Supposedly, the backlash by anti-woke activists has forced BlackRock to triple Fink’s home security spending. Financial Times says the CEO has become “a target for anti-woke activists and conspiracy theorists.”

According to FT’s numbers, the $10.5 trillion money manager spent $563,513 to “upgrade the home security systems” at Fink’s residences during 2023, on top of $216,837 for bodyguards.

The ESG movement has been highly politicized. Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the Republican party’s presidential candidates before Donald Trump was nominated, called Fink “the king of the woke industrial complex [and] the ESG movement.”

In December, Fink said his firm was unfairly targeted by candidates in the fourth Republican presidential debate, calling it a “sad commentary on the state of American politics.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has called BlackRock the “economic power” to instill a “left-wing agenda.”

Besides conservative lawmakers revolting against the world’s largest woke money manager at the state level and on Capitol Hill, UBS bankers on Wall Street are becoming increasingly frustrated with unrealistic climate goals. Here’s the note, “ESG Frustration And Backlash In The Banking Sector Continues.”

It should be no surprise to our readers: we have been pointing out the demise of ESG for more than a year now. Earlier in March, we wrote how Exxon’s CEO had all but declared victory over the “woke” ESG lobby.

We noted that CEOs were ditching ESG lingo on conference calls in February. For some context, peak ESG and related synonyms, such as “climate change” and “clean energy” and green energy” and net zero,” among other terms, peaked at 28,000 mentions in the first quarter of 2022. Ever since, the number of mentions has plunged.

Fink’s beefing up security is a sign that the political ideology pushed by the asset manager does not align with actual investors and most Americans.

“BlackRock has said two things that can’t both be true,” Skrmetti, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in an interview Monday. “The first is that they’re taking investors’ money and investing it purely for the purpose of maximizing the return on investment. But they’ve also put out statements saying that they’re committed to net-zero [carbon emissions to combat] climate change by certain dates.”

“They’ve made lots of statements about working to use all of the assets under their management to further the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and both of those can’t be true,” he added.

In the suit filed in Williamson County Circuit Court, Skrmetti alleges that BlackRock violates the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act by engaging in deceptive practices regarding its so-called environmental, social, and governance goals. BlackRock has helped lead the movement to force climate alarmism goals on companies in the name of ESG. These goals often involve pledging to alter business practices to decrease or offset carbon emissions in the name of helping the environment, even though science on carbon emissions destroying the climate is far from settled.

In 2020 and 2021, BlackRock joined the climate alarmism groups Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, committing to use the weight of all assets under management to advance many environmental, social, and governance goals and achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Yet BlackRock operates many non-ESG funds, claiming that such funds “do not seek to follow a sustainable, impact, or ESG investment strategy.” The company further claims that there is “no indication” that non-ESG funds will adopt an ESG investment strategy.

Although BlackRock claims these funds don’t advance its ESG goals, it has adopted a companywide commitment to ESG goals and aggressively urged climate goals on other enterprises it invests in. As a shareholder in many other companies, BlackRock carries considerable weight and has pushed them to make climate-related commitments.

“BlackRock’s pledge as a member of [the climate groups] is to force companies to disclose targets for net-zero emissions for environmental and political reasons (limiting warming to well below 2°C), without regard to materiality to the particular company’s financial performance,” the lawsuit argues. “BlackRock makes no mention of this commitment to non-material factors when explaining its portfolio company disclosure expectations to fund investors.”

The lawsuit cites many instances where BlackRock used its influence over companies it invests in—including Chevron, United Airlines, and Walmart—to push climate-related shareholder proposals. Yet BlackRock claimed in a December 2022 statement responding to state attorneys general that the company doesn’t “dictate to companies what specific emission targets they should meet or what type of political lobbying they should pursue.”

BlackRock also claimed that its role “is to help [clients] navigate investment risks and opportunities, not to engineer a specific decarbonization outcome in the real economy.”

