Oh you posted it here too. I’ll say it again:- I truly hate these people

No you don’t need a mask unless in a medical setting.

Yeah, I know, that’s not really what I meant. I just meant that most places that are packed with tourists are usually to be avoided, but this isn’t one of them

Yeah I didn’t mean it in the negative sense, just that most of the time it’s full of tourists as it’s in all the guide books. I still love it either way.

Not sure what your point is?

Wrong

Yeah it’s a tourist trap but still one of my favorite bars on earth

First bar I ever went to in NYC. I visited for the first time in 2003 by myself as a 21 year old, and I'll never forget how cool I felt to be in a proper NYC bar. Love it there.

Iona in Williamsburg is my favorite, Sliante is good too

To be honest, I almost miss the days where soccer was more of a niche sport. I’m from London originally and have been here 15 years, and I kind of miss the days where the only option was to go to Nevada Smiths. It’s great that more people are interested, but the wide availability has diluted it a little. There aren’t really that many places that are particularly known for showing soccer like there used to be. I’d say best thing is to go to bars depending on who is playing…I.e English pub if England and playing, lookup where the Germans go when Germany are playing etc

“When you store your money with an institution, they will use that money however they want”

Literally that point alone is just categorically not true. There are very rules about what banks can use deposits for, and any publicly offered investment product by an asset manager has legally binding prospectus and investment disclosures (callled an ADV) which details the objective of the fund, what they’re allowed to invest in, the risk they can take, and what they’re not allowed to invest in. Again, this isn’t a debatable point.

Seriously, just stop, you’re embarrassing yourself. If pointing out that you have a childlike view of finance is pedantic, then I guess I’m guilty as charged!

Nothing you said relates to that point. It’s not a case of ‘owning’, it’s an opportunity for you to learn something. You can choose whether you do that, or you can choose to continue to not understand the difference between a bank and an asset manager. You said conceptually the video was the same for both, I pointed out that it’s not, you then asked what ‘pendantic’ point I was making, and are now defensive rather than just accepting that you’re wrong. It’s the Reddit way

It doesn’t, this is such a typical Reddit response. It’s very clear you have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’ll double down anyway. Good luck to you.

Some do, but they’re distinct entities and the funds are completely ring fenced. Wells Fargo, Schwab, JPM etc…the banks and asset management arms are separate legal entities. A bank can’t invest deposits in anything they want. Asset managers are typically bound by the SEC and the investment company act of 1940, banks are under supervision of the fed. The regulatory scrutiny of banks is much higher.

Banks make loans or help the entity to raise debt by underwriting bond offerings, which are used for capital investment, business expansions, new pipelines etc. They’re not investing your deposits into public equities, they’re not allowed to do that.

Asset Managers are typically investing in the public equities, where they’re passive (they’re just buying whatever is in the benchmark they’re tracking) or they’re active (so they may be overweighting towards certain stocks but typically are measured against a benchmark which contains all manner of stocks).

One is an active decision to extend credit to companies to expand and invest, the other is more based on the fact that these companies exist and if you offer a product that tracks the stock market you can’t just choose to exclude companies from that. From a fiduciary perspective, it would be impossible. That’s why so many asset managers are rushing to offer personalized and thematic investment product, so the decision can lay with the individual. I.e a US equity index product but excluding companies based on GICS classifications, ESG scores, or thematic baskets.

When you divest equity, it doesn’t just cease to exist. Someone else buys it. If blackrock sold all the oil and gas stocks they own, they would simply pass into the ownership of other entities. That’s why anyone with half a brain realizes that asking asset managers to just divest from fossil stocks is pointless and most likely dangerous.

So that’s how the way that banks invest and asset managers invest is quite different. It’s reasonable to not want banks to offer credit to fossil fuel companies, that would hurt those companies, it’s downright stupid to want asset managers to simply sell the stocks of companies we don’t like. It just means that ownership stake and voice is diluted, and passed to other entities.

The whole market is down 25-30 ytd, if you invested in blackrock in 2005 you’d have a 4000% return so far.

I have a hunch that maybe you don’t understand investing

A huge part of Blackrock’s AUM is passive index funds and ETFs, where you just own the whole market rather than picking specific investments. If they offer a fund that tracks the SP500, and the SP500 contains oil and gas companies, then the idea that Blackrock or any asset manager should just refuse to buy their shares, is absurd.

Also, much like the car companies who are pivoting to electric, the oil and gas companies will have a key role to play in moving away from fossil fuels. Equity capital exists, divesting from them doesn’t make it disappear, it just means someone else owns it. Asking Blackrock or any other asset manager to sell of their oil and gas holdings is absolutely meaningless

No it doesn’t

Perhaps by raising the living standards of billions of people?

What is it they want Blackrock to do?