# data[].attributes.body
Vanguard is a company that started in 1975, and it was originally created to make a more efficient way to manage a mutual fund company. John C. Bogle created this company merely because he had an idea that would benefit his clients. This company is now responsible for owning 88% of the S&P 500, owning about $7.7 trillion in global assets, and is used by millions of investors. When Vanguard is mentioned, the companies BlackRock and State Street tend to follow.

# data[].attributes.body
1) They refuse to help with "The Green New Deal" because it will lose them money.

2)They buy so much of the market for total control and majority of voting rights.

3)Vanguard puts itself first when making global decisions.

4)They are buying out people's mortgages.

# data[].attributes.body
BlackRock and State Street both run similar companies as Vanguard, and these three companies together are known as the “Big Three'' of Wall Street since they are the biggest shareholders in the market.

# data[].attributes.body
“Conspiracy Theories” have a high chance of being untrue according to Quassim Cassam, a philosopher at the University of Warwick. They are simply a class of ideas, that the chances that they are true are so low that it is impossible to ignore them, so most people respond by critiquing the idealogy that they create instead of just ignoring them. Conspiracy theories can be viewed as “epistemically problematic” while they can also be viewed as not truly conspiracy theories due to them being easily dismissed.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Quassim Cassam used examples such as the JFK Conspiracy and said how it can easily be dismissed.

# data[].attributes.body
This is 500 of the largest companies listed on the Stock Exchange (in the United States).

# data[].attributes.body
Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street might have a significant impact on our daily life, but many are unaware of their existence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Are ‘Conspiracy Theories’ So Unlikely to Be True? A Critique of Quassim Cassam’s Concept of ‘Conspiracy Theories’

# data[].attributes.subject
Are ‘Conspiracy Theories’ So Unlikely to Be True? A Critique of Quassim Cassam’s Concept of ‘Conspiracy Theories’

# data[].attributes.body
There is a conspiracy theory that suggests that certain powerful individuals are making secret deals with influential people in the government and large oil companies to eliminate "The Green New Deal". An article titled "Vanguard lower support for environmental, social proxy proposals" suggests that Vanguard, a large investment management company, refused to support environmental protection measures citing that America causes more harm than good. This is suspicious, especially considering that Vanguard has the resources to help but chose not to support. It aligns with the conspiracy theory that Vanguard may have played a role in the Hawaii fires.

# data[].attributes.body
Vanguard is heavily invested in companies like Apple, Google, energy companies, car makers, and the housing market. Since they buy such large amounts of stock, they have a significant ownership stake in these companies. As a result, other companies cannot own enough stock to have any control over the decisions that the investor makes. Vanguard had to make public statements to reassure people that they would have a voice in major decisions, but it's nearly impossible when the investor owns the majority of the stock.

# data[].attributes.headline
3) Who is benefiting the most from Vanguard's decisions? 

# data[].attributes.subject
3) Who is benefiting the most from Vanguard's decisions? 

# data[].attributes.body
Despite recent difficulties in the market, BlackRock and Vanguard continue to dominate the ETP index, managing two-thirds of its $4.7 trillion assets. This raises concerns about their level of influence in a highly competitive market where many companies are struggling to survive. With such a significant control over the market, these companies can impact our lives without our knowledge. They prioritize their own financial gain and are unlikely to assist anyone unless it benefits them.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a conspiracy theory circulating about Vanguard's recent activities involving the housing market. The company is being accused of buying houses at a low price and then inflating their value. It is alleged that they purchase the mortgages of single-family homes, make minor repairs, and then sell the properties for a much higher price. This practice reportedly allows them to take advantage of the existing market conditions and generate significant profits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A fundamental change is underway in stock market investing, and the spin-off effects are poised to dramatically impact corporate America.

In the past, individuals and large institutions mostly invested in actively managed mutual funds, such as Fidelity, in which fund managers pick stocks with the aim of beating the market. But since the financial crisis of 2008, investors have shifted to index funds, which replicate established stock indices, such as the S&P 500.

The magnitude of the change is astounding: from 2007 to 2016, actively managed funds have recorded outflows of roughly US$1,200 billion, while index funds had inflows of over US$1,400 billion.

In the first quarter of 2017, index funds brought in more than US$200 billion - the highest quarterly value on record.

Democratising the market?

This shift, arguably the biggest investment swing in history, is due in large part to index funds' much lower costs.

Actively managed funds analyse the market, and their managers are well paid for their labour. But the vast majority are not able to consistently beat the index.

So why pay 1% to 2% in fees every year for active funds when index funds cost a tenth of that and deliver the same performance?

Some observers have lauded this development as the " democratisation of investing ", because it has significantly lowered investor expenses.

But other impacts of this seismic shift are far from democratising. One crucial difference between the active fund and the index fund industries is that the former is fragmented, consisting of hundreds of different asset managers both small and large.

