MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Fears Of A World Domination By A Handful Of Asset Managers Are Overblown

TedTed
in Fund Discussions
FYI: Over the last decade, the largest asset managers have gotten bigger and more powerful. Just five — Vanguard, BlackRock, Fidelity Investments, American Funds, and T. Rowe Price — control 55percent of the $19.3 trillion in total assets of U.S. mutual funds and exchange-traded funds.

But that concentration partly reflects the juggernauts that dominate passive investments, which are all about volume and keeping costs down. Indeed, BlackRock and Vanguard alone oversee $12 trillion in assets, if mutual funds tracked by Morningstar are included as well as institutional mandates.

A deeper dive into the data shows that competition in the U.S. asset management industry remains healthy. According to research done by Morningstar Direct for Institutional Investor, the top five active managers controlled only 22 percentof mutual fund and ETF assets as of the end of 2018. These figures have been fairly steady for at least the last five years. That’s a far cry from the 55 percent run by the top five when both active and passive are included.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1gxz8xcd0vms3/Fears-of-a-World-Domination-by-a-Handful-of-Asset-Managers-Are-Overblown

Comments

  • Edmond
    The tenor of this piece is EXACTLY AT ODDS with an earlier post about Vanguard attempting to choosing favored genders/races to sit on corporate boards.

  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    Interesting picture that you'd like to draw. If a corporate board is comprised of all men, that's normal, natural, and just the way it goes. If they try to diversify the board members, that's "choosing favored genders/races".

    Typical right-wing warped commentary. Total crap.
  • Edmond
    The subject is about money manager exhibiting traits of "domination" in attempting to alter behavior, rather than demanding profit.

    Essentially, we are talking about gender/racial quota systems. Not legislated by public-legislators, but by trying to circumvent legislation and twist arms quietly behind the scenes. These latter-day "gnomes of Zurich" don't like the law, and are using investors money --- some who may well disagree with their aims -- to foist their "values" on others. Its very reminiscient of what the Chi-Coms are doing with their "social credit scores".

    People placed in positions because of their race and gender don't belong on a board. Hey hon, you don't know what your are doing, but we need you to fill a quota. Oh, that guy over there with 20 years more experience, and has paid his dues. Tough patoot.

    Discrimination based on race/gender by the Left is still "total crap".

  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    edited August 2019
    But a board of 100% white males isn't favoring them by a gender/racial quota system, because obviously there were no qualified females or persons of color other than white. Sure thing.

    Essentially we are talking about perpetuating a gender/racial quota system that discriminates against any and all other than white males, quietly behind the scenes. These latter-day "gnomes of Zurich" don't like anyone other than white males, and are using investors money --- some who may well disagree with their aims -- to foist their "values" on others.

    But I can see that you are totally comfortable with that. No surprise, Edmond, none at all... totally predictable, in fact.
Sign In or Register to comment.