Black Rock Gp $ Bak

see main

see larry fink target

ntbcw blk stone gp

SEE ESG bail

see ceo fink

SEE ESG HE HAS BECOME Target, caved anti-sem

===

8 26 TARIFF FUCKERY 50%

KLEIN ASTRA YT ETF 8 28 26

CARNEY INVITE BLK ROCK AND BLACKSTONE TO DEAL W TRUMP BS, BUT SORTA //?

-=-=

===

// vanguard net zero

https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2022/anti-esg-office-holders/761261

the anti-ESG movement and the “woke capitalism” canard has many U.S. political observers scratching their heads. Instead of the traditional Republican Party support for big business, a growing number of Republican office holders are leveraging their legislative power against corporate efforts to align with ESG (environmental, social and governance) principles. Nevertheless, the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to come together.

The usual suspects: Fossil energy lobbyists

The anti-ESG movement focuses primarily, though not exclusively, on stemming the flow of investor dollars to the renewable firms that that are involved in clean energy and related fields.It’s no surprise, then, to find the Heartland Institute front and center in the anti-ESG movement, which it also calls “anti-woke.” The organization is well known for developing media and legislative playbooks in support of the fossil energy and tobacco industries. The organization is apparently applying the same methodology to stem the flow of investment dollars to renewable energy.

Last June, Heartland catalogued its anti-ESG playbook in a long-form article under the title, “Woke Investing Gets Well-Deserved Pushback.”

“The Heartland Institute has written extensively and testified about the dangers of government agencies mandating banks, companies, and portfolio funds adopt and report on Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards,” noted the article’s author, H. Sterling Burnett.

“Heartland has also provided detailed critiques of efforts by a cabal of large, multinational banks and gigantic financial companies to force every business to adopt ESG goals,”Burnett continued.

The use of the word “cabal” is not a one-off. Burnett continues to deploy coded words that evoke the anti-Jewish canard of an all-powerful financial cult that pulls the strings of the global economy.

Editor's note: Be sure to [subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

“The woke, billionaire corporate elites who run these corporations do this by threatening to withdraw banking or financial services or by applying pressure through their control over large amounts of a company’s stock,” he added.

Burnett also emphasized that Heartland can take partial credit for the growing number of states that have proposed or enacted anti-ESG legislation. “In a joint effort with likeminded nonprofit organizations, The Heartland Institute’s government relations professionals have pushed back against this by working with legislators in various states to shape and adopt model legislation blocking use of ESG scoring in deciding whether to offer banking and investment services. These efforts have borne fruit,” he wrote.

The other usual suspects: Trump supporters

It’s also no surprise to find investor, former Facebook board member and political kingmakerPeter Thiel involved in the anti-ESG movement. He was instrumental in former U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for office. He also publicly backed two candidates for U.S. Senate this year, both of whom deployed anti-ESG rhetoric during their campaigns.

In addition, Thiel has launched a new financial venture that is apparently aimed at providing an outlet for anti-ESG investors.

Reporters Liz Hoffman and Charley Grant picked up that thread for the Wall Street Journal last May in an article titled, “Woke, Inc.’ Author’s Startup to Take On BlackRock” and subtitled, “Backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman, Vivek Ramaswamy’s Strive will tell CEOs to stay out of politics.”

“An upstart financial firm backed by Peter Thiel and Bill Ackman has a message for American corporations: Focus on making money, not taking stands,” they observed. “Mr. Thiel invested both personally and through his Founders Fund, joined by Palantir Technologies Inc.”

“Vivek Ramaswamy,who made his fortune in pharmaceutical startups before writing a book last year called ‘Woke, Inc.,’ says he has raised $20 million to start a fund manager that would urge companies not to wade into hot-button social or environmental issues,” they added.

The idea seems to be catching on. Last August, reporters Katherine Greifeld and Elaine Chaim of Bloomberg noted that the firm filed for four more equity ETFs. “The filings land just two weeks after the Strive US Energy ETF (ticker DRLL) launched, which has already accumulated nearly$250 million in assets,” they wrote.

The anti-ESG movement embraces Elon Musk and the religious right

Another leading element in the anti-ESG movement that has recently come to light is the nonprofit organization State Financial Officers Foundation.The group reportedly claims that it is not involved in advocating for elected officials. However, its financial “team” is staffed exclusively with Republicans, many of whom hold elected office, according to research by David Armiak of the Center for Media and Democracy. At least four members of the group are elected officials in Texas, West Virginia, Arizona and Kentucky who are known for promoting anti-ESG policies.

Nonpartisan or not, the Foundation has advocated on behalf of the fossil energy industry, as expressed in a public letter to President Joe Biden last April. It has also publicly aligned itself with high-profile personalities and organizations in the anti-ESG movement.

On Tuesday, for example, the organization’s home page featured a tweet from newly minted Twitter owner Elon Musk that read, “ESG is the devil.”The brief message is of a piece with Musk’s earlier anti-ESG pronouncements, as reported by the New York Times.

The day before that, the Foundation's home page highlighted a tweet from theWashington Stand, a publication of the Family Research Council, an evangelical activist group. The tweet linked to an unattributed commentary that described a Foundation conference in November, in which “conservative leaders made it clear that, moving forward, they plan to be woke capital’s worst nightmare,” the Family Research Council wrote.