As for ESG funds, Skrmetti’s lawsuit cites this claim by BlackRock: “The global aspiration to achieve a net-zero global economy by 2050 is reflective of aggregated efforts; governments representing over 90% of GDP have committed to move to net-zero over the coming decades.”

However, only 15% of countries that have made a net-zero commitment have enshrined such commitments in law, and only 10% of global emissions would be covered by legally binding pledges, according to Tennessee’s lawsuit. The lawsuit lists 14 statements that BlackRock could have added as disclosures to make that statement less deceptive, such as noting that no country in the world has implemented policies that will prevent the world climate from increasing 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to the Climate Action Tracker.

BlackRock also has presented contradictory claims about whether ESG goals align with positive financial outcomes.

BlackRock has said that its “focus on climate risk and energy is about driving financial outcomes for clients,” but the company also has admitted that sustainability metrics “do not provide an indication of current or future performance nor do they represent the potential risk and reward profile of a fund.”

Contrary to BlackRock’s claims, ESG-guided funds don’t yield higher returns on investment, according to the lawsuit. It cites a 2019 study finding a “statistically significant negative relation between ESG investing and investor returns.”

“BlackRock’s acts and practices concerning the marketing or sale of products and services, as alleged herein, are deceptive to consumers and other persons in Tennessee,” the lawsuit states.

Skrmetti asks the circuit court to find that BlackRock violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, that the court order BlackRock to cease making misrepresentations, that it order BlackRock to “restore the money or property lost as a result of the alleged violations of law,” and that it order BlackRock to give up its “ill-gotten gains.”

Skrmetti asks the court to fine BlackRock a civil penalty of $1,000 to Tennessee for each violation of the law, and that “all costs, including discretionary costs, in this case be taxed against BlackRock.”

BlackRock is the leading exchange-traded fund provider in the world, with $9.4 trillion in assets under management.

Although some states have passed laws to restrict the use of ESG goals in making investment decisions, Skrmetti’s lawsuit represents the first civil enforcement action against BlackRock for ESG deception.

“Ultimately, this is a case about the truth, and the biggest takeaway for me at the end of the day is we can get clarity for consumers,” Skrmetti told The Daily Signal in the interview. “If you’re going to make decisions about how companies should have to behave to do business, those are decisions that ultimately have to flow from the people, and this is part of, I think, a broader effort on the part of some elites to make sure that the American people don’t have that kind of oversight over their economy.”

Nikki Haley is a brunette Liz Cheney.

She hates free speech as much as she loves war and foreign aid.

Nikki Haley is a brunette Liz Cheney.

She hates free speech as much as she loves war and foreign aid.

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 18, 2023

Massie, a strong supporter of Ron DeSantis, was able to highlight in two short sentences why Haley would be a horrible choice as the GOP nominee or even as president.

What he didn’t note were some of Haley’s other huge red flags. Her sudden anointment by the RINO mega-donor cabal has been sudden and absolute. And it’s not just the shrinking Republican field that has them consolidating. Haley has been able to bring in “new” donors from outside traditional Republican donor circles, including JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. Both have lured other Wall Street crony capitalists into her camp?

What did they ask from her during recent meetings? More importantly, what did she promise them?

We unravel the complexities surrounding BlackRock’s influence in this eye-opening investigation. We discovered discrepancies between their sustainability promises and the reality of their environmental impact, raising questions about their true commitment to a greener future.

But that’s not all; learn about their role in the housing market as well as the controversies surrounding their vast holdings. Learn how their actions may unintentionally contribute to the housing crisis, affecting communities and affordability.

Let us also discuss corporate governance. Is BlackRock representing the interests of everyday investors, or does their clout benefit a select few? Join us as we dissect the financial implications of their power play.

But every now and then, they are forced to restate the obvious in an effort to maintain credibility. This is why BlackRock took the unprecedented move of recommending very “unwoke” gold to its leading investors earlier this year. Now, State Street and Vanguard have done the same. With geopolitical turmoil, the central banks pushing for digital currencies, and an upcoming presidential election in the United States, it behooves them to talk publicly about the “safe haven” nature of gold because to do otherwise is to pretend to ignore the obvious.

