Comment by nradov

> Sometimes people who don't actually understand the law make spurious claims that those investors are legally required as fiduciaries to put their funds into the highest yielding investments. But in reality there is no such requirement

The requirement is what a lawyer can convince a dozen jurors the requirement should be. If there's a lawsuit against a fund manager at an institutional investor saying "you didn't fulfill your duty as a fiduciary because x", there's at least some risk that x becomes a real responsibility for fiduciaries through the outcome of that case. If the zeitgeist dictates that as a responsibility, it is a responsibility.

> They can underweight Meta stock if they believe it's overvalued due to potential legal risks or corporate governance problems or whatever.

The fact that they aren't doing so when the company is losing billions of dollars in legal judgments would suggest either

1) They can't do so because they would lose money doing so

or

2) Our system is in need of reform so that when executives direct a company in such a way that it is routinely facing legal exposure, shareholders remove those executives so that corporations act as better citizens and things are handled at the shareholder meeting level instead of the court system level.