PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Focus On Blackrock



Kathianne
08-02-2023, 03:46 PM
SassyLady I know you've posted on them before:

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/08/02/blackrock-is-the-800lb-gorilla-of-extra-scammy-goodness-n568667


Blackrock is the 800lb gorilla of Extra Scammy Goodness
BEEGE WELBORN 2:31 PM on August 02, 2023

When you have too much money, too much influence, and you know you’re too damn smart to just let the peasants live their lives without your dictatorial benevolence tipping the scales in the direction you want their lives to be lived, sometimes…you out-clever yourself. You get too cutesy by half in your arrogance.


Blackrock has that problem.

...

It’s an argle-bargle scam to end-run states who are starting to watch Blackrock closely.


…Wiser states will legislatively mandate disclosure of investment-stewardship meetings and make it clear that pressuring companies to support ESG or other ideological objectives over profits is itself a breach of fiduciary duties, even if informal.


In any event, it is very unlikely that red states will allow BlackRock to use its so-called Voting Choice ruse as a shortcut around its fiduciary obligations. Legislators, attorneys general, and state financial officers are following these issues closely. And as the elected stewards of their states’ (and taxpayers’) investments, they are holding BlackRock and other ESG supporting firms accountable.


Actually, Blackrock has a Larry Fink problem. Fink is one of the seven original founders of the firm, and he is now the CEO and chairman of the firm he helped create in 1988 – its guiding light, you might say. Fink’s visionary light burns with a globalist passion to shape the world in his idealized version, and, as his firm has managed to accrue significant investments (read: control) of every major corporation on the planet, he has the leverage to do so.


Oxfam Research -“says that 82% of all earned money in 2017 went to those 1%.”


BlackRock, Vanguard & State street owns the majority of stocks in Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Facebook, AT&T and many, than other institutional investors. Which makes them first mover advantage. BlackRock has invested $170 billion in U.S. public energy companies (2021) and $85bn investment only in coal companies.


All three combined $20 trillion in managed assets is the equivalent of more than half of the combined value of all shares of companies in the S&P 500 (about $38 trillion). And That’s larger than the gross domestic product (GDP) of every single country around the globe, except for China and the United States.


Bloomberg calls BlackRock “The fourth branch of government”, because it’s the only private agency that closely works with the central banks. These firms were right of Federal Reserve which helped in time of 2008 housing crises to clear the mess.


All that financial muscle powering an engrained WEF mentality? It’s led to Blackrock using that heft to force the woke social engineering changes they want by pressuring firms whose assets they manage, regardless of where those firms’ board or management stood on the issues.


…Large asset managers integrate ESG objectives into their investment approaches in one of two ways. The first is through dedicated ESG or sustainability funds, which systematically exclude or underweight securities in disfavored sectors such as fossil fuels, tobacco and firearms. These funds represent a small portion of total assets under management—less than 6% as of last year in BlackRock’s case. If dedicated ESG funds accurately disclose their policies and the ultimate capital owners are informed of them before making investment decisions, there’s no legal problem. People are free to use their money to promote any social causes they like.


The second and more prevalent way that asset managers promote ESG is through “stewardship,” which refers to proxy voting and shareholder engagement. The largest asset managers use stewardship to promote ESG principles in all their portfolios, including non-ESG index funds.


In 2022, large asset managers including BlackRock voted in favor of implementing racial-equity audits at companies like Apple and Home Depot notwithstanding that the companies’ boards recommended against doing so. Similar examples abound with large asset managers imposing emissions caps, ESG-linked executive compensation and board diversity mandates across corporate America. Many capital owners strongly disagree with these objectives even though their money was used to support them.


The problem for their plans to reshape society by rejiggering the workplace to fit their template was that the populace in general was waking up to “woke.” People have not liked a thing they’ve been seeing. DEI programs were bad enough, but the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standing of a company determining investing vice fiduciary principles became a rallying cry for conservatives and a nascent anti-woke movement. In August of last year, 19 Republican attorneys general wrote a well-publicized shot-across-the-bow to Fink and Blackrock concerning the firm’s handling of their states’ pension funds. Were the demands of supporting unicorn farts taking precedence over pensioners’ security?