As with other anti-ESG manifests, the piece leveraged anti-Jewish sentiment by repeatedly focusing attention on the financial firm BlackRock and its Jewish CEO.

Advertisers are already bailing from Twitter on account of Musk’s tolerance for hate speech on his platform. Issues related to his other business ventures may also come into play. Now that the anti-ESG movement has embraced his rhetoric, the likelihood of additional advertisers fleeing from Twitter has grown.

As for the State Financial Officers Foundation, its embrace of Musk’s “free speech” policy should be a red flag to any remaining corporate sponsors and donors that continue to support the organization, and a clear signal that business leaders can no longer count on the safe haven of Republican policy-making to support their interests.

===

https://www.alternet.org/2661884531/

caves an 6 23

no lnx

for decades, Republicans slammed liberals and progressives for their criticisms of Corporate America — arguing that large corporations and the ultra-wealthy were job creators. "Are you going to get a job from a rich guy or a poor guy?" was a ubiquitous GOP talking point.

But that was before Donald Trump's presidency and the MAGA movement. These days, far-right Republicans ranging from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) angrily rail against "woke capitalism."

One of the MAGA movement's corporate targets has been the New York City-based asset management giant BlackRock, whose CEO, Larry Fink, has been encouraging investors to consider climate change in their investing decisions. And MAGA Republicans have responded by attacking BlackRock as "woke capitalism."

READ MORE: 'They don't speak for your voice or mine': DeSantis to propose bill that would block 'woke' investments

Now, Fink — who co-founded BlackRock in 1988 — is swearing off the term ESG, which is short for "environment, social and governance."

At the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Sunday, June 26, Fink told Axios, "When I write these (investment) letters, it was never meant to be a political statement.… They were written to identify long-term issues to our long-term investors…. 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."

BlackRock, according to Axios reporter John Frank, presently "manages $9.2 trillion."

During the interview with Axios, Fink didn't say that BlackRock would avoid addressing climate change with investors — only that he won't be using the term ESG going forward.

READ MORE: Texas Lt. Gov. vowed to punish a firm for discriminating' against fossil fuels — but was a shareholder: report

Fink told Axios, "We talk a lot about decarbonization, we talk a lot about governance.… or social issues, if that's something we need to addressed."

READ MORE: How fossil fuel lobbyists are pushing the right-wing campaign against 'woke capitalism': report

Axios' full report is available at this link.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

The corporatization of just about everything from climate change to outer space ›

Can capitalism solve capitalism’s problems? ›

The 'Big Con' revealed: Report details the fossil fuel industry's deceptive 'net zero' strategy ›

Two recent policies to keep Florida underwater

The first policy enacted by DeSantis in Florida is what Food & Water Watch called “the most extreme energy preemption bills in the nation.” Signed last year, these bills ban Florida cities and towns from adopting 100 percent clean energy goals, reasoning that those goals “discriminate” against fossil fuels.

That means municipalities in the literal Sunshine State are being forced to keep using fossil fuels even if they don’t want to. It doesn’t matter if a climate change-fueled hurricane destroyed your town and now you want to be part of the solution. Sorry, honey. DeSantis said no.

The second policy came about a month ago, when DeSantis adopted measures to ban the state’s $186 billion pension fund from making investment decisions that consider climate change. DeSantis did this because he said such decisions constitute an “ideological agenda."

the pension measure is particularly mind-boggling given the staggering economic damage of Hurricane Ian, which scientists have already confirmed was made worse by climate change. That excess rainfall contributed to massive economic damage, which could total between $100 billion and $120 billion, according to AccuWeather. Many Florida insurance companies will likely go bankrupt.

Climate change is also just generally very costly, both to Florida and the world. Locally, Florida homes have lost $2.4 billion to floods since 2005, and $2.86 trillion of insured state property is vulnerable to hurricanes. Globally, the insurance provider Swiss Re predicted climate change could reduce global GDP by 11 to 14 percent by 2050 compared with a world without climate change, amounting to a $23 trillion loss.

It is obviously not “ideological” to consider climate change in investment decisions. This is why BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, said it would make climate change central to its investment decisions in 2020.

But DeSantis is not trying to make financially prudent decisions. He’s trying to make politically prudent ones. After all, this is what all the other Republican governors are doing. And hopping on the oil train is known to have its perks.

Courting the oil industry for political gain

For DeSantis to make a successful 2024 run, he needs to have the oil industry on his side. To that end, there’s nothing better he can do than push their priorities—which just so happen to be the two policies described above.

“DeSantis is following political trends,” said Dan Cohen, an energy researcher for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “Republicans across the country are trying as hard as they can to move the funds they have control over to stand against the tide”—the tide being toward clean energy and a safe climate.

Indeed, Florida is just one of17 Republican-led statesthat haveproposed or adopted legislationlimiting the ability of the state government to do business with entities that are moving away from fossil fuels. DeSantis is also part of a coalition of19 Republican-led states that sent a strongly-worded letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink,threatening legal action against him for investing with a clean energy future in mind. 19 other Republican-led states have adoptedlaws that prohibit cities from banning natural gasand other fossil fuels.

If legislation like this were adopted nationally, effective action to slow climate change would be near-impossible. Both governments and financial institutions would be forced to fund fossil fuels, financial risks of climate change be damned.

