showed how Blackmeme drives up the price of property, which in turn drives up the price of other property. Yeah, they have 0.02% of 'single family homes', but they are competing against individual people that own 0.0000000001% of 'single family homes'. I'm interested in the data on townhomes and apartments, which aren't 'single family homes'.
Except the issue with your argument is that individual people still buy the homes at the increased prices...
The general market (normal/rich people) are still buying homes at the increased prices...
@@killerhurtalot Normal people ain't buying shit, they're moving to a different part of the country to the desert cuz it's somehow more affordable than an area actually suitable for life
@@killerhurtalot Normal.. above-average middle class? Or are they theoretically taking on long-term mortgages? Both?
Regardless. Renting in my area, by yourself *might* be doable. If you have someone you care for who can't work, then it isn't.
Housing scarcity is a lot more nuanced then "Blackstone owns everything lol!" But IMO, the commodification of housing is a big part of the problem (which Blackstone is one part of). The invention of REITs in the 70s is when median income and housing prices started to diverge which culminated in 2008 crash and the problem we are seeing now. Even average Joes are salivating at their own on paper wealth.
“A legal option to make money for share holders, so long as it is not illegal”. I would consider that shady at best, or evil at worst.
You didn’t mention the most major problem when it comes to BlackRock, which is the ESG score they maintain for all the companies they own.
So?
@@Toxic-th4si he's a brainwashed treehugger lmao
And?
@@Toxic-th4si perhaps unelected investment funds shouldn’t be controlling how you live. The market is no longer controlled by the consumer. It’s controlled by oligarchs who tell you what to do. Get in the pod and eat the bugs.
ESG isn't inherently bad, it's only bad if it's communicated to people as an alternative to government regulation.
I would like to see the status on the percentage of new homes that are bought but investors. That would provide more insight to their impact than how much of the overall market they own.
Very interesting. I would also like to see well researched videos instead of these fluff filled videos.
"Institutional owners only own 0.5% of single-family homes in the US."
Only 0.8% of homes are currently for sale. So "only 0.5%" is 62% of the housing market. Brutal. And they just put it in your face knowing people wont check.
@@jcslowry . You nailed it!
They don't actually need to own or buy a large percentage of homes to have a huge affect on prices. Pricing of houses is based on what other similar nearby houses were sold for. If they buy just a few houses well over asking price in an area, that will have a huge affect on the asking prices of other nearby homes.
I'm reminded of Downton Abbey and the decline of the landed gentry in 1870s England. Because ownership of the land was in few hands, the nobles and gentry were able to elevate the price of land to well beyond what ordinary people could afford and extract enormous rents from tennant farmers.
However, once factories began to generate much larger amounts of wealth on small plots of land it was all over. People could make more money working in factories, taxes went up and factory owners could afford what had been outrageous sums for land only a generation or two ago.
Industrialists would then buy large plots of land from poorer gentry and either build company towns or subdivide and sell what they didn't need at prices the market could actually afford.
This crashed the value of land and grew the middle class, thus making it even harder for other gentry to stay afloat financially.
It may take decades, but many of the big private equity firms currently buying up the housing market are going to suffer the same fate.
If the world's population really does start to decline starting in the 2050s, the housing market will be perpetually over-supplied and prices will crash.
Start saving those down deposits now!
why didnt you talk about ESG that blackrock forces
Because the owner of the channel is a shill for the industry.
The big problem with companies like Blackrock, Vanguard etc is that when you “buy shares” with them your not actually buying shares, they are buying shares with your money and they legally own them along with the voting rights that come with them! Don’t “buy shares” with a fund manager or your derogating your voting rights to another entity who may or may not vote the same way you would have!
What if you just want to make money for retirement because it is profoundly expensive to exist in America and you don't want to work until you die, but don't give a damn about the actual policies of companies because your tiny middle-class vote won't change things anyway?
@@Demmrir If your investing in ETFs than there isn’t much you can do about it. If your buying individual shares then make sure they are through a proper stockbroker where you actually control the shares. I’m in Australia and I use CMC Markets to buy shares with. The shares are registered with the ASX in my name and any correspondence from companies I own shares in comes to me.
