Blackrock violating "sole interest" rule

[fj1200]

Seems people have seen Blackrock as a bogeyman for quite sometime.

This was in 2015. I can only imagine how much more powerful they've become in the intervening years.

Amazing, you found another link. Exactly what in this link do you find problematic?

And I thought we were talking about sole interest here.

[SassyLady]

Amazing, you found another link. Exactly what in this link do you find problematic?

And I thought we were talking about sole interest here.

Nothing wrong with the link. This is just one and it's not that that hard to find more if you really want to.

Just pointing out that a lot of people worldwide see BlackRock as a "boogeyman" and have for years. You're the one that brought that up.

[fj1200]

Nothing wrong with the link. This is just one and it's not that that hard to find more if you really want to.

Just pointing out that a lot of people worldwide see BlackRock as a "boogeyman" and have for years. You're the one that brought that up.

I didn't say anything was wrong with the link besides what is wrong with all these links of course. But I'll be more specific; in the link that was posted what information about Blackrock specifically do you find problematic?

[Gunny]

Arguable points. Just not argued very compellingly IMO. BR is a big company that does many things, has done it well, and are now the current bogeyman.

Who has made Blackrock the boogeyman? Blackrock, or the people noticing what Blackrock is doing?

for instance, I generally shrugged Blackrock off, taking the same stance as you are. I'm sure it started out as just a way to make money. Here's where I toss out a cliche: "With power comes corruption, with absolute power comes absolute corruption.

It is a fact that Blackrock is behind pushing all this green bullshit, and heavily invested in it, and the politicians that push the agenda for it. I have always held the opinion that regardless who or what, there should be a line drawn between greed and harming the Nation as a result of that greed. I am well aware it is not law and no one can be forced to; yet, it is my opinion nevertheless. It starts with opportunity. Destroy the country that provides the opportunity and you have none. I make that same analogy with short-sighted folks wanting to cry and stay home in November, then bitch because their party s out of power in Jan.

If you don't support and/or destroy the foundation that keeps you on top of the platform, you have only one way to go when that foundation is gone.

You're right in that Blackrock is "today's boogeyman" because it has amassed enough power and sway to be noticed. It's far from the only. Just another.

In the meantime, I have an issue in general with people smart enough to get rich but have to pay someone to think for them.

[fj1200]

Who has made Blackrock the boogeyman? Blackrock, or the people noticing what Blackrock is doing?

for instance, I generally shrugged Blackrock off, taking the same stance as you are. I'm sure it started out as just a way to make money. Here's where I toss out a cliche: "With power comes corruption, with absolute power comes absolute corruption.

It is a fact that Blackrock is behind pushing all this green bullshit, and heavily invested in it, and the politicians that push the agenda for it. I have always held the opinion that regardless who or what, there should be a line drawn between greed and harming the Nation as a result of that greed. I am well aware it is not law and no one can be forced to; yet, it is my opinion nevertheless. It starts with opportunity. Destroy the country that provides the opportunity and you have none. I make that same analogy with short-sighted folks wanting to cry and stay home in November, then bitch because their party s out of power in Jan.

If you don't support and/or destroy the foundation that keeps you on top of the platform, you have only one way to go when that foundation is gone.

You're right in that Blackrock is "today's boogeyman" because it has amassed enough power and sway to be noticed. It's far from the only. Just another.

In the meantime, I have an issue in general with people smart enough to get rich but have to pay someone to think for them.

People who need to find a boogeyman of course. Why does anyone need to find a boogeyman? Why did the Nazis make the Communists the boogeyman? Why did the Nazis make the Jews the Boogeyman? Why do the seemingly powerless make the seemingly powerful the boogeyman any time in history? People just need to find one sometimes.

Just like any private enterprise they are powerful up until the point that they are not.