“This is the Republican’s latest version of climate denial, where all of a sudden climate science is out the window,” said Jackie Fielder, co-director of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition. “Ultimately, the people who will pay for it are the folks in Florida having to repair their homes, and so many other victims of climate change.”

So stupid that it probably won’t work — for now

Republicans like DeSantis are trying their best to prevent financial institutions from moving away from fossil fuels. But it turns out that, at least for now, their best is not very good.

DeSantis’s new policy to ban Florida’s pension fund from considering climate risk, for example, “doesn’t actually change much,” said Cohen. “He's making a big show of it, but Florida law already says that investments must be made for the sole, exclusive purpose of providing benefits to members and beneficiaries.”And if you want to get the best investment benefit, you actually have to consider climate change.

This is the problem with all these Republican states’ efforts to ban investments that move away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy: they’re not actually in the states’ best financial interest. “In order to believe [DeSantis is] right, you have to agree that climate risk is not an investment risk,” said Cohen. “But climate risk is an investment risk, and Florida just got bombarded again. They’re trying to make you forget that that’s a real thing.”

Because of this reality, the Republican states’ threats to sue financial firms like BlackRock for investing with climate change in mind are likely empty. Last month, Martin Lipton, the founding partner of one of of the world's most influential corporate law firms, agreed, accusing Republicans of spreading “misinformation” about environmental risks in order to “politicize” them.

Of course, this could all change if Republicans continue their coordinated drive to appoint judges that are against climate action. And if a Republican like DeSantis wins the presidency, there’s no telling how far these financially stupid actions could go.

For now, though, some climate advocates are just taking it as a sign that the tide is truly turning against fossil fuels.

“I view this as a sign that the divestment movement is winning,the fact that DeSantis and all these Republicans are suddenly engaged on this topic,” said David Arkush, the policy director of Public Citizen’s climate program. “Of course, I would like them to not do these things, not hurt their own citizens … But these are ultimately fossil fuel lobbying dollars that are behind this push. So if they’re pushing money here, it's because they feel themselves losing.”

florida’s Statewide Climate Change Response Ignores Cause.Tampa Bay Times, March 2022.

-The Deranged Demands of the “Anti-ESG” Movement. The New Republic, August 2022.

-Rightwing Lobby Group ALEC Driving Laws to Blacklist Companies That Boycott the Oil Industry.The Guardian, February 2022.

-How the Natural Gas Industry is Freezing Climate Action in its Tracks. Vox, September 2021.

an 922

In 2021, Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick angrily railed against Wall Street investment firms that he claimed were unfairly discriminating against fossil fuels and showing a bias for green energy, and he vowed to support legislation that would require Texas’ state government to stop doing business with such firms when it came to retirement programs for state employees. Patrick, a vocal supporter ofTexas State Senate Bill 13, singled out BlackRock as “the worst offender.”But according to areport in the Texas Monthly, Patrick continued to own BlackRock shares for months after he vowed to take on Wall Street firms he claimed had decided to “boycott” fossil fuels.

Moreover, Patrick “also owned BlackRock mutual funds, along with shares in other companies that have pledged to stop using oil and natural gas,” journalists Russell Gold and Dan Solomon report in a Texas Monthly article published on September 8.

“In recent years,” Gold and Solomon explain, “Wall Street has started to embrace socially responsible ‘ESG’ — environment, social, and corporate governance — investing. In general terms, this means considering factors beyond financial performance, such as commitment to sustainability and good working conditions. BlackRock and its chief executive, Larry Fink, are leading voices in the movement. In a letter to shareholders on January 17, Fink argued against the notion that ‘going woke,’ as he wrote, was the driver of the movement. Rather, he suggested, gradually moving investments away from fossil fuels and toward green industries such as wind and solar power is a sound investment strategy for growing resilient businesses that are viable for the long term.”

According to Gold and Solomon, Patrick “hoped that through SB 13, which charged the Comptroller’s Office with compiling a list of offending firms, Texas could use the weight of its large retirement funds — the Teacher Retirement System of Texas has nearly $200 billion under management — to turn Wall Street against ESG investing.”

On January 19, Patrick wrote to Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar and specifically asked him to include BlackRock on the list of firms he considered anti-fossil fuels.Patrick told Hegar, “As you prepare the official list of companies that boycott energy companies, I ask that you include BlackRock…. BlackRock is capriciously discriminating against the oil and gas industry…. Texas will not do business with those that boycott fossil fuels.”

But according to Gold and Solomon, Patrick has not practiced what he preached.

“At the end of 2021, according to annual financial disclosures Texas Monthly obtained from the Texas Ethics Commission, Patrick owned between one share and 100 shares in BlackRock, potentially worth as much as $91,000,” the Texas Monthly journalists report. “On top of that, Patrick and his wife owned shares in three BlackRock mutual funds, which together, were worth between $15,000 and $58,000. The lieutenant governor also owned, either directly or with his wife, shares in several other companies that have taken pledges to use only renewable energy in the near future — including Apple, Meta, Microsoft and Walmart.”

Gold and Solomon continue, “At the end of 2021, these holdings were worth between $92,000 and $460,000. Why such a wide range? Despite multiple attempts to ask for more details about how Patrick’s personal investments diverged from the laws he championed, no one from his office or campaign returned Texas Monthly’s calls. We also asked if he still owns those shares, or if he sold them at some point in 2022, but did not receive an answer. We may find the answers when Patrick’s next disclosure is filed, but that won’t be until next January…. (Patrick) seems to have decided that what was best for Texas wasn’t necessarily best for him.”

omg

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/climate/republican-treasurers-climate-change.html

no lnx

How Republicans Are ‘Weaponizing’ Public Office Against Climate Action

A Times investigation revealed a coordinated effort by state treasurers to use government muscle and public funds to punish companies trying to reduce greenhouse gases.

