I'm finding it hard to believe that BlackRock doesn't understand Goodhart's Law. Surely they wouldn't be where they are without being able to rationally optimize for the objective of profit.
Presuming competence, it seems that one of the following must be true: either (1) external coercion plausibly threatened profits enough that a more controlled sacrifice of profit (call it a tribute or blood money) was objectively preferable, or (2) profit is no longer the objective.
One doesn't have to presume competence, but I don't know enough about BlackRock's leadership structure to meaningfully comment on that.
Presuming competence, it seems that one of the following must be true: either (1) external coercion plausibly threatened profits enough that a more controlled sacrifice of profit (call it a tribute or blood money) was objectively preferable, or (2) profit is no longer the objective.
One doesn't have to presume competence, but I don't know enough about BlackRock's leadership structure to meaningfully comment on that.