Why would that matter? If they are obligated by their funds' charters not to intervene, then all the governance decisions happen exactly as if they hadn't invested, right? 10% vs 90% of share votes being on auto-pilot shouldn't matter?
Is the argument that the vast majority of them could change their funds' charter to allow them to be actively involved with governance? If so, that would be really hard to achieve even if many of them worked at it.
Edit: three people have made the same "it's easier to get a controlling interest" argument. See my reply in the follow-up before making another redundant comment.
Is the argument that the vast majority of them could change their funds' charter to allow them to be actively involved with governance? If so, that would be really hard to achieve even if many of them worked at it.
Edit: three people have made the same "it's easier to get a controlling interest" argument. See my reply in the follow-up before making another redundant comment.