According to George Milling-Stanley, chief gold strategist at State Street Global Advisors, the gold market is expected to remain well supported at elevated levels, despite the Federal Reserve’s plan to maintain restrictive interest rates. In an interview with Kitco News, Milling-Stanley stated that with the Federal Reserve currently on hold, gold prices will be influenced by safe-haven demand due to the increasing geopolitical uncertainty worldwide.

The recent turmoil in the Middle East, caused by the conflict between Israel and Hamas, resulted in a 9% increase in gold prices from their lowest point in seven months. Milling-Stanley emphasized that even as specific risk events fade, there is still enough uncertainty globally to keep the marketplace active until 2024.

Milling-Stanley pointed out the upcoming U.S. Presidential election as a potential catalyst for heightened geopolitical tension, leading to widespread anxiety that is unlikely to dissipate soon. As a result, he sees little downside for gold prices in the near future.

Additionally, Milling-Stanley highlighted gold’s appeal as a safe-haven asset during periods of economic uncertainty. He explained that the Federal Reserve’s goal to reduce inflation and cool down the U.S. economy necessitates maintaining higher interest rates, which in turn puts pressure on equity markets. The S&P 500 has experienced three consecutive months of decline in response to the Federal Reserve’s “higher-for-longer” monetary policy stance.

Milling-Stanley believes that gold can withstand higher bond yields, noting that the 10-year note remains close to 5%. While higher bond yields may be considered attractive for some investors seeking safe-haven assets, Milling-Stanley cautioned against an increasing correlation between bonds and stocks in the past two years, which reduces portfolio diversity. As a result, gold has assumed the role previously played by the bond market in providing protection against potential weakness in the equity market.

Milling-Stanley emphasized the importance of including gold, stocks, and bonds in a balanced portfolio. He mentioned that although many investors have yet to allocate a significant portion to gold, there is a growing recognition of its importance, leading to a shift in portfolio allocations.

Oklahoma State Treasurer Todd Russ and Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd are concerned that the RFP gave BlackRock Investments responsibility for 60 percent of the Oklahoma Public Employee Retirement System’s (OPERS) assets—approximately $7 billion— in possible violation of state law.

BlackRock is on a list of companies barred by state law from handling state funds because it boycotts oil and gas companies. The oil industry has been a driver of Oklahoma’s economy for over a century.

State Street, another firm handling state funds, is also on the prohibited list. But it hasn’t drawn quite as much attention as its larger competitor.

This may violate the Oklahoma Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022 (EDEA). The law prohibits state investments from being handled by any firm that boycotts oil and gas producers.

BlackRock representatives did not respond to an email from The Epoch Times. However, in a letter to the Oklahoma Treasurer’s office, BlackRock Senior Managing Director and Vice Chairman Mark McCombe said BlackRock is focused on its responsibility to its clients.

“BlackRock does not boycott energy companies,” Mr. McCombe wrote in the letter.

According to the letter, BlackRock has $319 billion invested in public energy companies worldwide, with $15 billion invested in Oklahoma. More than 90 percent of that is “invested in traditional energies like oil and gas.”

There are indications that the investment firm is separating itself from ESG investing. In recent weeks, BlackRock has stopped using the term. In a report released in August, BlackRock reported backing 7 percent of ESG proposals at company meetings in the 12 months to June, a sharp drop from last year when it supported 22 percent and 2021 when it voted in favor of nearly half.

In the letter, Mr. McCombe pointed out that ESG policies are a reality and that there is a trend of increased government regulation and consumer demand for alternatives to carbon-based energy.

