This POV needs to shove it, because even those institutions can have their resources revoked by people waking up and accepting capital allocation is their responsibility.

This is the toxicity that has younger people rightfully angry at how the system works, and how it is "rigged". People just haven't had the info bandwidth previously to even contemplate these problems.

So no. WalterBright should absolutely do with his shares as he wilt, as should everyone else. Frankly, I wish institutional investment was deconstructed to at least get people coordinating with each other from the ground up to accept what it is their institution's manager was actually perpetuating.

Institutional investors are the backbone of municipal bonds that help small towns borrow and build. They back all of the retirement vehicles in the U.S.

They give a financial stability to places that need them.

One of the reasons Twitter is stable is because of those types of investors and is not subject to the whims of individual shareholders.

No corporate leadership wants to be subject to the whims of the stock market if they can avoid it. Twitters board and its institutional investors the firewall against such things.

Did I give the impression anyone would? I pointed out that I have a financial stake in Twitter in order to show that I have skin in the game that contributes to my pontifications on the topic. I'm not merely a disinterested observer.