this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
694 points (93.3% liked)

Luigi Mangione

2368 readers
1 users here now

A community to post anything related to Luigi Mangione.

This is not a pro-murder community. Please respect Lemmy.world ToS.

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
robocall@lemmy.world
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
694
Come on y'all. Stop it. (infosec.pub)
submitted 2 weeks ago by bytesonbike@discuss.online to c/luigimangione@lemmy.world
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There was great writeup about it a few years ago that I can't remember the name of at the moment. Basically, they all own each other as well. They all own portions of every company and together they all own over 50% in so many things that they have a controlling vote in a majority of board rooms. That is a VERY birds eye view of it but it's not good.

[โ€“] utopiah@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They all own portions of every company and together they all own over 50% in so many things that they have a controlling vote in a majority of board rooms.

Thanks for the clarification. If you do find the article I'd be curious because if I check the

and others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms whereas sovereign wealth funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund#Largest_sovereign_wealth_funds are only up to $2T.

So... if I do roughly the sum of AUM I don't even get to half of $100T. Maybe they have controlling shares (to define here because not sure I understanding correctly, i.e. single seat on board vs majority of seats in order to actual control) somehow in the US with a total valuation under $50T but somehow overall I don't see how. Also together would mean some kind of coordination, which I'm not saying is impossible but beside generating more money I'm not sure they have a "goal" that would imply using said control.