[Gunny]

People who need to find a boogeyman of course. Why does anyone need to find a boogeyman? Why did the Nazis make the Communists the boogeyman? Why did the Nazis make the Jews the Boogeyman? Why do the seemingly powerless make the seemingly powerful the boogeyman any time in history? People just need to find one sometimes.

Just like any private enterprise they are powerful up until the point that they are not.

Or, Blackrock could be making itself the boogeyman with its shady practices. I just don't see Blackrock running solo. It takes two. Blackrock doesn't have political clout without politicians being for sale. A lack of the latter would certainly go a long way in curtailing the former.

Unscrupulous businesses in bed with corrupt politicians. What a way to run a country

[fj1200]

Or, Blackrock could be making itself the boogeyman with its shady practices. I just don't see Blackrock running solo. It takes two. Blackrock doesn't have political clout without politicians being for sale. A lack of the latter would certainly go a long way in curtailing the former.

Unscrupulous businesses in bed with corrupt politicians. What a way to run a country

That's partly my point. They are powerful until they are not. And I'm not sure that they're powerful in the first place to the extent that people give them credit.

[Gunny]

That's partly my point. They are powerful until they are not. And I'm not sure that they're powerful in the first place to the extent that people give them credit.

The get paid to tell people what to spend their money on. Maybe they started in a bank. As of now, they are a multinational corporation telling wealthy people in other countries as well as ours how to spend their money. That's pretty powerful.

It's subsidiaries include at least one merc outfit and I know that one first hand having been offered a job in the post-9/11 frenzy. Solet's just say they aren't invisible.

Red flag for me is what they do HERE. HERE they are paying a lot to push the green agenda in our government. I can only guess why and my first guess will be the same as I have for the entire green agenda: they want to realign the power and wealth from the fossil fuel industry to themselves by inventing a crisis to sell us the "cures".

If they weren't allowed to operate unchecked here, any alleged global ambitions would be moot. Again, the question there being that even if what they are doing is legal within the letter of the law, it can still be reprehensible and shady when it comes to crapping all over our own country.

[fj1200]

The get paid to tell people what to spend their money on. Maybe they started in a bank. As of now, they are a multinational corporation telling wealthy people in other countries as well as ours how to spend their money. That's pretty powerful.

It's subsidiaries include at least one merc outfit and I know that one first hand having been offered a job in the post-9/11 frenzy. Solet's just say they aren't invisible.

Red flag for me is what they do HERE. HERE they are paying a lot to push the green agenda in our government. I can only guess why and my first guess will be the same as I have for the entire green agenda: they want to realign the power and wealth from the fossil fuel industry to themselves by inventing a crisis to sell us the "cures".

If they weren't allowed to operate unchecked here, any alleged global ambitions would be moot. Again, the question there being that even if what they are doing is legal within the letter of the law, it can still be reprehensible and shady when it comes to crapping all over our own country.

They're an investment advisor. Nothing wrong with that. Apparently a good one. They're also allowed to be wrong on ESG and their business will likely suffer if that turns out to be the case. I'm pretty sure that they don't operate unchecked.

And what merc outfit is affiliated with Blackrock?

[Russ]

I think one question is what are their investment guidelines in particular funds and are they following those guidelines or not. If they say that they will invest based on ESG and they don't, and vice versa; that is where they would run afoul. Institutional money managers are very particular about their subadvisors and are they following the investment guidelines or not? You don't want your bond advisor to start buying stocks or your value stock advisor buying growth stocks, for example, because it throws off their allocation models. It is not illegal, or counter to their role as a fiduciary necessarily, to invest based on ESG; there have been socially responsible funds out there for decades and they haven't been sued recently. I would that think the AGs are suing because Blackrock might not be investing according to their contracts with the state pension plans.

Another question IMO would be whether they are giving up investment returns because of those ESG guidelines. If they are then I expect other money managers will earn superior returns and BR would lose market share. Could be risk that they're taking.

