Here are some stories we had our eye on today:

Apple’s Tim Cook delivers searing critique of Silicon Valley

The Washington Post, Tony Romm

Apple chief executive Tim Cook on Wednesday warned the world’s most powerful regulators that the poor privacy practices of some tech companies, the ills of social media and the erosion of trust in his own industry threaten to undermine “technology’s awesome potential” to address challenges like disease and climate change.

Companies Say They're Ready to Move Supply Chains From China

Bloomberg

Earnings reporting season is underway, and analysts are eager to hear from executives about how an escalating trade war between the U.S. and China is impacting their businesses. A common theme is that they are ready to relocate supply chains if the cost of importing Chinese goods becomes prohibitive. U.S. President Donald Trump imposed a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports in September -- following an earlier round of tariffs on $50 billion of goods -- and promised to raise the duty to 25 percent in January. He’s also threatened to expand the levy to all products imported from China -- an amount that totaled $531 billion in the 12 months through August, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

A stealth merger in China should concern investors

Financial Times, Tom Mitchell

…But in China’s state-owned sector, the above scenario is now playing out at two of the country’s largest chemical groups, Sinochem and ChemChina. Both are Global 500 giants with annual revenues of about $50bn each. In early July, two leading Chinese financial websites and the Financial Times reported that Sinochem chairman Frank Ning Gaoning would simultaneously serve as head of ChemChina, replacing Ren Jianxin.

When Sears Flourished, So Did Workers. At Amazon, It’s More Complicated.

The New York Times, Nelson D. Schwartz and Michael Corkery

Much as Sears has declined in the intervening decades, so has the willingness of corporate America to share the rewards of success. Shareholders now come first and employees have been pushed to the back of the line. This shift is broader than a single company’s culture, reflecting deep changes in how business is now conducted in America. Winner-take-some has evolved into winner-take-most or -all, and in many cases publicly traded companies are concentrating wealth, not spreading it. Profit-sharing and pensions are a rarity among the rank-and-file, while top executives take home an increasing share of the spoils. Amazon shareholders have benefited more than workers, but Sears, in its heyday, tried to serve both.

How passive fund managers can shape the corporate landscape

Financial Times, John Plender

The so-called big three indexed fund providers — Vanguard, State Street and BlackRock — are estimated to have controlled about 15 per cent of the S&P 500 in 2017. More broadly, more than 44 per cent of assets in US-domiciled equity funds are now managed passively, up from 19 per cent in 2009. If anything, these figures underestimate the power of passive fund managers because large numbers of shareholders do not vote, even in contested battles, so the voting power of those who do vote is leveraged.  In a recent draft paper from which I have taken these numbers, John C Coates of Harvard Law School points out that the big three’s share of any contested vote now tends to be pivotal and that on current trends, even if growth starts to taper off, a majority of the 1,000 largest US companies will be controlled, in effect, by a dozen or fewer people over the next 10 to 20 years.