I used to use Vanguard and I didn’t realise what was happening until I changed over (because I was new to share investing at the time). With Vanguard I never received any letters from companies I “invested” in and no letters from the ASX to say I’m a shareholder, because Vanguard owned the shares, not me!
@@Demmrir . The top ten largest firms on the S&P500 have 99.9% correlation with the index itself. You don't need to own an ETF or mutual fund with the entire index to get index returns. However, the way to fix the issue with share ownership is through regulation so these large asset managers can't use your money against your best interest such as encouraging your employer to fire you to cut expenses.
@@Demmrir then don't vote, nothing compelling you to vote.
@@David-lr2viLol the shares are still not in your name. It’s in CMC name (or who ever holds the shares for them)
Although market may change, this investing advise is timeless. success in the market depends on playing the odds instead of following natural instincts.
The best investment strategy can turn into the worst if you don't have the stomach to see it through. can you handle staying in when everyone else is jumping ship?
@@kendrickdonor2017 The biggest risk of all is not taking one. If investors stick to the low_risks assets like the money market and bonds, then they run a high risk of low long term returns. How can I contact Carissa?
@@emmacreame4889 I mean I'm not doing a referral service ma'am. But you can look up the name and contact her on the web
This chain of comments is a SCAM
Scam
Ok, I get your argument. However how can you explain the ESG scores and "transition to stakeholder capitalism" that Larry fink himself is pushing?
Stakeholder capitalism and ESG are diametrically opposed to the concept of fiduciary duty. Regardless of what these investment firms tell you.
Hiring decisions based on various identity quotas instead of purely merit is not in the best interest of shareholders.
Spending millions on diversity and inclusion departments to police such a thing is not in the best interest of shareholders.
Utilizing more expensive and less efficient technologies for the sole purpose of the environment is not in the best interest of shareholders.
this! bump!
Idk if you want an answer, but I'd like to give my 2 cents: People tend to always think of either diversity or environmentalism when it comes to ESG. There's quite a bit more involved, especially beyond the US where diversity quotas and policing play a significantly smaller role. Fundamentally 2 things:
1. the logic of ESG can (in some cases) be simplified to "ppl pressure government to enact anti climate change regulation -> some businesses benefit from that regulation (solar companies, recycling, etc.) while others are hurt (certain automotive companies, dirty chemicals, etc.) -> if you invest in the former businesses, you make money from this legislation. So if you assume that the probability that this happens is larger than it not happening, you should bet on that (whether that assumption is true or not is a different discussion), making it actually completely in line with fiduciary duty.
2. When it comes to topics such as social and governance (the latter being the sadly unappreciated one), this can be viewed in different ways, e.g. companies with better brand perceptions among their target audience make more money. If you sell to Gen Z, who value certain things, you want to be aligned with those values in order to sell as good as possible to them (making e.g. diversity actually financially viable). In addition, there is actually research that for example female CEOs are less likely to commit fraud than male CEOs and that more diverse teams and by extension boards (in this case meaning diverse not only in race or gender, but also in age, academic background and experience) actually perform better than more homogenous teams. Happy to look that up if you'd like.
Stakeholder management is a bit more buzzwordy IMO than ESG, but the way that I believe BlackRock thinks is this: We and certain companies have a bad rep for not caring about ppl. This will lead to more image-conscious investors (as Gen Z for example seems to be) to not invest in us and for a lot more bad press and legal scrutiny. By pushing stakeholder value we can improve our perception and counteract that.
Stakeholder management is a relatively new concept trying to replace Shareholder Management (of which even Jack Welch, who used to be its biggest advocate, was more and more critical in his later years). There are concrete examples of stakeholder management actually improving returns. There was a case in which KKR did a form of stakeholder management a few years back. They bought a manufacturing company (again, happy to look up the details again) in the US and instead of keeping all shares, distributed some of the shares to all employees of the company, making them co-owners. The project was a huge success and both KKR and the employees made a fat profit (I think they all got a good 6-figure sum on average) because the employees were thinking as business owners instead of only employees. This is only one example of course, but I want to bring it up just to show how many things fall under stakeholder management. And these things lead to tangible, positive results, making it wise to push for that.
