Talk:BlackRock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmcn24. Peer reviewers: Ekscherber, Migratingthoughts.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 15:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Dominate corporate America?

The first para says that Blackstone is one of three index funds that "dominate corporate America." They do nothing of the sort. They are the largest shareholders of many American companies, but the share of each company they hold is a small minority and is in no way dominant. They basically do not influence the companies' behavior at all. They are index funds (passive managers) and simply hold shares as per contract with the index funds' investors. They have no discretion over whether to hold the shares and cannot sell them except to raise cash for redemption requests by the fund investors.

The wording I'd suggest in place of "dominate corporate America" is "are the largest shareholders of many large American companies." Whoever is the primary force behind this page, please make the change. As a casual user I'd rather not. 24.13.83.67 (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Larry Siegel[reply]

As Corporate managers who do not obey the "advice" of BlackRock, on pushing leftist policies such as ESG and DEI, tend to find themselves forced to resign - "dominate corporate America" is fair wording. 2A02:C7C:E085:8D00:4D78:9EAE:5775:81C9 (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That honestly needs more citations, you make it sound like it's the explicit agenda. Is that what fox news says the company is about or what the company has actually done, either way for something that could be weasel words, it needs strong citations 2601:1C0:8500:9BA0:98E3:A6CC:63BB:AFA4 (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
youre just repeating unproven right wing conspiracy theories, those theories belong on 4chan, reddit and other nutjob Internet foruns, not on wikipedia 2804:4FFC:40D:9D00:F9C9:98D0:D496:30 (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Key people

Needs updating. Deese is now in Biden’s govt. Boscaswell talk 09:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalled sources

Can an archived copy be provided for these sources 112, 113? They're paywalled.

  • [112] Richard Henderson and Robin Wigglesworth. Fed's big boost for BlackRock raises eyebrows on Wall Street, Financial Times, March 27, 2020 [1]
  • [113] Richard Henderson and Robin Wigglesworth. BlackRock's growing clout carries risks for asset manager: Group faces increased scrutiny as central banks ask it to help run stimulus packages, Financial Times, April 30, 2020 [2]

Thanks. --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 00:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gryllida - if you have a non-copyright-violating archive copy, you could supply it as a courtesy URL. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would a copy at web.archive.org, if available, pass copyright? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 07:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gryllida - Most likely, it is in some sense a copyright violation, but if the copyright holder has not exercised their right to have the copied item removed from the archive, should we take that as some sort of shadow license? It's easier to answer in some cases, such as where a published journal article behind a paywall is also made available by the author on their own web site. When it's unclear, I think it's better to simply mark the source with the appropriate access indicator Template:Cite news#Access indicators for url-holding parameters than to run the risk of exposing Wikipedia to a copyright violation. Yes, I'm a coward about things like that. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gryllida - really motivated readers may find that searching for the title of the article will lead them to non-subscription copies. I found the first item on a site named thakoni.com. I think the same precautionary principle would argue against linking to it instead of the FT original. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzman in History

His name appears in para. 2, in way in which the reader is expected to know who he is. But there's no mention of him before this. Boscaswell talk 23:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is confusing. Later in that paragraph: "In 1994, Blackstone Group's Stephen A. Schwarzman and Fink had an internal dispute over methods of compensation and equity." I'll see if I can clarify this. Marquardtika (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angling to influence a Biden administration

in June 2020 ? 184.171.141.56 (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Edit request

I'm proposing the following edits. I work for Blackrock, Inc., and I have declared my conflict of interest on my Userpage as well as above. I will not edit the page myself and will instead put forward edit requests for independent editors to review.

I'm submitting these edits to correct inaccuracies and provide additional details to several items, and have provided related sourcing for review.

Please let me know of any questions or comments. Thanks for your time and consideration.