Riley Moore stands in an office wearing a dark suit jacket unbuttoned with a white collared shirt without a tie. On the walls hang portraits of presidents and other officials.

Riley Moore, the West Virginia treasurer, announced last week that several major banks would be barred from government contracts with his state.Credit...Kristian Thacker for The New York Times

By David Gelles

Gelles reviewed more than 10,000 pages of documents and emails while reporting for this article.

Aug. 5, 2022

Nearly two dozen Republican state treasurers around the country are working to thwart climate action on state and federal levels, fighting regulations that would make clear the economic risks posed by a warming world, lobbying against climate-minded nominees to key federal posts and using the tax dollars they control to punish companies that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the past year, treasurers in nearly half the United States have been coordinating tactics and talking points, meeting in private and cheering each other in public as part of a well-funded campaign to protect the fossil fuel companies that bolster their local economies.

Last week, Riley Moore, the treasurer of West Virginia, announced that several major banks — including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo — would be barred from government contracts with his state because they are reducing their investments in coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel.

Mr. Moore and the treasurers of Louisiana and Arkansas have pulled more than $700 million out of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, over objections that the firm is too focused on environmental issues. At the same time, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are pressuring the private sector to drop climate action and other causes they label as “woke.”

And treasurers from Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma joined a larger campaign to thwart the nominations of federal regulators who wanted to require that banks, funds and companies disclose the financial risks posed by a warming planet.

At the nexus of these efforts is the State Financial Officers Foundation, a little-known nonprofit organization based in Shawnee, Kan., that once focused on cybersecurity, borrowing costs and managing debt loads, among other routine issues.

Then President Biden took office, promising to speed the country’s transition away from oil, gas and coal, the burning of which is dangerously heating the planet.

The foundation began pushing Republican state treasurers, who are mostly elected officials and who are responsible for managing their state’s finances, to use their power to promote oil and gas interests and to stymie Mr. Biden’s climate agenda, records show.

The New York Times reviewed thousands of pages of internal emails and documents obtained through public records requests by Documented, a watchdog group, that shed light on the treasurers’ efforts since January 2021.

At conferences, on weekly calls, and with a steady stream of emails, the foundation hosted representatives from the oil industry and funneled research and talking points from conservative groups to the state treasurers, who have channeled the private groups’ goals into public policy.

The Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute and the American Petroleum Institute are among the conservative groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry that have been working with the State Financial Officers Foundation and the treasurers to shape their national strategy.

Many Democratic state treasurers support efforts to combat climate change and want banks and investment firms to be clear about risks posed to returns for retirees and others. Democratic lawmakers in California and New Jersey are working on legislation that would require their state pension systems to divest from fossil fuels. But Democrats have not mounted anything like the national campaign being orchestrated by the State Financial Officers Foundation.

The Republican treasurers skirt the fact that global warming is an economic menace that is damaging industries like agriculture and causing extreme weather that devastates communities and costs taxpayers billions in recovery and rebuilding. Instead, they frame efforts to reduce emissions as a threat to employment and revenue, and have turned climate science into another front in the culture wars.

“This is a departure from their traditional roles,” said Robert Butkin, the former Oklahoma treasurer and a professor at the University of Tulsa. “There used to be a strong nonpartisan and bipartisan ethic among treasurers, but you’ve seen a lot of that erode over the past several years.”

‘Politically motivated’

In November, as major banks and corporations at a global summit in Glasgow were promising to take climate action, the Republican state treasurers were huddling at a State Financial Officers Foundation conference in Orlando, Fla., talking about ways to stop them.

At the meeting, the group’s chief executive, Derek Kreifels, made a presentation about a new law that had been signed by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican. It prohibited state agencies from investing in businesses that have cut ties with fossil fuel companies.

The Biden Administration’s Environmental Agenda

President Biden is pushing stronger regulations, but faces a narrow path to achieving his goals in the fight against global warming.

Long-Sought Climate Action: After decades of failed attempts, Congress is on the cusp of passing the nation’s first major climate law. The bill avoided the political pitfalls of past legislative attempts by offering only incentives to cut climate pollution, not taxes.

Extreme Heat: President Biden said that he would expand existing federal programs to help Americans cope with the extreme heat wrought by climate change, stopping short of declaring a national emergency.

Supreme Court Ruling: By limiting the Environmental Protection agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, the court made it much harder for the president to achieve his climate goals.

Within weeks, Mr. Moore was working with legislators in West Virginia to write a similar bill, which became law in March. While Texas officials have been slow to enforce their law, Mr. Moore was quick to put it into action.

Last week, he notified five major financial institutions — Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley — that they are barred from doing business with West Virginia because they have intentionally wound down their dealings with coal companies.

“If a bank, for instance, decides to say they have a no-lending policy as relates to thermal coal, well, then we’ll find a bank that doesn’t have that policy,” Mr. Moore said in an interview.

Mr. Moore went on to offer a classic denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus that the continued burning of oil, gas and coal will lead to planetary catastrophe.

