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?

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.

When it comes to reading the financial tea leaves, there are three groups that smart investors look to for hints about what to expect. The first is government. Policies not only affect investments directly but also send cues to big players about which way the winds will turn. The second group is made up of central banks such as the Federal Reserve. Contrary to what they tell the public, their primary goal is to protect their own money with a distant secondary goal being to keep the economy stable.

It’s the third group that doesn’t get nearly as much attention that often gives the best clues about what’s coming down the pike. This group of mega-money managers, which is made up of corporations like Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street, often have the most direct influence over the financial affairs of individual investors. While governments and central banks can make macro moves to affect industries or economy in general, it’s the money managers who have the most influence over companies big and small.

Moreover, they directly impact investments of individuals by making moves in their retirement portfolios.

This is why Friday’s discussion between Fink and Wall Street analysts is raising eyebrows. While many investors are concerned about the banking industry’s instability, BlackRock sees it as a huge opportunity. According to Business Insider:

Upheaval in the banking sector could create openings for growth in parts of BlackRock like cash management, the firm’s Aladdin technology business, its alternatives business, and its advisory arm, Goldman Sachs analysts led by Alex Blostein said in a note to clients on Friday.

The alternatives business, where managers offer products like private credit and private equity, has been a focus of growth. The Financial Times reported last December that BlackRock had “discussed whether to pursue a takeover of private markets manager Carlyle but decided against it,” citing three people with knowledge of those discussions.

But it isn’t what these huge financial corporations say that gets the most interest. It’s what they exclude from their discussions that often point investors toward smart money. It’s noteworthy that as Fink and others at BlackRock talked of inorganic investments in certain areas, they didn’t mention BlackRock Gold, the wing of the company tasked with investing in precious metals companies. Considering they’ve boosted investments into these companies up to 70% this year, one would think portfolios backed by physical precious metals would be worthy of a mention.

Instead, crickets. Their silence says more than any words they may have uttered.

In an interview with FOX Business, Jonathan Rose, CEO of Genesis Precious Metals, said, “Both gold and silver added 15% to 20% over the last six months, while the overall market was in the range of 2% to 4% growth.”

“Things are just starting to heat up,” he added. “In fact, the long-term projections in the precious metals market could get even higher.”

“And regardless of the Fed’s position, few Americans have faith that the U.S. dollar will strengthen, providing a strong case for allocating a portion of funds to a tangible and secure asset,” Rose added.

If BlackRock, central banks, and governments are looking toward precious metals in general and gold in particular to back their own investments, one might conclude the same for individuals with retirement and wealth to protect.

The latest round of “You Can’t Make This Up” has Ukraine’s corrupt President Volodymyr Zelensky playing perfect puppet for the globalists by bringing in woke financial juggernaut BlackRock to coordinate their massive money laundering scheme, a program referred to by corporate media as “recovery efforts.”

According to CNBC:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink agreed to coordinate investment in rebuilding Ukraine, Kyiv announced Wednesday following a meeting between the two men.

A readout from the Ukrainian president’s official website said Zelenskyy and Fink had “agreed to focus in the near term on coordinating the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country, channeling investment into the most relevant and impactful sectors of the Ukrainian economy.”

BlackRock Financial Markets Advisory and the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy signed a memorandum of understanding in November, after Fink and Zelenskyy met in September to discuss driving public and private investments into Ukraine to rebuild the country after Russia’s highly destructive invasion.

BlackRock, one of the world’s largest investment managers, has been providing “advisory support for designing an investment framework, with a goal of creating opportunities for both public and private investors to participate in the future reconstruction and recovery of the Ukrainian economy,” the company said in a statement last month. BlackRock had no further statement at this stage.

Zelenskyy last week visited Washington, D.C., to meet with U.S. President Joe Biden and deliver an address to Congress, as the U.S. House of Representatives gave final approval on Friday to a $45 billion aid package for Ukraine.

The silver lining to this news is that apparently the globalists aren’t planning on completely destroying Ukraine in the near future. The bad news is they’ll keep the nation and its suffering people on economic life support to justify further massive “investments” into the most opaque financial black hole since the War on Terror.

Bringing in BlackRock signals the beginning of the much-anticipated shift from bilking taxpayers to bilking private investors. BlackRock will wield its tremendous influence over corporations across the globe to funnel as much private equity into the nation as possible where the money will be distributed to all powerful parties that need their palms greased. The rest will be used to fund the rise of The Great Reset through Zelensky’s and Fink’s pet project, Climate Change Hysteria.

These globalist grifters are entering their financial endgame. Expect the people of Ukraine to be kept in a state of peril because nothing drives a perpetual money-printing scheme better than problems that never get solved.

Leave a comment about this story on my Substack.

Blackrock pushes ESG

In January, 2020  on the eve of the economically and socially devastating covid lockdowns, the CEO of the world’s largest investment fund, Larry Fink of Blackrock, issued a letter to Wall Street colleagues and corporate CEOs on the future of investment flows. In the document, modestly titled “A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance”, Fink, who manages the world’s largest investment fund with some $7 trillion then under management, announced a radical departure for corporate investment. Money would “go green.” In his closely-followed 2020 letter Fink declared,

“In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant re-allocation of capital…Climate risk is investment risk.” Further he stated, “Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change.” [i]

In a separate letter to Blackrock investor clients, Fink delivered the new agenda for capital investing. He declared that Blackrock will exit certain high-carbon investments such as coal, the largest source of electricity for the USA and many other countries. He added that Blackrock would screen new investment in oil, gas and coal to determine their adherence to the UN Agenda 2030 “sustainability.”

