Blackrock says 'We manage money on behalf of our clients' whereas someone running a fund just takes money and invest and a bank has it's own assets
On behalf : you can do lot of shady things(Hindenburg never disclosed their clients)
Running a fund : you have to disclose everything.
That doesn't mean Blackrock doesn't run funds
Even for someone running a fund, it isn't their money so it isn't their asset, it is just 'asset under management'
Also There is this popular misconception among people that parent company should be valued higher. But it isn't the case, let's say Blackrock owns 10% of Trillion dollar company, so it has assets of $100 Billion, but when black rock has to monetize that money, how much will it be worth...? $100 Billion...?, the answer should be NO, why..?, TAX. After taxation It would be worth far lesser than $100 Billion. So basically all parents companies will be valued far lesser than the companies they own(you can check any listed ones, same case everywhere)
Think of it like this, If you are in investing in parent company it means you are betting on investor who is betting on a company(2nd order investing).
If I invest on you who is betting on investor who is betting on a company, it's 3rd order, so you will be far less valued than the company. Why..?..because at every stage there is leakage(Tax, operational expenses,...)
If I value you and company at same level, why should I invest in you(3rd order), I can directly put that money in the company right
Value = perspective
(lol mamaearth coming with IPO at 10k cr valuation, earlier it was 24k cr)
Blackrock's power comes from their ability to dictate terms to clients not the valuation