BlackRock's investment guidelines are primarily "We are Fiduciary to our Client" which means they are trying to maximize the client's monetary gains. Don't take my word for it - their employee training material says it plainly. (Although do take my word for it that the training material says that)

The exceptions are that a client can request that their money goes into a specific industry or that it be invested in green stocks for political or altruistic reasons. But in this case the clients are suing BlackRock to move the investments out of ESG and into better performing stocks. Not only does this show the client doesn't want that investment - could you possibly be less fiduciary than resisting a lawsuit from your client to move investments to a different fund?

[fj1200]

BlackRock's investment guidelines are primarily "We are Fiduciary to our Client" which means they are trying to maximize the client's monetary gains. Don't take my word for it - their employee training material says it plainly. (Although do take my word for it that the training material says that)

The exceptions are that a client can request that their money goes into a specific industry or that it be invested in green stocks for political or altruistic reasons. But in this case the clients are suing BlackRock to move the investments out of ESG and into better performing stocks. Not only does this show the client doesn't want that investment - could you possibly be less fiduciary than resisting a lawsuit from your client to move investments to a different fund?

Exactly. I don't think I said anything different. I think I was unclear if a lawsuit had been filed or if the AsG just sent a letter; I believe I saw both characterizations.

[Gunny]

They're an investment advisor. Nothing wrong with that. Apparently a good one. They're also allowed to be wrong on ESG and their business will likely suffer if that turns out to be the case. I'm pretty sure that they don't operate unchecked.

And what merc outfit is affiliated with Blackrock?

My bad. I was offered employment by Blackwater. Don't ask me how when I saw this current incident I associated it with Blackrock

They pay well, btw. Better than the Marine Corps, as a matter of fact. Problem is, if the late Mrs Gunny was going to put up with me deploying I would have stayed in the Marine Corps.

Investing clients' money in their favorite charity explains the graft.

[SassyLady]

West Virginia Treasurer Riley Moore talks about how ESGs could become part of our credit score. And that companies like Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard are using investor monies to put pressure on companies to adhere to ESGs.

Interview on Epochtv

[Gunny]

I don't know that any lawsuit can be won here. Despite what some think of Blackrock and its investments, it's an investment firm. You take your money to Blackrock to invest for you.

One would think Blackrock would be sensitive to any special instructions by investors if they want the investor's money that badly. On the other hand, Blackrock is hardly the only place to go to invest one's money.

I don't know what the legal standards/rules are for investors and investment firms. And I HATE to do this because nowadays it always bites me in the ass somehow, but common sense dictates one or both could walk away?

[fj1200]

Here's exerts from another article, not sure if you posted this overview of before.

Let's see...

BLACKROCK UNREGULATED INVESTMENT FIRM NOW RULES THE WEST

The firm, BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, invests a staggering $9 trillion in client funds worldwide, a sum more than double the annual GDP of the Federal Republic of Germany. That's a lot of money. The market cap of global equities is 124 trillion alone. Global bond markets are 127 trillion. Most of that money belongs to individuals.

This colossus sits atop the pyramid of world corporate ownership, including in China most recently, writes F. William Engdahl, a strategic risk consultant and lecturer, best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. No it doesn't
Since 1988 the company has put itself in a position to de facto control the Federal Reserve, most Wall Street mega-banks, including Goldman Sachs, the Davos World Economic Forum Great Reset, the Biden Administration and, if left unchecked, the economic future of our world. No it hasn't.

BlackRock is the epitome of what Mussolini called Corporatism, where an unelected corporate elite dictates top down to the population. Mussolini was a fascist who believed in corporations bowing down to the will of government. Is that the takeaway here?