...

The firm, monstrous as it is, has a responsibility to investors and those whose assets it manages to do so as securely and lucratively as possible. That is their first and primary reason for existence – not saving the planet or leveling the skin hues on the secretarial floor. When that basic trust is breached, a firm can be held responsible for losses incurred while exercising their whims with other people’s money.




Fink has admitted the FL fund withdrawal hurt the firm bigly, but they still made a buttload of money. What has really chafed his hide is the unwelcome scrutiny he and Blackrock are receiving thanks to these behind the scene machinations being exposed to the peasants.


Three years ago, no one but gushing Bloomberg/CNBC reporters and the mechanic at the visiting aircraft line in Davos knew who he was. Now everyone spits when they say his name.


For the moment, Fink humbly insists he’s “ashamed”. He didn’t want things “politicized,” and won’t be talking ESG anymore.


PINKIE SWEAR


BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said he’s no longer using the term “ESG” (environment, social and governance) because it is being politically “weaponized” and he’s “ashamed” to be part of the debate on the issue.


Why it matters: How the world’s largest asset manager frames its investment approach is a leading indicator for the market. BlackRock manages $9.2 trillion.


What we’re watching: Fink’s latest statement is sure to generate plenty of controversy.


Part of what he’s “ashamed of” should be talking out of both sides of his mouth. It probably won’t be, considering who he is, but everyone should know what corrupt sneks he and his do-gooder firm really are.


Yeah, they’re “green,” alright – like greenbacks green.




Fink is also probably seeing red, like a Chinese lacquer, at the nerve of Republicans launching an investigation yesterday into? Blackrock funding anti-American Chinese firms and activities which directly benefit the Chinese military.






These are not good people. These are not upstanding Americans.






They are not trying to save the world – they are trying to control it.


We see you.

AHZ
08-02-2023, 04:10 PM
yes. blackrock is evil.

let the "free trade" shrieking begin.

fj1200
08-02-2023, 05:38 PM
@SassyLady (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=83) I know you've posted on them before:

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/08/02/blackrock-is-the-800lb-gorilla-of-extra-scammy-goodness-n568667

This seems to be essentially the same information posted previously with info on more states moving against ESG. However, this in particular is incorrect...


BlackRock, Vanguard & State street owns the majority of stocks in Alphabet, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Facebook, AT&T and many, than other institutional investors.

Those three own about 12% of Apple (https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=AAPL&subView=institutional) that I can see. Rev was going to check my data last time I posted it but I don't recall him getting back to me.

Kathianne
08-02-2023, 05:47 PM
This seems to be essentially the same information posted previously with info on more states moving against ESG. However, this in particular is incorrect...



Those three own about 12% of Apple (https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=AAPL&subView=institutional) that I can see. Rev was going to check my data last time I posted it but I don't recall him getting back to me.


This seems to match up with yours: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/120115/top-5-apple-shareholders.asp

fj1200
08-02-2023, 05:54 PM
This seems to match up with yours: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/120115/top-5-apple-shareholders.asp

As I recall it was similar for the other companies mentioned. And the Assets Under Management at BR currently looks to be $8.5TT to $10TT not $20TT (https://www.pionline.com/money-management/blackrocks-aum-climbs-11-943-trillion-q2) and that $10TT would include fixed income assets so equities would be much lower; $5TT??? maybe.

I grant that it's alot of Ts.

SassyLady
08-02-2023, 08:09 PM
SassyLady I know you've posted on them before:

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2023/08/02/blackrock-is-the-800lb-gorilla-of-extra-scammy-goodness-n568667

Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street ... all the same in my book.