The fast-growing index sector, on the other hand, is highly concentrated. It is dominated by just three giant American asset managers: BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street - what we call the Big Three.

Lower fees aside, the rise of index funds has entailed a massive concentration of corporate ownership. Together, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets under management. That's more than all sovereign wealth funds combined and over three times the global hedge fund industry.

In a recently published paper, our CORPNET research project comprehensively mapped the ownership of the Big Three. We found that the Big Three, taken together, have become the largest shareholder in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.

In 2015, these 1,600 American firms had combined revenues of about US$9.1 trillion, a market capitalisation of more than US$17 trillion, and employed more than 23.5 million people.

In the S&P 500 - the benchmark index of America's largest corporations - the situation is even more extreme. Together, the Big Three are the largest single shareholder in almost 90% of S&P 500 firms, including Apple, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, General Electric and Coca-Cola. This is the index in which most people invest.

The power of passive investors

With corporate ownership comes shareholder power. BlackRock recently argued that legally it was not the "owner" of the shares it holds but rather acts as a kind of custodian for their investors.

That's a technicality for lawyers to sort. What is undeniable is that the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. Therefore, they have to be perceived as de facto owners by corporate executives.

These companies have, in fact, publicly declared that they seek to exert influence. William McNabb, chairman and CEO of Vanguard, said in 2015 that, "In the past, some have mistakenly assumed that our predominantly passive management style suggests a passive attitude with respect to corporate governance. Nothing could be further from the truth."

When we analysed the voting behaviour of the Big Three, we found that they coordinate it through centralised corporate governance departments. This requires significant efforts because technically the shares are held by many different individual funds.

Hence, just three companies wield an enormous potential power over corporate America. Interestingly, though, we found that the Big Three vote for management in about 90% of all votes at annual general meetings, while mostly voting against proposals sponsored by shareholders (such as calls for independent board chairmen).

One interpretation is that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street are reluctant to exert their power over corporate America. Others question whether the Big Three really want this voting power, as they primarily seek to minimise costs.

Corporate American monopoly

What are the future consequences of the Big Three's unprecedented common ownership position?

Research is still nascent, but some economists are already arguing that this concentration of shareholder power could have negative effects on competition.

Over the past decade, numerous US industries have become dominated by only a handful of companies, from aviation to banking. The Big Three - seen together - are virtually always the largest shareholder in the few competitors that remain in these sectors.

This is the case for American Airlines, Delta, and United Continental, as it is for the banks JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup. All of these corporations are part of the S&P 500, the index in which most people invest.

Their CEOs are likely well aware that the Big Three are their firm's dominant shareholder and would take that into account when making decisions. So, arguably, airlines have less incentive to lower prices because doing so would reduce overall returns for the Big Three, their common owner.

In this way, the Big Three may be exerting a kind of emergent "structural power" over much of corporate America.

Whether or not they sought to, the Big Three have accumulated extraordinary shareholder power, and they continue to do so. Index funds are a business of scale, which means that at this point competitors will find it very difficult to gain market shares.

In many respects, the index fund boom is turning BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street into something resembling low-cost public utilities with a quasi-monopolistic position. Facing such a concentration of ownership and thus potential power, we can expect demands for increased regulatory scrutiny of corporate America's new " de facto permanent governing board " to increase in coming years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Together, three asset managers now control shares in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
Mutual fund companies are companies that collect money from many investors.

# data[].attributes.body
-"BlackRock, Vanguard & State street owns the majority of stocks in Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Facebook, AT&T

-BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard hold $46 billion in debt and equity in oil companies currently operating in the Amazon rainforest."

-"$260 billion invested in fossil fuel companies around the world"

-"BlackRock & Vanguard combined holds in 19% of Philips 66,  21% in Valero Energy, 16%  in ExxonMobil"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Rick Bowmer / Associated Press)

Maui faces devastating economic costs beyond its intolerable human loss and suffering from recent wildfires. Scorched homes and businesses reduced to rubble won't be rebuilt quickly; cleaning up their remnants, some of them , won't be cheap. Rebuilding costs have been estimated at $5.5 billion.

Who will pay for this? Most of us will, to varying degrees, but some of those most responsible - the fossil fuel companies that play a key role in such climate-related disasters - won't.

Extreme weather events always take their highest economic toll on the communities directly hit. Maui's families, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, have suddenly lost both jobs and homes. They'll now struggle to meet their most basic needs. Even those who have some savings will have to figure out how to make them last through long delays for inspections, insurance payments and federal aid.

Taxpayers will keep some emergency shelters and food supplies going and fund longer-term federal assistance. Over the past 10 years, the U.S. government has spent $350 billion on climate-related disasters.

