Twitter is better

[jross]

9 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Second, no one who is serious, or understands BlackRock's business model, thinks they are coercing, or have the ability to coerce, anyone. What lever could they possibly use?

The lever is money.

BlackRock uses its role as a major investor (significant ownership in many companies) to steer corporate behavior.  They have voting power at shareholder meetings. They can vote on board elections, executive compensation, and sustainability initiatives. BlackRock can decide to invest more heavily in companies that align with their ESG criteria or divest from those that don't.

Larry Fink's letters to CEOs are a form of soft power. By publicly stating what BlackRock expects from companies, they set an expectation.

By advocating for ESG reporting, BlackRock indirectly pressures companies to change how they operate, knowing that their investment decisions hinge on this information.

Anheuser-Busch InBev has adopted DEI policies and reported on these initiatives, partly in response to investor pressure from firms like BlackRock, who emphasize ESG factors in their investment decisions.

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter

--- Larry's words sound like coercion to me. "DO THIS OR LESS PAY."  

Quote

Behaviors are going to have to change. This is one thing we're asking companies: you have to force behaviors, and at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors. 54% of our incoming class are women, and we added four more points in terms of diverse employment this year. Internally, if you don't achieve these levels of impact, your compensation could be impacted. We're doing the same thing, so it's just that you have to force behaviors. If you don't force behaviors, whether it's gender or race, or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you're going to be impacted.

 

[jross]

10 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

There is a lot wrong with your argument. First, the attached article places the blame on concerns advertisers have with Musk dating to before he even closed the deal. Media Matters is only mentioned as having taken a poll. It is GLAAD and ADL that are credited with calls to action.

Hmmm

"Angelo Carusone, the chief executive of the progressive nonprofit Media Matters for America, said on the call that he had worked on several efforts to use advertiser boycotts to pressure social media companies to clean up their platforms. Usually, he said, some of the advertisers he solicits will turn down his requests, saying that reaching potential customers is a higher priority than making a point to Silicon Valley.

But after the activist coalition reached out this week to Twitter’s top 20 advertisers, including Anheuser-Busch, Disney and Procter & Gamble, Mr. Carusone said all the companies he had been in contact with..."

[jross]

May 3, 2022!  Media Matters and others in the activist coalition call for a boycott.

https://accountabletech.org/wp-content/uploads/Letter-to-Twitter-Advertisers.pdf

[Wrestleknownothing]

18 minutes ago, jross said:

The lever is money.

BlackRock uses its role as a major investor (significant ownership in many companies) to steer corporate behavior.  They have voting power at shareholder meetings. They can vote on board elections, executive compensation, and sustainability initiatives. BlackRock can decide to invest more heavily in companies that align with their ESG criteria or divest from those that don't.

Larry Fink's letters to CEOs are a form of soft power. By publicly stating what BlackRock expects from companies, they set an expectation.

By advocating for ESG reporting, BlackRock indirectly pressures companies to change how they operate, knowing that their investment decisions hinge on this information.

Anheuser-Busch InBev has adopted DEI policies and reported on these initiatives, partly in response to investor pressure from firms like BlackRock, who emphasize ESG factors in their investment decisions.

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter

--- Larry's words sound like coercion to me. "DO THIS OR LESS PAY."  

 

Your understanding of the proxy process is quaint. BlackRock owns something like 7% of every company. And they have NEVER been involved in a proxy fight. And they never will. They are fiduciaries. They must vote for their clients good, not for their own beliefs.

BlackRock cannot decide to invest more heavily in (or divest from ) a company. BackRock's 25 largest active equity funds have $78 billion in AUM. Their 25 largest passive funds have $1.75 trillion. With 95% of their equity assets following indexes, they have virtually no discretion. While his words may sound like coercion to you, they do not to CEO's who know that investment decisions are not theirs to make. He is talking about pay at BlackRock because he has no ability to influence pay elsewhere.

[Wrestleknownothing]

54 minutes ago, jross said:

May 3, 2022!  Media Matters and others in the activist coalition call for a boycott.

https://accountabletech.org/wp-content/uploads/Letter-to-Twitter-Advertisers.pdf

If that really is the issue, why is Musk not suing the Anti-Defamation League or GLAAD, who have said the same? He is going after Media Matter purely as a distraction. They are small, non-sympathetic, and easy to pick on.

[jross]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Your understanding of the proxy process is quaint. BlackRock owns something like 7% of every company. And they have NEVER been involved in a proxy fight. And they never will. They are fiduciaries. They must vote for their clients good, not for their own beliefs.

BlackRock cannot decide to invest more heavily in (or divest from ) a company. BackRock's 25 largest active equity funds have $78 billion in AUM. Their 25 largest passive funds have $1.75 trillion. With 95% of their equity assets following indexes, they have virtually no discretion. While his words may sound like coercion to you, they do not to CEO's who know that investment decisions are not theirs to make. He is talking about pay at BlackRock because he has no ability to influence pay elsewhere.

That's fine that they don't replace board members and restructure the company to be sold, like what happened to my last company based on an investor with 1.2% stake...

BlackRock is the top shareholder for many companies.  Their leader helps shape corporate behavior through engagement, setting expectations, and leveraging its voting power.  Their influence is significant due to their scale.

---

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.ft.com/content/92512bcc-48b3-11ea-aee2-9ddbdc86190d

Quote

 

BlackRock rebukes Siemens on its environmental record

Fund manager makes first big intervention since issuing new policy on sustainability...

Siemens has been criticised by its largest external shareholder for failing to consider properly the “breadth of risks” it faces, as the German industrial group comes under intense scrutiny for its involvement in an Australian coal-mining project.

In BlackRock’s first intervention since it issued a policy on sustainability last month, the $7tn asset manager said Siemens’ management needed to step up their risk assessments around environmental, social and governance issues.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:01 PM by jross

[jross]

47 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

If that really is the issue, why is Musk not suing the Anti-Defamation League or GLAAD, who have said the same? He is going after Media Matter purely as a distraction. They are small, non-sympathetic, and easy to pick on.

Hmmm what specific action did Media Matters do later that Media Matters and others did not originally do? 

Specifically, Media Matters knowingly presented a false narrative to damage X's business, which if proven, meets the legal standards for defamation...

Edited Tuesday at 06:56 PM by jross