Who really owns the major companies in the world?

[nonhocapito]

I always wonder about this, since behind a shareholder all sorts of things can be hiding, and one person can be the namesake of a namesake of a namesake. We are not entitled to know, considering that the corporations live in a different world from our own.

Nonetheless, at least the first step, who "officially" owns a company, should be an easy one. Wickedpedia is rarely helpful with this (what a surprise). I am probably stating the obvious but since I just figured a way by accident, I thought I should share.
I am sure there are better ways, too.

And apologies to all financial minds out there who are going to laugh at my big discoveries. I know I am discovering hot water in your eyes, but I am an old-world financial illiterate and this is a big deal for me.
Of course if I am interpreting things the wrong way, please let me know. Thanks.

* * *

A good starting point is the list of the major 500 companies by revenue hosted on wicked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... by_revenue
Is this list accurate? Hard to say. I have a feeling some of the richest and stronger groups will never be visible here. And I'm not just thinking about organized crime cartels, but also companies or agencies who have no interest to show up and structure their business in a way not to.

1) In the wicked list, or elsewhere, find the financial symbol for the company. For example the symbol for Exxon is "XOM".
2) Insert the symbol in yahoo finance lookup: http://finance.yahoo.com/lookup
3) On the page you find, click on "major holders" (bottom left).

You'll get the first five or ten individual names that hold the more shares of a given company, followed by the major institutional holders.

Here's a screenshot of the major holders of Coca-cola:

2013-04-29 19_09_57-News & research.jpg

As you can see, to figure it out one has to dig a little deeper than the first individual names.

Look at "Berkshire Hathaway", they have 400,000,000 shares of Coca cola. Now, who owns that institution?

2013-04-29 19_13_55-News & research.jpg

Oh, darn: it's Warren Buffett!

Interesting things are discovered this way. For example, the major holder of Disney, Exxon, Walmart and Monsanto (names I looked up randomly) is The Vanguard Group, Inc. (who also is the second major holder of Coca-cola).
But this fact is not at all mentioned on the wickedpedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group

Now, I know that this Vanguard group is an investment company, thus those shares are bought with the money of the investors that are countless individuals. Nonetheless, am I wrong in saying that it is the mutual fund company that actually holds the shares, and as such it is such company that ultimately can influence the behavior of the corporation?
And if so, wouldn't an investment company be the best way to hide real power and real control?

Anyway, with this Vanguard Group I'm stuck. It doesn't appear to be listed with the others and I don't know if there is a way to know who owns it.

[Flabbergasted]

You might find this article by Anthony Migchels interesting:
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201 ... t-own-all/

[lux]

This is an important question. Who owns Planet Earth?

[kickstones]

This is an important question. Who owns Planet Earth?

Yes, Lux, a very important question and in my mind, somewhat answered by the below, taken from....

A Pratical Guide to Free Energy Devices - Author: Patrick J. Kelly .....

Chapter 15: The Present Situation - You Are Being Deceived

No human can own land. The only way that you can own something is if you create it from materials which you own, if it is given to you as a gift by the rightful owner, or if you buy it from the rightful owner.

If I state “I own the whole of the planet Mars” it does not give me any genuine ownership of the planet. What has happened on planet Earth is that an individual stakes out an area and says “This is my land, I own it, and I will kill anyone who says that I don’t”. That can certainly frighten most people away from the area, but it does not give the squatter genuine ownership of the land. Consequently, no human owns any land whatsoever, and it is not possible for any land to be bought as there is no previous human owner of the land in question.

Killing a squatter on the land and claiming ownership of that land by right of conquest is farcical. It is true that violent bully-boys take control of areas of land through intimidation and peaceful people dare not oppose them. No human has any more rights than any other human, but violence and the threat of violence have been used to create a notional group of people called “landowners”. Is it right? Is it just? No, of course not, but it is what has happened.