BlackRock Unregulated Investment Firm: How the world’s largest “shadow bank” exercises this enormous power over the world ought to concern us. BlackRock since Larry Fink founded it in 1988 has managed to assemble unique financial software and assets that no other entity has. BR is not unregulated.
BlackRock’s Aladdin risk-management system, a software tool that can track and analyze trading, monitors more than $18 trillion in assets for 200 financial firms including the Federal Reserve and European central banks. BR doesn't have a monopoly on publicly available information.
He who “monitors” also knows, we can imagine. BlackRock has been called a financial “Swiss Army Knife — institutional investor, money manager, private equity firm, and global government partner rolled into one.” Yet mainstream media treats the company as just another Wall Street financial firm. Maybe because they are.
There is a seamless interface that ties the UN Agenda 2030 with the Davos World Economic Forum Great Reset and the nascent economic policies of the Biden Administration. That interface is BlackRock. Facts not in evidence.

WHAT IS BLACKROCK?
Never before has a financial company with so much influence over world markets been so hidden from public scrutiny. Facts not in evidence. That’s no accident. As it is technically not a bank making bank loans or taking deposits, it evades the regulation oversight from the Federal Reserve even though it does what most mega banks like HSBC or JP MorganChase do—buy, sell securities for profit. It is technically not a bank because it doesn't do what mega banks do.
When there was a Congressional push to include asset managers such as BlackRock and Vanguard Funds under the post-2008 Dodd-Frank law as “systemically important financial institutions” or SIFIs, a huge lobbying push from BlackRock ended the threat. And many others ended the threat because it shouldn't be regulated per Dodd Frank. BlackRock is essentially a law onto itself. Facts not in evidence. And indeed it is “systemically important” as no other, with possible exception of Vanguard, which is said to also be a major shareholder in BlackRock. It's not really, see other thread.

BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink is clearly interested in buying influence globally.
He made former German CDU MP Friederich Merz head of BlackRock Germany when it looked as if he might succeed Chancellor Merkel, and former British Chancellor of Exchequer George Osborne as “political consultant.” Fink named former Hillary Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills to the BlackRock board when it seemed certain Hillary would soon be in the White House.
He has named former central bankers to his board and gone on to secure lucrative contracts with their former institutions. Stanley Fisher, former head of the Bank of Israel and also later Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve is now Senior Adviser at BlackRock. Philipp Hildebrand, former Swiss National Bank president, is vice chairman at BlackRock, where he oversees the BlackRock Investment Institute. Jean Boivin, the former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, is the global head of research at BlackRock’s investment institute. Speculative.

BLACKROCK AND THE FED
It was this ex-central bank team at BlackRock that developed an “emergency” bailout plan for Fed chairman Powell in March 2019 as financial markets appeared on the brink of another 2008 “Lehman crisis” meltdown.
As “thank you,” Facts not in evidence. the Fed chairman Jerome Powell named BlackRock in a no-bid role to manage all of the Fed’s corporate bond purchase programs, including bonds where BlackRock itself invests. Conflict of interest? Possibly but all sides are subject to oversight.
A group of some 30 NGOs wrote to Fed Chairman Powell, “By giving BlackRock full control of this debt buyout program, the Fed… makes BlackRock even more systemically important to the financial system. Yet BlackRock is not subject to the regulatory scrutiny of even smaller systemically important financial institutions.”... The size of the Fed positions in the "tens of billions" where the size of the domestic bond market is around 46 trillion.

LARRY FINK AND WEF GREAT RESET
In 2019 Larry Fink joined the Board of the Davos World Economic Forum, the Swiss-based organization that for some 40 years has advanced economic globalization.
Fink, who is close to the WEF’s technocrat head, Klaus Schwab, of Great Reset notoriety, now stands positioned to use the huge weight of BlackRock to create what is potentially, if it doesn’t collapse before, the world’s largest Ponzi scam, ESG corporate investing. Fink with $9 trillion to leverage is pushing the greatest shift of capital in history into a scam known as ESG Investing. The UN “sustainable economy” agenda is being realized quietly by the very same global banks which have created the financial crises in 2008. Facts not in evidence.


It seems like the solutions to the alleged problems are massive increases in governmental power. I'm at least afraid of populist takeover based on the above than I am the globalists getting their solutions passed, possibly moreso.