YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
ASSOCIATED TAGS
billion  blackrock  blackstone  control  different  equity  estate  global  influence  management  ownership  people  private  street  trillion  
LATEST POSTS

Did Blackstone Own BlackRock? The Truth Behind the Wall Street Titans

Let’s be clear about this: when people hear “Black” plus “stone” or “rock,” they assume a link. It’s natural. Like thinking Coke and Pepsi belong to the same parent. They don’t. And that’s exactly where the myth takes root.

The Origin Myth: How Two Black Giants Were Born in the Same Year

1988. A year of excess, deregulation, and financial engineering. Wall Street was a battlefield of egos and leveraged buyouts. Out of that chaos, two firms emerged—Blackstone and BlackRock—founded months apart, both in New York, both by former big-bank execs. Coincidence? Mostly. But the timing fuels the confusion.

Blackstone: The Private Equity Powerhouse

Stephen Schwarzman and Peter Peterson launched Blackstone in 1988 with $400,000 of their own money. Their model? Buy struggling companies, restructure them, sell for profit. They didn’t manage public funds. They didn’t offer mutual funds. Their domain was private equity and real estate. By 2023, Blackstone managed over $1 trillion in assets—the largest private equity firm on the planet. Their IPO in 2007 raised $4.1 billion, a seismic event in finance.

And they did it without touching the retail investor pool. That changes everything.

BlackRock: The Index Fund Revolution

Larry Fink, Robert Kapito, and seven others also started in 1988—this time inside a different beast: BlackRock began as part of a bank. Specifically, The Blackstone Group’s investment arm? No. Wait. That’s the mistake. BlackRock was actually founded under the umbrella of Blackstone Inc.—but only briefly, and only in name. Here’s the twist: Stephen Schwarzman gave Fink office space and seed capital. Blackstone (the firm) helped launch BlackRock (the fund manager). But within a year—1989—Fink and team left. They took the name, but not the ownership.

Because here’s what most people don’t realize: Blackstone never had a controlling stake. The support was logistical, not financial. Fink raised $120 million from PNC Bank shortly after leaving. By 1994, BlackRock was fully independent. It went public in 1999. Today, it manages $10 trillion—more than any asset manager in history. The thing is, that early connection? It was a launchpad, not a leash.

Why the Confusion Still Spreads in 2024

Naming is destiny, sometimes. “Black” in both names. Same founding year. Shared early address. Schwarzman even sat on BlackRock’s board for a few years. But not as an owner. As a mentor. And that’s where the narrative warps. Media outlets, especially outside finance, blur the lines. Search results don’t help. Google autocomplete still suggests “Did Blackstone buy BlackRock?” as of June 2024. The myth has legs.

Yet the issue remains: no ownership trail, no shareholder overlap, no merger filings. Just proximity. A bit like two bands starting in the same garage in 1964—Beatles and Rolling Stones didn’t share members, but people still ask if they did.

Ownership Breakdown: Who Actually Controls BlackRock?

BlackRock is a publicly traded company. Ticker: BLK. That means ownership is fragmented across institutional investors, mutual funds, and individual shareholders. The largest stakeholder as of 2023? Vanguard Group, holding 7.4%. Then State Street Global Advisors with 5.2%. Blackstone? Not even in the top 50.

Leadership and Influence: The Fink Era

Larry Fink remains Chairman and CEO. He’s been at the helm for 36 years. His influence is unmatched. He’s the one who pushed for ESG integration in 2020—sending shockwaves through corporate boardrooms. He’s the one who built Aladdin, the risk management platform used by central banks and pension funds. And under his watch, BlackRock shifted from bond specialist to global asset juggernaut.

But because he started with Blackstone’s blessing, some still assume a backdoor control. We’re far from it. BlackRock’s board is independent. Its auditors are PwC. Its SEC filings show zero ownership ties to Blackstone LP.

Blackstone’s Portfolio: What They Actually Own

Blackstone invests in real estate, infrastructure, credit, and private equity. Its holdings include Hilton Hotels, 1 in 20 U.S. rental homes via its Invitation Homes subsidiary, and a 49% stake in Scandic Hotels. It owns logistics centers in Singapore, fiber networks in Brazil, and solar farms in Texas. But not BlackRock. Not even a footnote.

In 2022, Blackstone raised $30 billion for its Real Estate Partners fund—largest ever. Yet not one dollar went to buying shares in BlackRock. Why? Because they’re in different leagues. One builds and flips assets. The other manages index funds and ETFs. Different game. Different rules.

BlackRock vs Blackstone: A Side-by-Side Reality Check

Let’s cut through the noise. This isn’t about rivalry. It’s about categorization. Both manage trillions. Both are influential. But their models are opposites.

Business Models: Active Control vs Passive Tracking

Blackstone buys companies outright. It takes control. It installs managers. It exits in 3–7 years. Return targets? 20% IRR. BlackRock, by contrast, rarely takes control. It owns slices of thousands of companies through ETFs like iShares. Its goal? Track the market, collect fees (avg. 0.09% per fund), and scale. Same outcome—wealth creation—but opposite paths.

And that’s the irony: BlackRock’s passive funds now own stakes in Blackstone’s portfolio companies. So, in a twisted, meta kind of way, BlackRock indirectly owns pieces of Blackstone’s empire. But not the other way around.