“The climate has been changing in the world since Earth was created,” Mr. Moore said. “Whether these greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the warming of the globe, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that.”

The banks targeted by Mr. Moore say they are not boycotting the fossil fuel industry. All of them still do substantial business with oil and gas companies, but in the long run, they say, moving away from fossil fuels makes economic sense. West Virginia, for example, is the second-largest coal-producing state in the country, but production has declined significantly during the past two decades.

“He’s trying to counter pressure that’s coming from progressives on the left,” said Loren Allen, general counsel of the West Virginia Bankers Association, which lobbied against the new law celebrated by Mr. Moore. “Our banks are tied up in the center of a battle that no one can really win.”

Mr. Kreifels declined an interview but said in a statement that concerns over issues like climate change were “putting politics over profits, and likely reducing shareholder value.”

Kentucky, Tennessee and Oklahoma have passed similar laws this year. “Kentucky joins our growing coalition of states that have taken concrete steps to push back against the woke capitalists who are trying to destroy our energy industries,” Mr. Moore said in a news release praising the moves by the states.

Republican lawmakers in more than a dozen other states, including New York, Oregon and Virginia, are trying to advance similar legislation.

The laws could cost taxpayers. A recent study found that Texas cities, where some financial institutions have voluntarily left the market because of laws targeting companies that embrace environmental, social and governance priorities, collectively known as E.S.G., are likely to incur up to $532 million in higher interest costs in less than a year because of the legislation.

“These officials are using the public finance market to make political statements,” said Daniel Garrett, a finance professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the authors of the study. “They can use these laws as a carrot or stick as they desire, but the costs can be potentially quite large.”

The treasurers are increasingly going after individual financial institutions.

In addition to the banks targeted by Mr. Moore, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are criticizing plans by S&P Global, the ratings agency, to integrate climate risk into its credit ratings of states.And BlackRock, which manages some $8.5 trillion, has been the target of withering attacks for its stance on environmental issues.

Larry Fink, the BlackRock chief executive, has been outspoken in his desire to steer away from fossil fuels and toward what he considers a more sustainable, greener economy.

“Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change,” Mr. Fink wrote in a public letter in 2020 in which he described the integration of climate risk into investment decisions as “a fundamental reshaping of finance.”

In response, Mr. Moore’s office stopped using BlackRock to help manage West Virginia’s operating funds, withdrawing about $20 million.

“Larry Fink has stated it very clearly that he thinks capitalism has the power to shape society,” Mr. Moore said. “But my state doesn’t want the same shape of society that Larry Fink does.”

Other treasurers followed suit. In March, the Arkansas treasurer, Dennis Milligan, pulled $125 million from BlackRock. And in April, the treasurer of Louisiana, John Schroder, emailed Mr. Moore and Marlo Oaks, the Utah treasurer, and boasted about withdrawing more than $600 million from BlackRock accounts. Mr. Schroder said he had also blocked Citibank, Bank of America and JPMorgan from almost $1 billion in bond financing.

“That’s excellent, John!!!” Mr. Moore replied, according to emails reviewed by The Times. “Great work!!!”

BlackRock declined to comment.

Mr. Milligan, the Arkansas treasurer, emailed a statement in which he said, “I feel a strong sense of responsibility to do my part in not allowing the liberal ‘woke’ agenda to disadvantage the very people I was elected to serve.” Mr. Schroder and Mr. Oaks declined requests for interviews.

Withdrawals by a few states represent a tiny slice of BlackRock’s business. But inside banks and investment firms, there is mounting concern that the state bans could spread to pension funds, which account for nearly $4 trillion in investments across the country.

“We already have a lot of divisions in this country,” said Noah Friend, the former general counsel for the Kentucky treasurer. “I don’t like the idea that if you’re a Republican you have to bank with this company and if you’re a Democrat you have to bank with that company. Everything becomes this politicized decision about who you do business with.”

‘A coordinated attack’

Julie Ellsworth, the Idaho treasurer, asked the State Financial Officers Foundation to distribute a memo that misrepresented the position of banks on environmental, social and governance issues.Credit...Keith Ridler/Associated Press]

Behind the treasurers and the State Financial Officers Foundation is a complex web of conservative groups linked to the fossil fuel industry, as well as some of the biggest names on Wall Street.

In March, Julie Ellsworth, the Idaho treasurer, asked Mr. Kreifels to distribute a memo about the fossil fuel boycott bills to other state treasurers, according to the emails.

The memo had been prepared using research from the Heartland Institute, a think tank with a history of denying climate science, and it misrepresented how banks and other financial institutions were implementing their E.S.G. strategies.

“If you’re a small-business owner with a gasoline powered car, you’re eventually going to be phased out of banks’ portfolios, unless you switch to electric vehicles, of course,” the memo said in a section about how banks would use E.S.G. to force businesses to change. “Similarly, if you want to buy a house in the future that runs on natural gas, you, too, won’t be able to get a mortgage until you put solar panels on the roof.”

No banks have proposed such measures. Ms. Ellsworth declined to comment.

The Heartland Institute has also worked to amplify the treasurers’ message and connect them with influential conservative media personalities including Glenn Beck, records show.

Other groups supporting the treasurers’ efforts include the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has long opposed action to combat climate change and that has received substantial funding from the oil billionaires Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch.