1. Please remove 52nd Street Capital Advisors LLC from the Subsidiaries list in the Infobox, as it is no longer a subsidiary, per information submitted to the SEC February 25, 2022: https://fintel.io/doc/sec-blackrock-inc-1364742-ex211-2022-february-25-19048-1188

2. Could the paragraph about the train-fare-dodging Jonathan Burrows be removed from the subsection "2010–2019"? An example of

recentism, this item has nothing to do with BlackRock per se or any work the person did for or at or while at BlackRock, and it was added by a now-banned editor the same day the news article(s) appeared: [3]. (Here are the two current citations, one of which is archive-only now: [4] [5]
.)

3. Could the following cited information be added to the article, after the first paragraph of the "Ownership and transparency" section?:

In October 2021 BlackRock launched its Voting Choice program, which enables institutional clients invested in index funds to participate in shareholder voting, and expanded it in June 2022 so that 47% of its equity index assets are covered by the program.[1][2] Under the program, eligible institutional clients can either vote all issues, vote only on issues that matter to them, select from 14 different voting policies,[3] or allow BlackRock's investment stewardship team to vote for them.[2] BlackRock Investment Stewardship is a team of approximately 70 analysts[4] who engage with the boards and management teams of companies, and vote shares, for the benefit of its passive non-voting investor clients;[5] as of 2022 its top priority issues are board quality, strategy and financial resilience, executive compensation, climate, and human-resource issues.[4]

  1. ^ Jessop, Simon (June 12, 2022). "BlackRock extends AGM vote choice to more equity index clients". Reuters. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  2. ^ a b Brush, Silla (June 12, 2022). "BlackRock Gives Clients Greater Voting Choice Amid ESG Scrutiny". Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  3. ^ Masters, Brooke (November 2, 2022). "BlackRock opens door for retail investors to vote in proxy battles". Financial Times. Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  4. ^
    Wall Street Journal
    . Retrieved March 1, 2023.
  5. ^ Clifford, Catherine (May 11, 2022). "Blackrock to vote for fewer climate shareholder provisions in 2022 than 2021". CNBC. Retrieved March 1, 2023.

Thank you for taking the time to review these requests. KM2BR (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has changed since your original edit request. Therefore, I only implemented the second proposed change. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woke company in summary

The summary part of the page seems to be adding information to the firm that would be better served in a controversy sub section. It could be misconstrued that the general public consensus is that people think this is a "woke" company, which requires explanation. The summary narrative appears to have agenda when describing a investment firm. Does Goldman Sachs read like this? 2601:1C0:8500:9BA0:98E3:A6CC:63BB:AFA4 (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 2

Hi, I work for BlackRock, Inc., and I have declared my conflict of interest on my userpage as well as above. I would like to request the following edits to this article:

1. The "Cross ownership" subsection [added three years ago by this editor: [6]]: The first sentence is completely uncited, and the citations for the second sentence do not mention BlackRock at all (not even in the PDF study mentioned in the first citation). Could this two-sentence subsection be removed (unless or until it is properly cited)?

2. "Key people" section (board of directors):

  • Please change the first sentence to "As of 2023, Blackrock has a 16-person board of directors.[1]"
  1. ^ "Board of Directors". ir.blackrock.com. Retrieved July 6, 2023.
  • Per the new citation (the current BoD list on the BlackRock site), delete:
    • Jessica P. Einhorn
    • Beth Ford
    • Carlos Slim Domit
  • And add:
    • Marco Antonio Slim Domit (alphabetically after Charles H. Robbins; the surname is "Slim Domit").

Thank you in advance for your time and any assistance. KM2BR (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Xan747 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Xan747, and thanks very much for implementing item #2. I have re-opened this edit request, since item #1 was neither implemented nor addressed. Could you please look at #1? Thank you kindly, KM2BR (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done . Sorry I missed that the first time; it definitely needed to go. Regards, Xan747 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I'm glad it was simply an oversight. Many thanks for your help. KM2BR (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 30 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Filgisje (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Filgisje (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISIN

Should be the correct ISIN US09247X1019 instead of US450614482? 217.251.192.46 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's content assessment

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

103.81.197.98 (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BlackRock&oldid=1217703329"