This violent situation resulted in there being two groups of humans in the country. The violent “landowners” called “Knights”, “Lords”, “Barons” or some other irrelevant title, who join together to maintain what they have taken, and then there are the other people who have been intimidated by them, sometimes called “serfs”, whom the landowners feel free to rob on a regular basis through sheer intimidation.

Already, there was a certain degree of deception being practiced by the landowners as they said to the serfs “we will protect you, and in return, you can work for us and pay us to protect you. This, of course, was a complete con, because if it wasn’t for the landowners, there would be no need at all for “protection” from other landowners. And, oh yes, the protection required the serfs to put their lives on the line as part of the “protection” racket.

There was one group of landowners who operated more by trickery than by sheer force of arms. Going under the general title of the “Church” their influence came from telling people that when they die that they would not go to “heaven” if they were not servants of the Church. That technique worked very well and even influenced the head honcho of the landowners - the Monarch who was the ultimate “landowner”. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that it is wrong to worship God, follow a moral code, live an upright and blameless life, but, doing that has nothing whatsoever to do with being subject to any human or human organisation.

A point which you have probably missed is that the ‘landowners’ considered the serfs to be sub-human “things” and not people at all. Unfit to, and incapable of, owning land under any circumstances. Considered to be ‘goods and chattels’ owned by the landowners. At that time, “serf” was an alternative word for “slave”.

It is not possible for one human to genuinely “own” another human. Parents do not own the children born to them. They have a duty and a responsibility to nurture them and care for them and ideally, love them, but they do not own them.

The weird notion which landowners have that they “own” humans is as false as anything can get. Slavery is another act of violence. Only a very ill-informed person believes that slavery has been ‘abolished’ as it is more widespread today than at any other time in all of recorded history, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with skin colour.

In the well-known year of 1066, another violent ‘landowner’ arrived in England and by force of arms, imposed Roman law on all of England. You will recall that Rome was very heavily into slaves and the slaves had no rights or privileges, no possessions and no protection, in spite of the fact that in reality, every one of them actually had equal entitlement to the rights claimed by their so-called “owners”, both slaves and masters being human beings. So, please understand clearly, that Roman law encompassed the notion of people being called slaves, and owned as “things”.

In 1213, King John was excommunicated and that frightened him so much that he signed a contract with the Pope. The contract is known as the “Treaty of Verona” and it undertook to introduce Rome’s canon law to England, which made Archbishop Stephan Langton, the effective ruler of all of the country. The contract was supposed to give the Pope ownership of all of the lands, people, animals, etc. of all of King John’s kingdom. According to this contract, the Vatican owns all of England and all of the British Commonwealth countries.

http://www.free-energy-devices.com/PJKBook2.html

[arc300]

This is an important question. Who owns Planet Earth?

I think, in this context, and in all seriousness, the correct question is "Who PWNs Planet Earth?"

"Pwn is a leetspeak slang term derived from the verb own,[1][2][3] as meaning to appropriate or to conquer to gain ownership. The term implies domination or humiliation of a rival" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn

@Kickstones
I disagree that no human can own land if we take "own" to mean "to have the right to exclude others from the use of land that you yourself have improved". And by "right" I mean something that is natural, and good, and, er, right. It is natural and good and right that we can all have our own property. I contrast this with the entities/corporations etc mentioned in yours and Nonhocapito's posts who, in fact, have the ABILITY to exclude others from using land or property, but not necessarily the right to do so.

[kickstones]

This is an important question. Who owns Planet Earth?

I think, in this context, and in all seriousness, the correct question is "Who PWNs Planet Earth?"

"Pwn is a leetspeak slang term derived from the verb own,[1][2][3] as meaning to appropriate or to conquer to gain ownership. The term implies domination or humiliation of a rival" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn

@Kickstones
I disagree that no human can own land if we take "own" to mean "to have the right to exclude others from the use of land that you yourself have improved". And by "right" I mean something that is natural, and good, and, er, right. It is natural and good and right that we can all have our own property. I contrast this with the entities/corporations etc mentioned in yours and Nonhocapito's posts who, in fact, have the ABILITY to exclude others from using land or property, but not necessarily the right to do so.

