> So the largest individual shareholders of Intel are:

> 1. US Government

> 2. Nvidia

> 3. Softbank

Not quite. (1) US Govt at 9.9% (2) BlackRock at 8.4% (3) Vanguard at 8.3% (4) State Street Corp probably (5) Nvidia (6) Softbank at 2%

Hence the mention of "individual". Blackrock, Vanguard etc. don't own the shares themselves, but rather manage mutual funds/index funds/ETFs that millions of people participate in.

Otherwise these few companies are the largest holders of basically every security in existence.

Interestingly, the US Govt. is also not "an individual human" and Softbank and Nvidia are both publicly traded companies.

> Otherwise these few companies are the largest holders of basically every security in existence.

Indeed. Due to inclusion of Intel in S&P500 index funds and ETFs.

Together, institutional investors own over 50% of Intel Corporation, giving them a significant collective influence on major board decisions. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/67-institutional-ownership-in...

Big difference between the two.

A company can own lots of things (assets, IP, real estate, share of other companies), but shareholders of the company don't own or have direct access to that thing. If Intel pays dividends, it will go to Nvidia, not you. If Intel holds a shareholder vote, Nvidia leadership will be the one voting, and they don't have to listen to your opinion. They can also change or sell the holding without your permission.

If you own shares of Intel through a Vanguard fund, you do have actual ownership of Intel. You can cast a vote same as every other shareholder. The dividend they issue will be passed on to you. Vanguard is simply acting as a proxy.

Don’t disagree. I think the point I’m trying to make is that the idea of “individual investor” captures a range of attributes, but some of which are also shared by non-individuals or are not shared with “individual humans”.

So I generally think wha is more useful is saying in what particular ways “individual investor” is meant when it is used in debate, decision-making, etc.

I don’t think this isn’t true. If you buy VOO, you’re buying shares in a fund that owns shares of S&P 500 companies. The managers of that fund are free to exercise their voting rights however they please. The reason why Vanguard shouldn’t be considered an individual investor is because Vanguard has chosen to delegate its votes to the fund owners. This is just a choice, they could easily choose differently in the future.

> Interestingly, the US Govt. is also not "an individual human"

The individual human called Citizens United is casting a side eye.

Crap I always thought individual is a singular.

splitting hairs at this point tbh

Who controls the votes? I don't think most ETFs pass voting rights to their owners.

The fund manager casts those votes. They publish how they vote under a "Proxy Voting Guidelines" document. At least I've seen such documents from Fidelity and Vanguard

ownership through funds shouldn't count

For sure, it’s just a common conspiracy theory boogeyman from people who don’t know how ETFs work.

BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) team votes even in the name of ETF holders who don't specify their preferences. There are plenty of controversies after reviews of their voting like "voted against a record 91% of all shareholder proposals — and against 93% of those focused on environmental and social issues" (2023). That's from the 2nd result in a simple web search.

Why is that controversial? Is it expected that the majority of shareholder proposals would be things that you would be criticized for not voting for? It's a bit like saying that someone voted against 91% of bills in congress. That could be good if they were bad bills!

They shouldnt be voting at all

It just occurred to me that "East India Company" is very close to "East Nvidia Company". If only we had made warmongering more "socially acceptable"[1] earlier, Mr. Huang might've already employed a private military too.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s5TkOj2E5MA

How long until NVIDIA realises that they have a larger budget for military protection of Taiwan than the US Government and takes matters into their own hands?

“The chips must flow…”

USA spends $1T+ per year on "defense".

Nvidia's entire annual operating expense is about $21B.

So I'd say they have a little way to go.

Their revenues last quarter were $57B and by all accounts that’s still increasing! If they hire asian locals to cut costs, then they’re within spitting distance of US Military spending, adjusted for purchasing power.

Keep in mind they won’t need to pay for nuclear weapons maintenance, veterans, etc… so there’s hundreds of billions in savings right there.

They could also just issue more shares and raise a trillion or two through the capital markets.

They could call it West India trading company.