The State Financial Officers Foundation this year hired CRC Advisors, a conservative strategy firm that was founded by Leonard Leo, who has led a multiyear effort to stack federal courts with judges who oppose climate action. In recent months, CRC Advisors has helped coordinate media responses for treasurers, including Mr. Oaks of Utah, according to emails reviewed by The Times.

And the State Financial Officers Foundation shares many ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a conservative group with longstanding ties to the Koch brothers.

The American Legislative Exchange Council chief executive, Lisa Nelson, is on the State Financial Officers Foundation board, and ALEC’s chief economist, Jonathan Williams, is a senior policy adviser to the foundation.

Last July, the State Financial Officers Foundation hosted a conference in conjunction with ALEC, and the two groups have even shared blocks of discounted hotel rooms for their event. Mr. Moore and Mr. Kreifels were among the treasurers attending ALEC’s annual meeting in Atlanta last week.

“The State Financial Officers Foundation is a key node in a network of political groups waging a coordinated attack on climate policy,” said Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at Documented, the watchdog organization that obtained the emails. The group is working “to weaponize state treasurers’ offices against federal appointees, regulations, and corporate policies that address climate change,” he said.

As a nonprofit organization, the State Financial Officers Foundation is not legally required to disclose its funders. A partial list of the organization’s financial supporters on its website shows that it gets funding from not only conservative groups but also from some of the biggest companies in the world, many of which say they are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They include JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Visa, Mastercard, Fidelity, Federated Hermes and SAP — all of which have publicly embraced E.S.G. principles.

Most of the sponsors declined to comment, and many of their contributions were relatively small. In a statement, Beth Richek, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman, acknowledged the bank’s support for the group. “While we may not agree with every position they take, our mutual engagement is important for our company, employees, and customers,” she said.

Blocking federal appointees

Saule Omarova, President Biden’s first nominee to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, withdrew after treasurers portrayed her as a “radical extremist.”Credit...Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times]

Mr. Biden came to office with a vision: the entire federal government would be focused on reducing the country’s emissions, with new rules implemented across federal agencies staffed by political appointees who embraced the effort.

Among the obstacles Mr. Biden didn’t anticipate were the state treasurers.

An early sign of turbulence came in May 2021, when 15 treasurers sent a letter to John Kerry, Mr. Biden’s climate envoy, raising concerns about what they said was the administration’s hostility toward the oil and gas industry.

“Reckless attacks on the fossil fuel industry ultimately cut off paychecks for workers and take food off the table for hard-working middle-class families,” the letter read.

By the end of the year, the treasurers were publicly lobbying against a bevy of proposed rules and nominees.

Among their first targets was Saule Omarova, Mr. Biden’s nominee for comptroller of the currency. Ms. Omarova was heavily criticized by Republican senators, some moderate Democrats and the banking industry for her desire to limit speculative trading by banks and to open the Federal Reserve to retail banking.

But she drew the ire of the treasurers for saying that if fossil fuel companies went bankrupt it would help fight climate change. The State Financial Officers Foundation issued a letter signed by more than 20 financial officers calling her a “radical extremist.”

When Ms. Omarova withdrew her nomination in December, Mr. Kreifels sent an email to the treasurers congratulating them. “It’s an honor to work along side you all,” he said in an email titled “VICTORY!”

Two months later, the treasurers focused on another nominee: Sarah Bloom Raskin, whom Mr. Biden had nominated to be the Federal Reserve’s head of bank oversight. Ms. Raskin, a former Federal Reserve and Treasury official, has argued that financial regulators should police climate risks more diligently.

Mr. Kreifels urged the treasurers to speak out against Ms. Raskin, describing her as an “anti-energy climate change alarmist.”

In emails to state treasurers, the foundation provided draft tweets and other messaging strategies. “We must make as much noise about this as possible,” Mr. Kreifels wrote. “Make this THE ‘kitchen table’ issue in your state for the week.”

Like Ms. Omarova, Ms. Raskin withdrew her nomination. “Sarah was subject to baseless attacks from industry and conservative interest groups,” Mr. Biden said in a statement.

The treasurers have also set their sights on new federal rules and regulations intended to strengthen the government’s ability to act on climate change.

Late last year, the State Financial Officers Foundation worked with the Heritage Foundation to respond to proposals from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government panel assigned to minimize risk in the financial sector, on ways to reduce the threats posed by climate change, records show.

And soon after that, Mr. Oaks, the Utah treasurer, drafted a letter opposing a potential Department of Labor rule that would allow retirement plans to consider risks from global warming in their investment strategy. Mr. Kreifels distributed the draft to the foundation’s members, and more than a dozen treasurers signed the final letter. The Department of Labor has not decided whether to implement the rule.

This year, the treasurers targeted the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. After the agency proposed a rule to require banks to consider climate-related financial risk, executives from the Heritage Foundation sent Mr. Kreifels and Mr. Oaks a memo outlining their opposition. Within weeks, dozens of state treasurers and attorneys general from Republican-led states submitted comments objecting to the proposed rule.

“This special concern for and attention to climate-related risks is irrational,” one comment read.

And in May, Mr. Kreifels organized a call with the treasurers to discuss regulations proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require companies to publicly disclose climate risks to investors. The featured guest was a representative from the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying arm of the fossil fuel industry.

