>>64167132
1. Names ≠ Religion or Control
Plenty of surnames that sound Jewish are used by people who aren’t Jewish at all. “Goldman” can be a German name, “Levi” is also common among Italians, etc.
Even if someone is Jewish, that tells you nothing about their beliefs, politics, or power. Trying to tally officers by surnames is like saying everyone named “Christian” secretly runs the Vatican.
2. Correlation Isn’t Control
Let’s say someone finds 5 officers with stereotypically Jewish last names. A bank might have 200 execs and thousands of employees.
Boards are answerable to shareholders, regulators, and laws.
3. Survivorship Bias
Bigots cherry-pick: they point to a Rothstein in one company, ignore 100 Smiths and Chens in another.
4. The “So what?” Counter
Corporate control ≠ ethnic identity.
Officers serve at the board’s discretion.
Corporations are legally bound to shareholders and regulators.
Influence comes from capital and policy.
A better “Who holds power?” framework
Ownership concentration
Top shareholders’ voting power (including dual-class shares).
Cross-ownership across firms (who owns stakes in competitors?).
Market concentration
HHI (Herfindahl–Hirschman Index) by sector and region.
Share of top-4 and top-8 firms over time.
Board/exec network power
Board interlocks and network centrality.
Tenure overlap, audit/comp committee cross-links.
Regulatory posture
Enforcement actions, consent decrees, systemic-risk designation.
Lobbying spend and revolving-door hires (firm regulator).
Control levers
Debt covenants, major creditors, syndicate leaders.
Key distribution chokepoints (for media: carriage deals, app store rules, ad tech).
Outcomes
Pricing power & margin stability.
Crisis behavior.