“As fiduciaries, we advise clients on major structural trends that we believe may impact their portfolios. One such trend is the change in government policies, technology, and consumer preferences associated with the transition to a low-carbon economy,” the letter reads. “Our investment decisions are governed strictly by our fiduciary duty to clients, and that duty requires us to prioritize our clients’ financial interests above any commitments or pledges not required by law.”

But Mr. Russ and Ms. Byrd say their concerns go beyond the EDEA law and boycotting oil companies. The pair also questioned the RFP process at the Oklahoma State Pension Commission meeting on Sept. 12. The commission oversees several state pension and retirement funds.

After that meeting, Joseph Fox, OPERS executive director, promised to explain why BlackRock was selected.

Mr. Fox did not return an email from The Epoch Times. However, he did send information to Mr. Russ and Ms. Byrd. In a memo dated Aug. 23—the same day the commission voted to hire BlackRock—Mr. Fox wrote that BlackRock most closely met the requirements set by OPERS for the investment work.

OPERS Claimed Exemption

He wrote that OPERS claimed an exemption under the EDEA law based on its “fiduciary responsibility” to the state employees whose funds are being managed.

“A state governmental entity shall not be subject to any requirement of this act if the state governmental entity determines that such requirement would be inconsistent with its fiduciary responsibility concerning the investment of entity assets or other duties imposed by law relating to the investment of entity assets,” the EDEA exemption reads.

According to the OPERS memo, divesting would cost at least $9.7 million in fees and other costs.

“It is conceivable that the total loss in market value experienced by the plans due to these actions could potentially be multiple times that of the estimated costs stated above,” the OPERS memo reads.

But Mr. Russ said the exemption claimed by OPERS does not apply. He claimed the RFP was written to eliminate most of BlackRock’s competition.

RFP Process ‘Tightened’

Mr. Russ said “rigged” was too strong for the RFP process. But, he said it did appear OPERS officials had one company in mind.

“The RFP within itself wasn’t a problem. They tightened up the RFP to meet the current constituent and investor,” Mr. Russ said.

Ms. Byrd was less diplomatic in her assessment.

“In the auditing world, we do call that practice ‘bid rigging,’” she said.

On Sept. 14, Mr. Russ sent a letter to Mr. Fox and the OPERS Board of Trustees outlining three concerns. Based on those, Mr. Russ wrote, the OPERS board should have selected another firm or sought more applicants.

Mr. Russ sent copies of the letter to the Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, Rep. Charles McCall, Oklahoma Senate President Pro Tempore Sen. Greg Treat, and Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond.

Neither Mr. McCall nor Mr. Treat returned calls seeking comment. Phil Bacharach, a spokesman for Mr. Drummond’s office, said the Attorney General had no comment.

In the letter, Mr. Russ wrote that rather than spread the state investments among different managers to reduce risk; the OPERS board kept more than half of the pension funds under BlackRock.

His letter claims five of the eight funds had low or no switching fees. To determine the costs for the last three would require a complete RFP process, which Mr. Russ claims did not happen.

He wrote that respondents were given only three weeks to present their proposals in this case. Mr. Russ pointed out that previous RFPs allowed up to six weeks for a response. He claimed that OPERS summarily decided to keep BlackRock without fully considering the competing firms.

Finally, he wrote that the decision to retain BlackRock’s services violated OPERS fiduciary duties because of BlackRock’s commitment to ESG principles.

“Companies like BlackRock and State Street have openly made commitments to use all assets under management—including OPERS’ assets—not for the benefit of OPERS, but for their own ideological objectives,” Mr. Russ wrote.

Bill Pan contributed to this report.

In a recent letter to shareholders, BlackRock Global Funds’ chairwoman Denise Voss said they will close the China Flexible Equity Fund over a “lack of shareholder interest” and the investment cost to keep the fund running, which she noted is “not in the best interests of shareholders.”

BlackRock intends to liquidate all assets under the fund and redeem any outstanding shares by Nov. 7. Existing shareholders have the options to switch their investments into another fund, sell back their shares ahead of the liquidation date, or receive automatic payments for the shares when the fund closes down.