Revenue and Scale Comparison (2023 Data)

BlackRock’s revenue: $20.6 billion. Net income: $5.7 billion. Fee-related earnings: 92% of total. Blackstone? Revenue: $17.8 billion. But only $5.3 billion in recurring fees. The rest? Performance-based—lumpy, volatile. BlackRock’s model is steadier. Blackstone’s can spike (like in 2021, when it made $11 billion in profit). But in downturns? BlackRock weathered 2008 better. Its assets under management dropped 24%. Blackstone’s dropped 31%. Which explains why some investors sleep better with index funds.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is BlackRock Part of Blackstone Now?

No. Never has been. They split in 1989. BlackRock became part of PNC Financial Services for a decade, then went independent. Blackstone stayed private until its 2007 IPO. No cross-ownership exists. Data is still lacking because there’s nothing to report.

Who Is Bigger: Blackstone or BlackRock?

In assets under management? BlackRock wins—$10 trillion vs $1 trillion. In brand recognition among retail investors? BlackRock. But in private equity influence? Blackstone dominates. It’s like comparing a cruise liner to a fleet of superyachts. One carries more people. The other hosts the billionaires.

Do They Compete?

Occasionally. In 2021, both bid for a $12 billion portfolio of European real estate loans. Blackstone won. In infrastructure funds? BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure fund hit $100 billion in 2023—stepping on Blackstone’s toes. But overall, they coexist. Because the market’s big enough. We’re talking about a global financial pie worth over $250 trillion. There’s room.

The Bottom Line: Separation Was the Best Thing That Happened

Here’s my take: the split in 1989 saved both firms. Had Blackstone kept BlackRock, it would’ve been pressured to merge cultures—private equity aggression vs asset management prudence. It wouldn’t have worked. Larry Fink needed freedom to build Aladdin, to push passive investing, to go global. Schwarzman needed focus on buyouts and real estate. By parting ways early, both thrived.

I find this overrated—the idea that proximity equals ownership. People love clean narratives. “Black helped launch Rock, so Rock belongs to Black.” Neat. Simple. Wrong. Reality is messier. And honestly, it is unclear why this myth persists beyond lazy headlines.

Yes, they shared DNA. But so do cousins. That doesn’t make them the same person. Blackstone didn’t own BlackRock. It helped birth it. Then let it walk. And that’s exactly where the story gets interesting. Because sometimes, the most powerful move in business isn’t control—it’s letting go.

Suffice to say: if you’re investing, you should know who manages your money. And if someone tells you Blackstone runs BlackRock, correct them. Politely. With data.

💡 Key Takeaways

  • Is 6 a good height? - The average height of a human male is 5'10". So 6 foot is only slightly more than average by 2 inches. So 6 foot is above average, not tall.
  • Is 172 cm good for a man? - Yes it is. Average height of male in India is 166.3 cm (i.e. 5 ft 5.5 inches) while for female it is 152.6 cm (i.e. 5 ft) approximately.
  • How much height should a boy have to look attractive? - Well, fellas, worry no more, because a new study has revealed 5ft 8in is the ideal height for a man.
  • Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old? - The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too.
  • Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old? - How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 13

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is 6 a good height?

The average height of a human male is 5'10". So 6 foot is only slightly more than average by 2 inches. So 6 foot is above average, not tall.

2. Is 172 cm good for a man?

Yes it is. Average height of male in India is 166.3 cm (i.e. 5 ft 5.5 inches) while for female it is 152.6 cm (i.e. 5 ft) approximately. So, as far as your question is concerned, aforesaid height is above average in both cases.

3. How much height should a boy have to look attractive?

Well, fellas, worry no more, because a new study has revealed 5ft 8in is the ideal height for a man. Dating app Badoo has revealed the most right-swiped heights based on their users aged 18 to 30.

4. Is 165 cm normal for a 15 year old?

The predicted height for a female, based on your parents heights, is 155 to 165cm. Most 15 year old girls are nearly done growing. I was too. It's a very normal height for a girl.

5. Is 160 cm too tall for a 12 year old?

How Tall Should a 12 Year Old Be? We can only speak to national average heights here in North America, whereby, a 12 year old girl would be between 137 cm to 162 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/3 feet). A 12 year old boy should be between 137 cm to 160 cm tall (4-1/2 to 5-1/4 feet).

6. How tall is a average 15 year old?

Average Height to Weight for Teenage Boys - 13 to 20 Years
Male Teens: 13 - 20 Years)
14 Years112.0 lb. (50.8 kg)64.5" (163.8 cm)
15 Years123.5 lb. (56.02 kg)67.0" (170.1 cm)
16 Years134.0 lb. (60.78 kg)68.3" (173.4 cm)
17 Years142.0 lb. (64.41 kg)69.0" (175.2 cm)

7. How to get taller at 18?

Staying physically active is even more essential from childhood to grow and improve overall health. But taking it up even in adulthood can help you add a few inches to your height. Strength-building exercises, yoga, jumping rope, and biking all can help to increase your flexibility and grow a few inches taller.

8. Is 5.7 a good height for a 15 year old boy?

Generally speaking, the average height for 15 year olds girls is 62.9 inches (or 159.7 cm). On the other hand, teen boys at the age of 15 have a much higher average height, which is 67.0 inches (or 170.1 cm).

9. Can you grow between 16 and 18?

Most girls stop growing taller by age 14 or 15. However, after their early teenage growth spurt, boys continue gaining height at a gradual pace until around 18. Note that some kids will stop growing earlier and others may keep growing a year or two more.

10. Can you grow 1 cm after 17?

Even with a healthy diet, most people's height won't increase after age 18 to 20. The graph below shows the rate of growth from birth to age 20. As you can see, the growth lines fall to zero between ages 18 and 20 ( 7 , 8 ). The reason why your height stops increasing is your bones, specifically your growth plates.