Just to be clear, I don't want to say we should run after every trend and that everything has have great ESG ratings and I'm not a fan of quota-based hiring either, just wanted to point out that there's more to these buzzwords and that they can actually be good for investors.
Of course all of these strategies are based on assumptions, if you disagree with these assumptions, you can, especially if you are based in the US, invest in what some call "conservative" funds that bet on the exact opposite and don't invest in companies that focus strongly on ESG. Great way to make some impact, live your beliefs and actually make some money on it.
You really missed some of the unethical stuff blackrock does:
December 2021, it was reported that BlackRock was an investor in two companies that had been blacklisted by the US government for human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. In one case (Hikvision) BlackRock increased its level of investment after the company was blacklisted.
According to Wikipedia
He didn't miss it accidentally tho
This video sponsored by: Blackstone
This video is sponsored by Blackrock and Blackstone 😉
I HAVE INCURRED SO MUCH LOSSES TO TRADE ON MY OWN,I TRADE WELL ON DEMO BUT I THINK THE REAL MARKET IS MANIPULATED.
I always advice new members to have an orientation on how it works before getting involved. Trade offers more benefits than just holding.
Kate Floretta
Face book
Google " katefxfloretta " anywhere take classes to learn to trade.
having a mentor is also very important when it comes to Trade, with out that, it can be very frustrating.
you must have these things in mind
1. Have a long term mindset.
2. Be willing to take *risk*.
3. Be careful, if you're not spending to earn back, then stop spending.
4. Never claim to know - Ask questions and it's best you work with an assistant.
i'd love if it really was like that. Unfortunately they truly manage companies from behind, by threats, violence and money
I found some of these points to be quite misleading, specifically their impact on the real estate market.
Thank you for your feedback,for more information on how to be successful in trading,☝️📊
Indeed. Very shallow take and argument there
i never thought blackrock/blackstone were controlling the world, but i worry about them having so much of the world's assets under their control (even if it is somewhat loose). it's a bit of monopolistic/oligarch behavior. and i list vanguard in that as well. The biggest concern I have is what you brought up with home prices. I live in LA where it is tough to find an apartment building that ISN'T owned by a big corporation. The monetary power buys out smaller people and props up the price of homes an what not. and when an investment firm owns it their motive is number go up at all costs. that kind of pressure on companies makes them do less than ideal thing for the long term. It truly brings out the worst part of capitalism and then makes it a lot worse. Also if a lot of the money is going into the same few funnels it makes it harder to compete. It is in that that these companies are evil. When you can make it so only other large companies can compete and not any small businesses or individual people in a market where small businesses and individuals used to only compete, you have failed the people and I consider you evil. sadly these days we are forced to go through these places. there is no true competition anymore. If buying a storefront is beyond most small businesses ability to afford i see a major problem: it is extremely anti-competitive. I don't believe it has gotten there yet, but that bar to enter into a business is ever increasing. Granted online businesses are how most small businesses operate, but often on the backs of much larger businesses that offer services (shopify, squarespace/wix, CRM services, etc). It's tough and we accept it, but there was a time (well still happens but rarely) when communities did things for the greater of the community.
Well said.
This.
How did we gloss over ESG..
Worth a video to itself
Defending BlackRock without addressing what they've been doing with ESG? Very curious.
I bet you won’t make a video on ESG scores.
Whose
The fiduciary duties of these companies, at this scale especially, overwrites any social duties they might have for the power and influence they have and that should worry everyone
If we as human beings don't bring down these corporations all of humanity will be doomed.
I would love to learn more about the rental situation. Because of from what you said it sounds like there are other companies that lend in the problem itself. Because I would like to know if I will going to be able to live and afford a home. As a millennial. It'd be nice to clear up some of that misinformation and the whole corporations buying housing thing, is it really truly a problem? Or is there blame other places?
This video is brought to you in part by Blackrock
Imagine a CEO of a company being an investor in black rock and then black rock adding their company to its index fund
12:00-13:33. The part that disproves his premise for it not being an evil corporation. Many companies have implemented this strategy, like Zillow. It all adds up to be terrible for families trying to buy a home.
Hiking up prices for human necessities is basically Evil - land lording is new age Slavery
Exactly, they are the key perpetuators of a system that simply seeks to make money off of resources that people need to live... If they price people out of living, "oh well, not our problem".