Insurance companies will cover much of the property damage. They'll probably hike rates across the state, too, passing on the costs to ordinary Hawaiians. Some may even stop selling homeowner coverage in Hawaii, as State Farm and others have done in wildfire-prone California, exposing residents to even greater costs.

Hawaiian Electric already faces legal action over the possibility that the utility's equipment started the fires. If California residents' experience attempting to extract compensation from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is any guide, the results will be mixed.

The fossil fuel companies, however, won't be paying a cent. That's despite the fact that their products created the climate conditions that made such fires more likely and more catastrophic. Less rain, higher temperatures and other factors related to climate change have made Hawaii, like California, more vulnerable to wildfires.

As Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway have shown, major oil, gas and coal companies foresaw the catastrophic climatic consequences of fossil fuel use. But instead of leading an energy transition, they opted to sow public doubt about the link between fossil fuels and global warming and continued to invest in new mines and oilfields.

Cannily, fossil fuel companies have also turned public attention away from themselves by encouraging ordinary people to feel guilty about our own "carbon footprints," pointing the finger at you and me.

And it's you and I and the struggling citizens of Maui who are left to pick up the ever-mounting bill for climate disasters.

It doesn't have to be this way.

One solution is to put a price on carbon to account for "externalities," the term economists use for costs that aren't reflected in the prices consumers pay.

Let's say I buy a fertilizer for my crops that assures me a great yield. But when that fertilizer leaches into a nearby lake, it spawns lethal algae blooms, contaminates drinking water and kills plants and fish. I may be delighted by my profits, but I'm costing my neighbors substantial sums in healthcare, tourism and fishing revenue. These are the fertilizer's dispersed costs - its externalities.

According to 28 Nobel laureate economists and 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors, it makes good economic sense to charge fossil fuel companies for the real costs of their products through a carbon tax. That cost would include much of the billions of dollars of damage to Maui.

Of course, raising fuel prices could make life harder for Americans who already struggle to fill their gas tanks. But there's an excellent economic solution to that too. The group Citizens Climate Lobby has proposed to return carbon pricing revenue through regular dividends to all U.S. households. This model would reduce emissions, create jobs and stimulate innovation without burdening low- and middle-income families.

Another solution is divestment from fossil fuel companies. Investors can force these companies to bear more of the social costs of their products by declining to buy and own their stocks.

Your own savings may have played role in the cause of the devastation in Hawaii. Just 23 investors are responsible for 50% of worldwide investments in fossil fuels. The biggest culprits are asset management giants Vanguard and BlackRock, with Fidelity Investments, JPMorgan Chase, T. Rowe Price, Bank of America and Berkshire Hathaway also making the list. My own retirement fund, TIAA, a nonprofit founded for teachers, manages at least $78 billion in fossil fuel-related holdings, according to one analysis.

Once investors have sunk our money into fossil fuels, they join the chorus lobbying politicians to protect fossil fuel profits. Coal, oil and gas companies are wielding massive influence in the political arena to manipulate the economy to their benefit at our expense. After giving millions of dollars to Senate Republicans this year, fossil fuel companies for cuts to the Energy Department's renewables office and reductions in energy efficiency standards.

What if these companies had acknowledged the need for an energy transition 10 or 20 years ago? For the sake of their own bottom lines, they would be championing renewable energy and climate regulation, and we would have a different political landscape.

As long as we keep investing in, subsidizing and cleaning up after the fossil fuel companies, they'll keep happily passing on these exorbitant costs to us. Isn't it time to send this bill to the right address?
Caroline Levine is a professor of the humanities at Cornell University, where she teaches in the Environment and Sustainability program, and the author of "The Activist Humanist: Form and Method in the Climate Crisis."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: One thing we know about the Maui wildfires: Some of those most responsible won't pay a cent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change makes Hawaii and California alike more vulnerable to such disasters. Oil, gas and coal interests should bear more of the costs.

# data[].attributes.body
"Between January 2020 and January 2023, rents for a two-bed detached home increased about 44% in Tampa, Florida, 43% in Phoenix, and 35% near Atlanta. That’s compared with a 24% increase nationwide."

# data[].attributes.body
To make a deal more efficient, big companies usually skip the hassles of getting a home loan through the banker, the company will just buy the existing mortgage.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a conspiracy theory that accuses Vanguard of deliberately starting the Hawaii fires that destroyed numerous buildings in the surrounding area. The theory claims that Vanguard did this in order to create cheap real estate. Instead of helping Hawaii recover from this tragedy with their wealth, Vanguard allegedly profited from the destruction they caused.

# data[].attributes.body
Weinberg AI. BlackRock, Vanguard stay strong amid year of changes. Pensions & Investments. 2020;48(21):12-.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Google Finance - Stock Market Prices, Real-time Quotes & Business News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google Finance provides real-time market quotes, international exchanges, up-to-date financial news, and analytics to help you make more informed trading and investment decisions.