In a recently published paper, our CORPNET research project comprehensively mapped the ownership of the Big Three. We found that the Big Three, taken together, have become the largest shareholder in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.

https://ponderwall.com/index.php/2019/09/29/vanguard-blackrock-statestreet-america/

fj1200
08-02-2023, 09:00 PM
Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street ... all the same in my book.

https://ponderwall.com/index.php/2019/09/29/vanguard-blackrock-statestreet-america/

When one's mind is made up one will find any evidence necessary to support one's contention.

Kathianne
08-02-2023, 09:12 PM
When one's mind is made up one will find any evidence necessary to support one's contention.

That is the truism of the day. When you got a hammer, everything is a nail.

revelarts
08-02-2023, 10:04 PM
Mmmm,
Another comes to mind,

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

fj1200
08-02-2023, 10:58 PM
Mmmm,
Another comes to mind,

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

When I'm told X, Y, and Z are evidence of something but X, Y, and Z are not true I tend to question the basis of what I'm told. Is that a character flaw that I have?

AHZ
08-03-2023, 07:18 AM
Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street ... all the same in my book.



https://ponderwall.com/index.php/2019/09/29/vanguard-blackrock-statestreet-america/


and this is hazardous for cartel/esg/corporate tyranny reasons.

you forgot the real point.

AHZ
08-03-2023, 07:22 AM
When I'm told X, Y, and Z are evidence of something but X, Y, and Z are not true I tend to question the basis of what I'm told. Is that a character flaw that I have?


to put a fine point on it, think for yourself also.

there ya go..


now you're no longer confused.

fj1200
08-03-2023, 08:04 AM
to put a fine point on it, think for yourself also.

there ya go..


now you're no longer confused.

Thinking for myself in this case leads to questions that I have about issues that have been raised which turn out to not be true. See how that works? You don't really want people to think for themselves because the arguments put forth crumble under the weight of the actual evidence. You could do what thinking, rational people have done for ages and put verifiable evidence to your arguments but either you don't have the ability or it's not there. I'm still waiting for data I've presented months ago to be verified... so I can think for myself and no longer be blind.

Based on conversations with you; thinking for myself doesn't really strengthen your hand; exactly the opposite.

AHZ
08-03-2023, 08:35 AM
Thinking for myself in this case leads to questions that I have about issues that have been raised which turn out to not be true. See how that works? You don't really want people to think for themselves because the arguments put forth crumble under the weight of the actual evidence. You could do what thinking, rational people have done for ages and put verifiable evidence to your arguments but either you don't have the ability or it's not there. I'm still waiting for data I've presented months ago to be verified... so I can think for myself and no longer be blind.

Based on conversations with you; thinking for myself doesn't really strengthen your hand; exactly the opposite.


No i don't see how that works.

you're just typing gibberish now.

try to simplify your message to one or two succinct sentences.

if you can't do that, it's probably all bullshit.

Kathianne
08-03-2023, 09:38 AM
No i don't see how that works.

you're just typing gibberish now.

try to simplify your message to one or two succinct sentences.

if you can't do that, it's probably all bullshit.

Again, this is the type of post that will get you thread banned. Warning this time, since you more or LESS held back on pejoratives.

AHZ
08-03-2023, 09:49 AM
Again, this is the type of post that will get you thread banned. Warning this time, since you more or LESS held back on pejoratives.


I really do not get his point.

fj1200
08-03-2023, 12:00 PM
No i don't see how that works.

you're just typing gibberish now.

try to simplify your message to one or two succinct sentences.

if you can't do that, it's probably all bullshit.

I'm sorry that you can't follow sentence structure and paragraphs and that you don't understand logic based arguments.

AHZ
08-03-2023, 12:02 PM
I'm sorry that you can't follow sentence structure and paragraphs and that you don't understand logic based arguments.

so people shouldn't think for themselves because some ideas are wrong sometimes?

is that really your argument?

because put simply it sounds assinine.

is that really it?

fj1200
08-03-2023, 12:15 PM
so people shouldn't think for themselves because some ideas are wrong sometimes?

is that really your argument?

because put simply it sounds assinine.

is that really it?