Yes, arc300, there have been many attempts in the past at attaining a true understanding of the concept of property and ownership, but in my mind land cannot be owned, it can /should be held or placed in one's stewardship, to be passed on to future descendents. Unless, that is, if the original occupant purchased it from the creator (God), then and only then do they have legitimate cause for ownership. However, no matter, we could theorize 'till the cows come home', let us not get distracted from the fact that we are still getting conned. Should folk be paying tax and rent on land that has no true ownership? I think not, rather the reverse, if like you rightly say 'you yourself have improved' that land.

[sceppy]

Those who tax the companies, 'own' the companies.
No business runs, unless they pay protection money, or tax...whichever way you want to look at it.
That's a simple and short answer.

[diagonal2]

GOD could mean G.O.D = Gold, Oil, Diamonds. On a more serious note, look up this site. He has distilled down the topic of who really "owns" the world pretty well. http://www.pseudoreality.org/committeeof300.html

You may want to read the information from it's source. I believe the original researcher of this specific topic is Dr. John Coleman. Check out his book: http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4598 ... itteeo.pdf

He also did a lecture back in 1994 if you already haven't seen it:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I41pYs05LA

[bostonterrierowner]

GOD could mean G.O.D = Gold, Oil, Diamonds. On a more serious note, look up this site. He has distilled down the topic of who really "owns" the world pretty well. http://www.pseudoreality.org/committeeof300.html

You many want to read the information from it's source. I believe the original researcher of this specific topic is Dr. John Coleman. Check out his book: http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/4598 ... itteeo.pdf

He also did a lecture back in 1994 if you already haven't seen it:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I41pYs05LA

Very entertaining disinfo stuff . I liked this especially :

In the case of John F. Kennedy, the assassination was carried out with great attendant publicity and with the utmost brutality to serve as a warning to world leaders not to get out of line. Pope John Paul I was quietly murdered because he was getting close to the Committee of 300 through Freemasons in the Vatican hierarchy. His successor, Pope John Paul II, was publicly humiliated as a warning to cease and desist-which he has done. As we shall see, certain Vatican leaders are today seated on the Committee of 300.

I bet there is something about 9/11 "atrocities" as well

Exposing red herring stuff like this is exactly what this forum is about .

[kickstones]

Interesting things are discovered this way. For example, the major holder of Disney, Exxon, Walmart and Monsanto (names I looked up randomly) is The Vanguard Group, Inc. (who also is the second major holder of Coca-cola).
But this fact is not at all mentioned on the wickedpedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group

Now, I know that this Vanguard group is an investment company, thus those shares are bought with the money of the investors that are countless individuals. Nonetheless, am I wrong in saying that it is the mutual fund company that actually holds the shares, and as such it is such company that ultimately can influence the behavior of the corporation?
And if so, wouldn't an investment company be the best way to hide real power and real control?

Anyway, with this Vanguard Group I'm stuck. It doesn't appear to be listed with the others and I don't know if there is a way to know who owns it.

Yes, nonhocapito, finding names for Vanguard Group is proving a little elusive. However, The Vanguard Group would appear to be part of a 'big four' investment companies:

State Street Corporation, Vanguard Group, BlackRock and FMR (Fidelity).


Companies controlled by this "big four" group:


Alcoa Inc.

Altria Group Inc.

American International Group Inc.

AT&T Inc.

Boeing Co.

Caterpillar Inc.

Coca-Cola Co.

DuPont & Co.

Exxon Mobil Corp.

General Electric Co.

General Motors Corporation

Hewlett-Packard Co.

Home Depot Inc.

Honeywell International Inc.

Intel Corp.

International Business Machines Corp

Johnson & Johnson

JP Morgan Chase & Co.

McDonald's Corp.

Merck & Co. Inc.