Fink made clear the world’s largest fund would begin to disinvest in oil, gas and coal.  “Over time,” Fink wrote, “companies and governments that do not respond to stakeholders and address sustainability risks will encounter growing skepticism from the markets, and in turn, a higher cost of capital.” He added that, “Climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects… we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.” [ii]

From that point on the so-called ESG investing, penalizing CO2 emitting companies like ExxonMobil, has become all the fashion among hedge funds and Wall Street banks and investment funds including State Street and Vanguard. Such is the power of Blackrock. Fink was also able to get four new board members in ExxonMobil committed to end the company’s oil and gas business.

The January 2020 Fink letter was a declaration of war by big finance against the conventional energy industry. BlackRock was a founding member of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (the TCFD) and is a signatory of the UN PRI— Principles for Responsible Investing, a UN-supported network of investors pushing zero carbon investing using the highly-corrupt ESG criteria—Environmental, Social and Governance factors into investment decisions. There is no objective control over fake data for a company’s ESG. As well Blackrock signed the Vatican’s 2019 statement advocating carbon pricing regimes. BlackRock in 2020 also joined  Climate Action 100, a coalition of almost 400 investment managers  managing US$40 trillion.

With that fateful January 2020 CEO letter, Larry Fink set in motion a colossal disinvestment in the trillion-dollar global oil and gas sector. Notably, that same year BlackRock’s Fink was named to the Board of Trustees of Klaus Schwab’s dystopian World Economic Forum, the corporate and political nexus of the Zero Carbon UN Agenda 2030. In June 2019, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations signed a strategic partnership framework to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.  WEF has a Strategic Intelligence platform which includes Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

In his 2021 CEO letter, Fink doubled down on the attack on oil, gas and coal. “Given how central the energy transition will be to every company’s growth prospects, we are asking companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy,” Fink wrote. Another BlackRock officer told a recent energy conference, “where BlackRock goes, others will follow.” ^[iii]

In just two years, by 2022 an estimated $1 trillion has exited investment in oil and gas exploration and development globally. Oil extraction is an expensive business and cut-off of external investment by BlackRock and other Wall Street investors spells the slow death of the industry.

Biden—A BlackRock President?

Early in his then-lackluster Presidential bid, Biden had a closed door meeting in late 2019 with Fink who reportedly told the candidate that, “I’m here to help.” After his fateful meeting with BlackRock’s Fink, candidate Biden announced, “We are going to get rid of fossil fuels…” In December 2020, even before Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, he named BlackRock Global Head of Sustainable Investing,  Brian Deese, to be Assistant to the President and Director of the National Economic Council. Here, Deese, who played a key role for Obama in drafting the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, has quietly shaped the Biden war on energy.

This has been catastrophic for the oil and gas industry. Fink’s man Deese was active in giving the new President Biden a list of anti-oil measures to sign by Executive Order beginning day one in January 2021. That included closing the huge Keystone XL oil pipeline that would bring 830,000 barrels per day from Canada as far as Texas refineries, and halting any new leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Biden also rejoined the Paris Climate Accord that Deese had negotiated for Obama in 2015 and Trump cancelled.

The same day, Biden set in motion a change of the so-called “Social Cost of Carbon” that imposes a punitive $51 a ton of CO2 on the oil and gas industry. That one move, established under purely executive-branch authority without the consent of Congress, is dealing a devastating cost to investment in oil and gas in the US, a country only two years before that was the world’s largest oil producer.[iv]

Killing refinery capacity

Even worse, Biden’s  aggressive environmental rules and BlackRock ESG investing mandates are killing the US refinery capacity. Without refineries it doesn’t matter how many barrels of oil you take from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In the first two years of Biden’s Presidency the US has shut down some 1 million barrels a day of gasoline and diesel refining capacity, some due to covid demand collapse, the fastest decline in US history. The shutdowns are permanent. In 2023 an added 1.7 million bpd of capacity is set to close as a result of BlackRock and Wall Street ESG disinvesting and Biden regulations. [v]

Citing the heavy Wall Street disinvestment in oil and the Biden anti-oil policies, the CEO of Chevron in June 2022 declared that he doesn’t believe the US will ever build another new refinery.[vi]

Larry Fink, Board member of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, is joined by the EU whose President of the EU Commission, the notoriously corrupt Ursula von der Leyen left the WEF Board in 2019 to become EU Commission head. Her first major act in Brussels was to push through the EU Zero Carbon Fit for 55 agenda. That has imposed major carbon taxes and other constraints on oil, gas and coal in the EU well before the February  2022 Russian actions in Ukraine.  The combined impact of the Fink fraudulent ESG agenda in the Biden administration and the EU Zero Carbon madness is creating the worst energy and inflation crisis in history.

About the Author

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.

Article cross-posted from Global Research.