Launched in October 2017, China Flexible Equity Fund has an asset value of around $21.4 million as of late August after a six-year run. It recorded a negative 16.7 percent return in 2021, a number that nearly doubled in 2022, to negative 30.5 percent.

The fund closure came just a month after the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party launched a probe into BlackRock and investment index provider MSCI regarding the alleged investments in Chinese companies the U.S. government has deemed problematic.

The two firms together facilitated investment into over 60 Chinese entities hit with U.S. sanctions over national security or human rights issues, the lawmakers said, noting their review was far from comprehensive and thus the actual number of benefited Chinese companies is likely higher. Across five funds, BlackRock has invested over $429 million in such Chinese firms against U.S. interests, according to the House committee.

Some of the top invested Chinese entities for China Flexible Equity Fund include Tencent, a Chinese state-backed tech giant that had aided Beijing in silencing dissent and spreading propaganda through its popular messaging app WeChat, as well as state-owned hydropower operator China Yangtze Power and Nari Technology, the country’s largest supplier of electric power equipment.

In a response to the congressional probe, BlackRock had told The Epoch Times that it “complies with all applicable U.S. government laws” regarding “all investments in China and markets around the world,” and noted that it is one of 16 asset managers offering U.S. index funds that invest in Chinese companies.

It didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the China fund closure.

But across the board, there are growing signs of wariness from U.S. investors toward the Chinese market. The long-hoped-for economic recovery after the regime lifted its stringent COVID-19 curbs has not happened. Instead, the country faces a slowing economy, with a sharp drop in trade, millions of young Chinese struggling to find a job, a housing crisis, and growing tensions with the United States.

In August, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to restrict U.S. investments toward China in advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and semiconductors, citing risks for U.S. national security.

For a U.S. investor, “there is nothing bigger than the current trade tensions between the U.S. and China,” Gary Dugan, chief investment officer at the UAE-based Dalma Capital, a global alternative investment platform and an avid China investor, told The Epoch Times.

China’s regulatory environment also presents increasing challenges to foreign investors. China in July officially expanded an anti-espionage law that could criminalize regular business activities. Authorities this year have also ordered a raid on Bain & Co.’s office in Shanghai and due diligence firm Mintz Group’s office in Beijing. In May, it told local operators of “critical information structure” to stop buying products from U.S. chipmaker Micron Technology.

“Increasingly, I hear from American business that China is uninvestable because it’s become too risky,” said Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo on Aug. 29, during an official visit to China. She said she had made 120 to 150 calls with business and labor leaders in preparing for the trip.

Foreign investors have dumped Chinese stocks at a record pace in August as China’s economy continues to decline. Data from Hong Kong’s Stock Connect trading scheme shows that sales by offshore traders on the Chinese equity market reached around some $11 billion over three weeks since Aug. 7.

Early in August, HSBC said it had cut its Chinese commercial property exposure by $5.5 billion by the end of June from last year. Standard Chartered also reduced exposure to $3 billion, down from $3.7 billion a year ago.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

In letters dated July 31 to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink and MSCI head Henry Fernandez, the U.S. House’s China Select Committee stated that a brief review of MSCI indexes and BlackRock funds showed that the two companies together have directed investments to more than 60 Chinese entities already on the U.S. blacklist.

As a “direct result” of BlackRock’s and MSCI’s decisions, Americans who invested savings in their funds are now “unwittingly funding” Chinese companies that build weapons for the Chinese military known as the People’s Liberation Army, giving a hand to “the CCP’s stated mission of technological supremacy,” Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), the committee’s chairman, and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), the ranking Democrat, wrote.

“It is unconscionable for any U.S. company to profit from investments that fuel the military advancement of America’s foremost foreign adversary and facilitate human rights abuses,” the lawmakers wrote, adding that the “massive flows of American capital” to these entities are “exacerbating an already significant national security threat and undermining American values.”