These are the people that cause houses to inflate faster than inflation, and have large influence to suppress wages so they barely keep pace with inflation.
hey, by any chance can you give a link to the song starting around 2:47 and most prominent at 4:11 ?
Great video! Interested in all the movies you used visuals for can you list them out?
How much did they pay you for this fluff piece?
I love how this channel shows that the best way to handle money is the most boring way
Always has been
Did they pay you?
My final How Money Works video of 2022 🎉
1:05: Well no, if you carefully concoct a propagandized interpretation of these companies, they aren't bad at all! - There I fixed your line.
The irony of someone calling this propaganda while the overall narrative of these companies being some Illuminati is... propaganda. The propaganda that gets to you first is the one that's true. That's the rule!
ESG is the most bs thing. I work in PE and black rock set this annoying standard and legit a load of bs. Nothing but postering. It’s not doing anything for the world
I have no Idea how you didn't come across ESG scores, or naked short selling of stocks. This just looks like poor research on this topic on your part.
Absolutely!
Vanguard gets a pass because they're coop model makes them the "good guys".
Greedy ibn-sharmouta only dish out hate and lies towards the biggest in class. I.E. Mr. Musk started receiving hate mail simply because he was briefly the richest man in the world.
i love noticing when youtubers change their video titles
What was the original?
🤔
I think you missed the mark when talking total SFH ownership, rather, the important point people bring up is the amount of home sales as a percentage since the beginning of the pandemic. So if one in five homes is now being bid by one of the managers compared to one in twenty previously, it still hurts the current household bidders.
He's just sponsored 😊
What about ESG scores? And the indirect control they put on the companies.
It be a shame if all the unaffordable corporate owned housing aka indentured servitude units were to suddenly go up in flames.
Negative. They would still get a nice RIO on the recouped insurance payments. It would be funnier if a bunch of homeless people just started squatting in them and refused to leave without payment.
There's no need to lie in this instance
13:00 even HMW got confused, it appears?
I think he meant Blackstone but said Blackrock as did the illustration
Schwarz as in Elliot Schwartz in Breaking Bad. Guess, I am gonna open a company called Blackminerals.
I think the point that they're not good for the world, but also not evil empires is a good way to put it.
is it coincidence that they both are named synonymous with each other???
The problem I have is these large investment companies is they use the assets the manage for other people to pressure and influence the businesses they invest in. They are taking what should be our individually minuscule influence over these companies, and compounding them together to get an excessive amount of influence on these companies.
I think it should be illegal for these firms to attempt to influence businesses they invest on behalf of other people.
Should do a video on IPO's and Stocks.
I'm not sure, but at 12:38 it seems you started saying BlackRock when you were still talking about Blackstone real estate purchases. Am I misunderstanding?
Wait 13:35 this is misleading. they roll into a single neighborhood and buy up a quarter of the houses there or more while meanwhile only owning 0.02% of the entire country. Go lower and see them owning 50 units in a 130 unit development and say they aren't evil
This is likely a product of blackstone or Blackrock
After doing research for videos and recently one on Wall Street. The truth about a story is always in the middle between the sensationalized headlines and the under-researched areas. The same applies to Blackstone and Blackrock.
It’s not a “secret” if they’re doing it in the open.
I think it is a secret as in not a lot of society realizes that they do this.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle but... that's not what a secret is. a secret is something actively concealed. not something that is not general knowledge. most people don't know about Kessler syndrome. but it isn't a secret in fact we are actively trying to tell people about it before we end our ablity to go to space forever. if it is public. it isn't secret even if people don't bother to learn.
@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle By that definition, Ohio is a secret as a majority of Americans couldn't find the state on a map.
@@badluck5647 are you really comparing a state to a company that is likely less known about than a state?
@@badluck5647 it is likely that the majority of Americans know that Ohio exists, but not likely that Blackstone caused a housing scare.
I’m an M&A guy and I always explain to people that what I do is like a real estate agent only selling companies not houses! Lol I think I need to learn the M&A ego, can’t go around simplifying my profession like that to people
Oh, so they're just regular soulless greedy a-holes instead of evil geniuses! I'm so relieved...