The next month, the State Financial Officers Foundation sent a 20-page letter signed by more than a dozen treasurers, calling the S.E.C.’s proposed rule, which has not yet been enacted, “irrational climate exceptionalism, elevating climate issues to a place of prominence in disclosures that they do not deserve.”

===

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/climate/republicans-blackrock-climate.html

wAPO no lnx

How an Organized Republican Effort Punishes Companies for Climate Action

Legislators

and their allies are running an aggressive campaign that uses public

money and the law to pressure businesses they say are pushing “woke”

causes.

Protesters at the Glasgow climate summit last year. A

number of banks, investors and companies pledged at the talks to cut

their greenhouse gas emissions.

By David Gelles and Hiroko Tabuchi

May 27, 2022

:{In

West Virginia, the state treasurer has pulled money from BlackRock, the

world’s largest asset manager, because the Wall Street firm has flagged

climate change as an economic risk.

In Texas, a new law bars the

state’s retirement and investment funds from doing business with

companies that the state comptroller says are boycotting fossil fuels.

Conservative lawmakers in 15 other states are promoting similar

legislation.}:

And officials in Utah and Idaho have assailed a major ratings agency for considering environmental risks and other factors, in addition to the balance sheet, when assessing states’ creditworthiness.

Across the country, Republican lawmakers

and their allies have launched a campaign to try to rein in what they

see as activist companies trying to reduce the greenhouse gases that are

dangerously heating the planet.

“We’re an energy state, and energy accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue for us,” said Riley Moore, the West Virginia state treasurer.

“All of our jobs come from coal and gas. I mean, this is who we are.

This is part of our way of life here in the state. And they’re telling

us that these industries are bad.”

“We have an existential threat here,” Mr. Moore said. “We have to fight back.”

doing so, Mr. Moore and others have pushed climate change from the

scientific realm into the political battles already raging over topics

like voting rights, abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. issues. In recent months,

conservatives have moved beyond tough words and used legislative and

financial leverage to pressure the private sector to drop climate action

and any other causes they label as “woke.”

“There is a

coordinated effort to chill corporate engagement on these issues,” said

Daniella Ballou-Aares, chief executive of the Leadership Now Project, a

nonprofit organization that wants corporations to address threats to

democracy. “And it is an effective campaign. Companies are starting to

go into hiding.”

:{The

pushback has been spearheaded by a group of Republican state officials

that has reached out to financial organizations, facilitated media

appearances and threatened to punish companies that, among other things,

divest from fossil fuels.

They have worked alongside a nonprofit

organization that has run television ads, dispatched roaming billboard

trucks and rented out a Times Square billboard criticizing BlackRock for

championing what they call woke causes, including environmentalism.}:

These

efforts come after years during which many in the financial sector

boasted that they were prioritizing environmental, social and governance

issues, also known as ESG, rather than pure profits.

That activism has often put companies at odds with the Republican Party, traditionally the ally of big business.

In 2015, Salesforce and other big employers threatened to leave Indiana

after the state passed, and then quickly rolled back, a law that would

have allowed businesses to refuse service to gay customers. Nike faced a

fierce backlash for its 2018 ad featuring Colin Kaepernick, the former

N.F.L. quarterback who knelt during the national anthem to protest

racism and police brutality.

:{As

the signs of a warming planet have grown more apparent over the past

five years — in the form of more destructive storms and fires, record

heat and drought — and as pressure has grown from consumers and liberal

groups to take action, corporations have warmed to the notion of using

capital and markets to create a cleaner economy. Faith-based groups,

universities and foundations have divested from oil, gas and coal. New

York State’s pension fund plans to start shedding its fossil fuels

holdings, and Maine became the first state last year to require both its

Treasury and its public employee pension fund to divest from fossil

fuels.}:

When President Trump declared in 2017 that he would

pull the United States from the Paris climate accord, more than 2,000

businesses and investors — including Apple, Amazon and Mars — signed a

pledge to continue to work toward climate goals.

The Biden Administration’s Environmental Agenda

President

Biden is pushing stronger regulations, but faces a narrow path to

achieving his goals in the fight against global warming.

Resource Protection: The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to

restore authority to states and tribes to stop energy projects that

could pollute local waters.

Defining ‘Habitat’: The Biden

administration is doing away with a Trump-era definition of the term

that was at odds with the conservation purposes of the Endangered

Species Act.

Electric Vehicles: The transportation secretary

outlined proposed regulations that would require charging stations built

with federal dollars to be located no more than 50 miles apart.

Solar Tariffs: The Biden administration announced it wouldn’t impose new

tariffs on the solar industry for two years, in an effort to encourage

broader adoption of solar energy.

Then, in 2019, a group of senior business leaders promised to redefine “the purpose of a corporation” and prioritize the environment, workers and communities.

And

a record number of banks, investors and companies at the United Nations

climate talks in Glasgow last year committed to reaching net zero (the

point where their activities no longer add greenhouse gases to the

atmosphere) by 2050. Several said they saw opportunity in investing in

new kinds of technology needed to power an economy that is not based on

oil, gas or coal.

Larry Fink, the chief executive of BlackRock,

has been among the most outspoken executives, using his annual letter to

corporate leaders to implore them to look beyond the bottom line and

make a positive contribution to society.

:{Larry

Fink, the head of BlackRock, in a TV appearance in March. “Every

company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a

net-zero world,” he has said.}:

In his most recent letter, issued in January, Mr. Fink made the case for what he calls “stakeholder capitalism,” saying there is a sound business rationale for taking up the fight against climate change and imploring other companies to act.