In the case of BlackRock, across five funds alone, the asset manager has invested more than $429 million in flagged Chinese firms, while nearly 5 percent of the MSCI China A Index is pegged to blacklisted entities. Such numbers, the lawmakers suspect, are only the tip of the iceberg.

The probe makes up part of the committee’s ongoing investigation into U.S. investments in China, which, in July, included venture capital firms that have invested in China-based artificial intelligence, semiconductor, and quantum companies.

A tough stance on China is one of the few issues that garner support from both political sides in the deeply divided Congress. The bipartisan House panel, formed in January, makes policy recommendations and has subpoena power, which Mr. Gallagher has said he would use if executives fail to cooperate with the committee probes.

“Both Democrats and Republicans can agree that we should not be funding PLA military modernization, supporting the CCP’s techno-totalitarian surveillance state, nor the CCP’s gross human rights abuses,” a source close to the committee told The Epoch Times.

MSCI has more than $13 trillion benchmarked to its products, making it one of the largest index providers globally. BlackRock oversees more than $9 trillion in assets, and is responsible to millions of U.S. investors who depend on its services for their future retirement.

BlackRock told The Epoch Times in a statement that it “complies with all applicable U.S. government laws” with “all investments in China and markets around the world,” and will continue to engage with the committee on the issues raised.

“Like many global asset managers, BlackRock offers our clients a number of strategies to invest in or exclude China from their portfolios. The majority of our clients’ investments in China are through index funds, and we are one of 16 asset managers currently offering U.S. index funds investing in Chinese companies,” a company spokesperson said.

MSCI, similarly, said it’s reviewing the request for information from the lawmakers.

“MSCI indexes measure the performance of equity markets available to international investors, and comply with all applicable U.S. laws. MSCI does not manage or recommend or facilitate investments in any country,” an MSCI spokesperson told The Epoch Times.

The Chinese entities on MSCI indexes include state-owned aerospace firm Aviation Industry Corp. China, which makes aircraft for the Chinese military; BGI Genomics, a military-linked Chinese genetics giant that the United States has found complicit in supporting forced labor; and ZTE, whose telecom equipment the United States banned last year, citing national security risks.

BlackRock, meanwhile, has funded a major subsidiary of China General Nuclear Power Group that the U.S. authorities accused of stealing U.S. nuclear technology, as well as that of China North Industries Group Co., producer of artillery shells and munitions for the Chinese military.

The lawmakers said they want to see a list of all the companies on MSCI indexes, as well as the thinking behind their inclusion, policies, and guidance documents relating to conflicts of interest that BlackRock has applied when engaging with China-linked entities, and details of U.S. investor exposure.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

My hopes were quickly shattered when I read “BlackRock CEO: Never Mind About ESG” by Daniel Greenfield, copied below.

As it turned out, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink isn’t disavowing ESG. He’s disavowing their destructive corporate ideology’s name. He doesn’t want to call it “ESG” anymore because of the negative connotation that has permeated across the financial world.

My hopes went from tentatively high to very, very low by the time I was halfway done with the article. By declaring that he’s changing the label, it tells us they have no intention of reducing their pressure on corporations, governments, and financial advisors. They’re on the verge of ramping it all up.

This is essentially the beginning of a rebrand for Fink, BlackRock, and the vast army of financial advisors they own. They intend to promote ESG by giving it a new name, perhaps shifting some of the focus away from “Environment” and “Social” into something less blatantly woke. He often refers to “conscientious capitalism” and “responsible investing,” which are code words for forced diversity and demands of corporations to participate in leftist causes. They’ve weaponized “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) as well as “Corporate Equity Index” (CEI) to make the largest corporations on the planet bow to their demands. This is why companies like Anheuser-Busch, Disney, and Target continue down their woke paths despite unambiguous failures with their core businesses.