Video paid for by blackrock and blackstone
I think it’s more the esg score then anything to do with the way blackrock invests that gets people riled up. Larry fink also sounds like dr Evil with a large vocabulary when he speaks 😂
Could you do a video on what the day in the life of an investment banker is like? Also what are the most common degrees for people working in this field?
I know you said private equity is 0.06% pf homeowners but that is misleading. Most homes do not go on sale every year and this strategy is relatively new. How many of this years home sales were to private equity firms?
11:27 Because you have to earn 2x the average national income today to rent / buy the identical house that took 1x the average national income to rent / buy 20 years ago.
Keep going!
This. I can’t believe he said that with a straight face like we’d be too dumb to keep up. They make that much because they HAVE to in order to afford it. Everyone else is pushed out in the name of the fiduciary duty they have to the elites that they service.
one of your best videos
Thank you for your feedback,for more information on how to be successful in trading,
Just because something is legal is doesn't mean it's not evil.
These companies are legally allowed to engage in some pretty fucked up activities.
HI! Happy New Year! Markets Closed Today!
Blackrockstone. I can never keep them apart.
what about rock and stone?
Anyone who is still interested in this topic should read Adam Tooze’s essay, “Asset Manager Capitalism” for Chartbook. It’s a brilliant discussion of how Vanguard and Blackrock work from a more progressive perspective and still incredibly educated (he’s a professor at Columbia after studying and teaching at Oxford and Yale). Just as engaging and - I would argue - more thoughtful than this video.
How do I invest in these companies?
So Blackstone was an inspiration for naming Gray Matter technologies in Breaking nad
What books do you recommend to read about economy, finance and taxes?
Karl Marx. A critique of capitalism by someone who had no concept how energy and capital equipment can exponentially increase a person's economic output.
+
Successful people don't become that way overnight. What most people see at a glance- wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life and this new year shall get you closer to your goals and open more opportunities to you
Creating A s s e t s can make one successful in life like
.Stocks
.shares
.Bit coin
That's true , In-vesting in bit coin now is the best thing to do especially with the current state in the market
therefore in-vesting in it wouldn't be a bad idea 💡
This is definitely correct and I agree with you on this
I literally didn’t know I work for State Street, until checking the major shareholders, good chance that you work for them too if you work, if you work in a more than boutique sized company.
My company has 12,000 employees and is worth several billion dollars. It's also private. But if you work at a large private company, you probably know it, because it's rare and usually marketed as one of the benefits of the company. IE, "we do what's best for our customers and/or the longevity of the company, not what's best for the quarter".
@@Demmrir Yeah true, I guess I should correct my comment to, if you work in a public company. Tye company i work for is public with 3,800 employees and market value at 5,6billion. State Street is the second largest shareholder.
New subscriber here, I'm 50 and don't plan on retiring for another 5 years, my pension fund of 500k is fully invested in stocks, and the value of the fund has dropped 20% in the past 12 months. Would you advise switching some of the funds out of stocks into less risky assets, or should I sit tight and ride the storm for another year, given that I have another 5 years before retirement?
when the market goes down and the value of your portfolio decreases significantly, it’s tempting to ask yourself or your financial advisor (if you have one) “should I pull my money out of the stock market?” that’s understandable, but most likely not the best course of action.
That's right, a bias for action can be your worst enemy in the stock market whereas, to avoid the hustle and bustle, I'm better off using an invt advisor, saves me time and earns me weekly to monthly income since the rona-outbreak in 2019 till date. I'm about 15% short of reaching my first $1M, I may consider rtrmt.
@@ocean9861 amazing! mind if I look up the advisor that guides you? I'm 25 just completed my BSC and ACCA, and also have inheritance money that I intend to dump on stocks to hedge against inflation, I've been doing my research, and in conclusion, I'll need an expert to know if what I'm doing is right or wrong.
starts @2:45
Did you say Blackrock at some point in the video when you meant Blackstone?
You described Enron with the bit about mark to market accounting
Investment Firms are required to use Mark to Market accounting
Right because everything on "paper" is correct right? You forgot to filter in the "black" market's statistics, which %'s hold way more weight. What they own vs what they control are two different entities "on paper".