you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago (4 children)

BlackRock. And those investment locusts will go wherever they can make the most money.

You are confusing BlackRock and BlackStone, the latter being "implicated" in the Heuschreckendebatte.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (3 children)

    Doesn't matter. Those "investment" companies are all the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    Of course it matters. This whole term was coined to describe activist investors buying into companies, cutting costs, selling off parts and them moving on. BlackRock is not in that business. They set up funds, own shares and stay invested. By definition long term.

    If the essence of the critique is interchangeable the critique is vapid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (1 child)

    In the end "staying invested" has the same result these days, as publicly traded companies are driven by nothing but shareholder value, and the stock market is rewarding exactly the business practices the classic locust investors introduced.

    In this environment, there can be no healthy long-term investment in shares.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    and the stock market is rewarding exactly the business practices the classic locust investors introduced.

    No it is not. The market ist rewarding all sorts of strategies, the money Blackrock is managing is arguably becoming more passive. So buying and holding, they do not push strategies, budget cuts and focus on corporate governance.

    Unless your argument is "I don't like publicly traded companies and capitalism as a whole."

  • source
  • parent