When it comes to institutional investors like major asset managers, people often conflate holding size with control. Let's break this down: having a significant stake in a company doesn't automatically mean pulling the strings behind management decisions. Take the example of major holdings in Tesla—massive positions exist across the board, yet the company operates independently. The narrative that these institutions dictate corporate strategy oversimplifies how markets actually function. Yes, they influence shareholder proposals and governance matters, but operational control? That's a different ballgame entirely. The distinction between passive investment and active management is crucial here. Sometimes we mistake correlation for causation in financial structures.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
18 Likes
Reward
18
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SignatureDenied
· 16h ago
That's correct. Large institutional ownership does not equal control over company operations. This logical issue is indeed common.
View OriginalReply0
DegenRecoveryGroup
· 01-14 11:33
Can big institutions control a company just by holding large positions? Wake up, everyone, this idea is too naive.
View OriginalReply0
ResearchChadButBroke
· 01-13 17:02
Ha, coming back with the argument that big institutions control everything? I think this is a typical case of blaming capitalism...
View OriginalReply0
FlashLoanLord
· 01-13 17:02
You're right, but I still think I underestimated the invisible influence of institutions... Especially in terms of voting power, it's hard to completely disentangle the relationships.
View OriginalReply0
SandwichTrader
· 01-13 17:00
To be honest, holding a large position doesn't necessarily mean having the right to speak; many people haven't really understood this.
View OriginalReply0
SleepTrader
· 01-13 16:45
That's the industry's misconception. Just because big investors hold a lot of shares doesn't mean they can manipulate everything. Nonsense.
When it comes to institutional investors like major asset managers, people often conflate holding size with control. Let's break this down: having a significant stake in a company doesn't automatically mean pulling the strings behind management decisions. Take the example of major holdings in Tesla—massive positions exist across the board, yet the company operates independently. The narrative that these institutions dictate corporate strategy oversimplifies how markets actually function. Yes, they influence shareholder proposals and governance matters, but operational control? That's a different ballgame entirely. The distinction between passive investment and active management is crucial here. Sometimes we mistake correlation for causation in financial structures.