Merz says decoupling from China would be a mistake as Germany seeks balanced ties and stronger trade relations with Beijing. Read more at straitstimes.com.
Of course he does. He isn’t working for benefit of the German people, as he took an oath to do, but for the benefit of his real employer, BlackRock. And those investment locusts will go wherever they can make the most money. If that’s China due to slightly cheaper manufacturing, then China it is.
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.
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.
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.”
Of course he does. He isn’t working for benefit of the German people, as he took an oath to do, but for the benefit of his real employer, BlackRock. And those investment locusts will go wherever they can make the most money. If that’s China due to slightly cheaper manufacturing, then China it is.
You are confusing BlackRock and BlackStone, the latter being “implicated” in the Heuschreckendebatte.
Doesn’t matter. Those “investment” companies are all the same.
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.
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.
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.”