Microsoft Corp.

3M Co.

Pfizer Inc.

Procter & Gamble Co.

United Technologies Corp.

Verizon Communications Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.


Time Warner

Walt Disney

Viacom

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.,

CBS Corporation

NBC Universal


They ('the big four') also appear to have shareholder presence in all USA major banks and representation on the Federal Reserve.

One of the 'big four', Fidelity Investments, the second-largest U.S. mutual fund company, is controlled by the Johnson family, led by Edward C. “Ned” Johnson III. Combined with the family’s collection of other assets, including a lumberyard chain, a farm and interests in oil and gas, the Johnson clan is worth $22 billion.



http://english.pravda.ru/business/finan ... e_world-0/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-1 ... mpire.html

[bostonterrierowner]

Another major private equity firm is Blackstone Group . BG is responsible through certain Mr. Peterson for pushing for austerity in USA

[kickstones]

Interesting names linked to the Vanguard Group in the past, Richard Cheney and Halliburton. The below extract taken from an article by Margie Burns reveals that:

Vice President Richard Cheney was head of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000 and may receive deferred compensation and other benefits (not yet calculated) from Halliburton for a period of five years, according to his 2001 financial disclosure statement.

.....10: The Vanguard Group, with 7.6 million shares of Halliburton stock, worth about $176 million. Vanguard, also 10th largest mutual-fund shareholder in Halliburton, is a huge owner in ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. It moved onto this list recently when Dallas-based Maverick Capital, privately owned by the Wylie family, moved off. Vice President Cheney's disclosure statement shows millions of his retirement money invested through Vanguard.

......The Vanguard Group holdings are easily among Cheney's largest holdings. Assets are given in ranges (from $100,000 to $1M; from $1M to $5M; etc). Cheney's statement includes two holdings in the $500,000-$1M range; two holdings in the $1M-$5M range; and three holdings in the $5M-$25M range. Thus Cheney's assets invested with Vanguard Group total $18M to $87M. Given the size of Vanguard's stake in Halliburton, it is hard to imagine a mathematical possibility that Cheney's assets are unconnected to Halliburton's fortunes.

....Halliburton, a huge global conglomerate in the oil field business, landed a non-competitive-bid contract for work in Iraq that now looks almost open-ended. The cost, reported by the New York Times at over $2 billion.



http://www.populist.com/03.19.burns.html

[kickstones]

It appears Chenney's investment in the Vanguard Group was closer to $85 milion, according to investigations by Willacy County District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra.

"Guerra says he went through Cheney's financial records and the prison companies' financial records and found the connection. The three top prison companies Guerra researched were Corrections Corporation of America, GEO Group and Cornell. Those three have the Vanguard Group in common, which is an investment company that puts money into all three prison companies....... Guerra estimates Cheney has $85 million invested in Vanguard and in turn, into the prison companies."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Texas_DA_ ... _1127.html

[kickstones]

A study, at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, that looked at the relationship between 43,000 transnational corporation revealed a relatively small group of companies with disproportionate power over the global economy.

They constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power. They revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships.



When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies.

"In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,"

The top 10 of the 147 superconnected companies

1. Barclays plc
2. Capital Group Companies Inc
3. FMR Corporation
4. AXA
5. State Street Corporation
6. JP Morgan Chase & Co
7. Legal & General Group plc
8. Vanguard Group Inc
9. UBS AG
10. Merrill Lynch & Co Inc


The team used info from Orbis 2007 (link below, a database listing 37 million companies worldwide. The database has 'Detailed corporate and ownership structures', so it maybe possible to find information on ownership structure of Vanguard Group Inc. They run a free trial, but you have to hold a position at a registered company to use it.

http://www.bvdinfo.com/Products/Company ... is-%281%29

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... bx283545B1

[hoi.polloi]

you have to hold a position at a registered company to use it.

When I read this, my cynicism joked, "sure, so they know they can fire you for asking too many questions."