It may seem self-serving for me to note that this is push by Fink and others is among the biggest reasons I’m so bullish on physical precious metals, but it needs to be said. Their control over financial advisors and retirement portfolio managers means the life’s savings of millions of Americans are being improperly managed, focusing on ESG (or whatever their new name will be) even when such investments do financial harm. We strongly recommend these four America First precious metals companies that we have vetted out because none of them are woke.

With that said, here’s Greenfield’s article…

BlackRock CEO: Never Mind About ESG

“I’m ashamed of being part of this conversation”

Why are so many major companies going woke and stiffing shareholders? Because their biggest shareholders are massive funds that push wokeness under the guise of formulas like ESG.

In 2020, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared that the climate apocalypse was here and everyone needed to adapt.

A successful low-carbon transition will require a coordinated, international response from governments aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement, including the adoption of carbon pricing globally, which we continue to endorse. Companies and investors have a meaningful role to play in accelerating the low-carbon transition. BlackRock does not see itself as a passive observer in the low-carbon transition. We believe we have a significant responsibility – as a provider of index funds, as a fiduciary, and as a member of society – to play a constructive role in the transition.

Where we have the greatest discretion – in portfolio construction, our active and alternatives platforms, and our approach to risk management – we will employ sustainability across our investment process. Where we serve index clients, we are improving access to sustainable investment options, and we are enhancing our stewardship to make sure that companies in which our clients are invested are managing these risks effectively.

“Stewardship”. What a nice way of saying, we’re going to make sure companies toe our political line.

Now, Larry is a little less enthusiastic about ESG.

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.

In a conversation at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Sunday, Fink acknowledged that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decision to pull $2 billion in assets hurt his firm in 2022, but made clear last year was his company’s best with net flows of $200 billion from U.S. clients.

“I’m ashamed of being part of this conversation,” Fink said.

“When I write these [investment] letters, it was never meant to be a political statement. … They were written to identify longterm issues to our longterm investors,” he told the crowd.

Of course, that’s nonsense. The 2020 letter was pure uncut Colombian-grade advocacy. And one that was being implemented by force.

And even now, Larry is trying to have it both ways.

When pressed on the statement later in the conversation, Fink backtracked.

“I never said I was ashamed,” he said, incorrectly. “I’m not ashamed. I do believe in conscientious capitalism.”

“I’m not going to use the word ESG because it’s been misused by the far left and the far right,” he added.

So while Fink may not long want to use the E word, assume that the same agendas will be rebranded. Fink isn’t unhappy with ESG, but how people are making it look bad.

Fink’s latest dispatch deemphasizes ESG investing — increasingly a politically fraught topic — compared to his most recent annual letters. In fact, the term ESG does not appear anywhere in the letter.

The energy transition concerns are not raised until paragraph 18, and the word “climate” doesn’t appear until the eighth page of the lengthy letter. Even when it does, climate is only used five times.

A little fear is a good thing. BlackRock, like many woke mega-corps, is far too powerful, has too much influence, but now it’s sensing that it might be on the wrong side of a movement.

Following stunning admissions on undercover video by a recruiter for the most powerful asset management group on the planet, O’Keefe’s video and website were hit with DDoS attacks and their tip email address was flooded.

According to O’Keefe:

After our @BlackRock video OMG is facing denial of service attacks where every second our email tip inboxes are filled with state and municipal government notifications. Sources can submit their tips and info on signal or through http://OKeefeMediaGroup.com/Contact

After our @BlackRock video OMG is facing denial of service attacks where every second our email tip inboxes are filled with state and municipal government notifications. Sources can submit their tips and info on signal or through https://t.co/Ybmsk6JD6b https://t.co/gWT0FXKdFe

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 21, 2023

These type of attacks, which have been mostly used in the past to attack government bodies and large corporations, was turned against the citizen journalist group O’Keefe formed following his removal from Project Veritas. It doesn’t fit the modus operandi of known hacker groups. Is this retribution from proxies of or mercenaries for BlackRock itself?

This story is developing. We will keep close tabs on it and update the story when necessary.