You shouldn't try to summarize posters viewpoints into your own words; you're not good at it. At all. You, and others with similar viewpoints, like to think that you're thinking for yourselves but in reality you're all just following the same flawed arguments with zero critical thought.

The problem with all of the Blackrock arguments I see is people put forth evidence in support of their desired conclusion. When I dig into some of the evidence it is verifiably wrong; what do yiou do when the evidence presented is proven to be wrong? Inquiring minds would like to know.

AHZ
08-03-2023, 12:31 PM
;)
You shouldn't try to summarize posters viewpoints into your own words; you're not good at it. At all. You, and others with similar viewpoints, like to think that you're thinking for yourselves but in reality you're all just following the same flawed arguments with zero critical thought.

The problem with all of the Blackrock arguments I see is people put forth evidence in support of their desired conclusion. When I dig into some of the evidence it is verifiably wrong; what do yiou do when the evidence presented is proven to be wrong? Inquiring minds would like to know.


can you summarize your own argument?

if not why not?

are you so superior that you defy summary?

no. you're just a bullshitter.

Kathianne
08-03-2023, 01:46 PM
so people shouldn't think for themselves because some ideas are wrong sometimes?

is that really your argument?

because put simply it sounds assinine.

is that really it?

So NOW you want to prove your pejoratives were intentional? You do understand. . .

Kathianne
08-03-2023, 01:47 PM
;)


can you summarize your own argument?

if not why not?

are you so superior that you defy summary?

no. you're just a bullshitter.

.

fj1200
08-03-2023, 02:02 PM
;)


can you summarize your own argument?

if not why not?

are you so superior that you defy summary?

no. you're just a bullshitter.

You want a three-sentence summary further summarized? You're not very good at this.

Kathianne
08-03-2023, 02:05 PM
You want a three-sentence summary further summarized? You're not very good at this.
In fairness, he may have to reply elsewhere.

fj1200
08-03-2023, 02:06 PM
In fairness, he may have to reply elsewhere.

I thought so. I'm sure we won't have to wait long. ;)

revelarts
08-03-2023, 05:02 PM
This seems to be essentially the same information posted previously with info on more states moving against ESG. However, this in particular is incorrect...



Those three own about 12% of Apple (https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=AAPL&subView=institutional) that I can see. Rev was going to check my data last time I posted it but I don't recall him getting back to me.

No, I haven't gotten back to you yet on that.
At this point I don't have the details in hand to put the percentages as High as I thought. I stand corrected.

But seems to me that the percentages are still More than high enough and their influence over biz, world wide, strong enough to justify serious concern.

maybe you'll be concerned when they own 51% of everything? maybe not... "free trade"?
Is there any percentage point where you will think they're to big or influential?

fj1200
08-03-2023, 06:37 PM
No, I haven't gotten back to you yet on that.
At this point I don't have the details in hand to put the percentages as High as I thought. I stand corrected.

But seems to me that the percentages are still More than high enough and their influence over biz, world wide, strong enough to justify serious concern.

maybe you'll be concerned when they own 51% of everything? maybe not... "free trade"?
Is there any percentage point where you will think they're to big or influential?

If you stand corrected at what point do you question the underlying premise? I don't believe those percentages are anywhere near high enough. State Street and Vanguard get lumped in because Blackrock on its own just isn't big enough at ~4%. Where am I concerned? Where do the principles of the free market break down? We're not at that point IMO. The entire issue seems to be the populist ire of globalism, free trade, the UN, WEF, etc. and then people start to look for the boogeyman. Blackrock is big and Fink sticks his nose in stuff therefore they make a good target and all you need to do is say that their size is a problem and the evidence against them writes itself. Begin with your end in mind and any evidence becomes proof.

BTW, not sure why you keep injecting "free trade" where it's not of issue? Seems to be a crutch.

Abbey Marie
08-05-2023, 06:32 PM
Russ care to comment on BR?