“Every company and every industry will be

transformed by the transition to a net-zero world,” Mr. Fink wrote. “The

question is, will you lead, or will you be led?”

Other executives also say they are unbowed by the brewing conservative backlash.

“It’s

not going to stop me,” said Marc Benioff, the co-founder and co-chief

executive of Salesforce and one of the most outspoken business leaders

on social and political issues. “It’s pretty hard to restrict or control

how a C.E.O. creates the culture of his company.”

Mr. Benioff

dismissed many of the actions of conservatives as theatrics.

“Politicians have to do what politicians do, which is try to get

elected,” Mr. Benioff said. “It’s a lot of posturing for the base.”

[The

Texas legislature last year, which passed a bill that would block state

agencies from doing business with financial firms that divest from

fossil fuels.

Republican lawmakers, however, are becoming more organized in their efforts to slow corporate progress on climate issues.

Mr. Moore, the West Virginia state treasurer, coordinated a letter in November from 16 state treasurers and comptrollers to banks across the country, threatening “collective action in response to the ongoing and growing economic boycott of traditional energy production industries by U.S. financial institutions.”

“It is our sincere hope that no

financial institution will be rendered ineligible to provide banking

services to our states,” the letter said.

And in January, Mr.

Moore pulled about $20 million out of a fund managed by BlackRock

because the firm has encouraged other companies to reduce emissions.

BlackRock still manages several billion for West Virginia’s state

retirement system. “We’re divesting from BlackRock because they’re

divesting from us,” Mr. Moore said in an interview.

In private, elected officials in conservative states have been even more blunt.

“These big banks are virtue signaling because they are woke,” Gary Howell, a West Virginia state representative

who sponsored a bill that would blacklist companies that have divested

from fossil fuels, wrote in a Feb. 8 email to Mr. Moore. The message was

obtained by Documented, a corporate watchdog group, under a Freedom of

Information Act request. “They either shut up or get on the list, that

is my goal,” he wrote.

Mr. Howell did not respond to a request for comment.

Idaho’s

top elected officials, including the governor and the entire

congressional delegation, sent a letter last week to the chief executive

of S&P Global, the ratings agency, objecting to the company’s use

of ESG metrics in its rankings of states. “It is impossible for

the State of Idaho not to conclude that S&P has adopted a

politicized ratings system,” the Republicans wrote. Officials in other

states, including Utah, have sent similar letters.

Curtis Loftis,

the South Carolina state treasurer, emailed senior executives at

JPMorgan on Sept. 1 and warned banks “to stay out of political culture

wars and particularly abstain from the petty, ‘woke’ cancel culture.”

Mr.

Fink of BlackRock has emerged as a main target of conservatives. Last

June, BlackRock joined with Vanguard and State Street to help an

activist hedge fund, Engine No. 1, win three seats on the board of Exxon

with the goal of pushing the energy giant to reduce its carbon

footprint.

Months later, a nonprofit group called Consumers’

Research received an influx of funding from undisclosed donors and began

running ads attacking Mr. Fink.

Will Hild, executive director of

Consumers’ Research, told CPAC, the Conservative Political Action

Conference, in February that Mr. Fink and BlackRock had “helped vote on

three radical environmentalists to the board of directors of Exxon whose

stated goal is to get that company not focused on serving American

consumers affordable gas but on Larry Fink’s personal politics.”

BlackRock

seemed to backtrack this month when it said it was likely to support

fewer shareholder proposals calling for climate action.

People

familiar with BlackRock said the pressure was not changing the firm’s

investment strategy. But the company has scrambled to limit the fallout

in states like Texas, stressing that it is following the wishes of its

clients and investing broadly.

“We are perhaps the world’s

largest investor in fossil fuel companies, and, as a long-term investor

in these companies, we want to see these companies succeed and prosper,”

BlackRock’s head of external affairs, Dalia Blass, wrote in a letter to

Texas regulators in January.

BlackRock, on behalf of its

clients, had $259 billion in assets invested in fossil fuel companies

around the world, with $91 billion invested in Texas fossil fuel

companies alone, Ms. Blass stressed, listing BlackRock’s sizable

holdings in Texas energy companies, including Exxon Mobil,

ConocoPhillips and Kinder Morgan.

BlackRock also this month said

it would support fewer shareholder proposals calling for climate action

because “we do not consider them to be consistent with our clients’

long-term financial interests.”

In a statement, BlackRock said it

was “committed to engaging with all stakeholders to ensure they

understand our investment decisions are driven by just one thing: our

fiduciary duty to our clients.”

Casey Harrell, a senior

strategist at The Sunrise Project, a climate advocacy group, said

“BlackRock is trying to have it all ways, acting like it is trying to

please everyone.”

The efforts appear to be having an impact

beyond BlackRock, as well. At the annual meetings of big banks and oil

companies — including BP, ConocoPhillips, and Citi — shareholders voted

down climate proposals that would have slowed investments in fossil fuel

projects.

As the stock markets sink and concerns about inflation

grow, the pushback against environmental, social and governance

concerns is spreading.

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, waded into the debate. “ESG is a scam,”

he said on Twitter on this month. “It has been weaponized by phony

social justice warriors.” Shortly after that he shared a meme that

declared an ESG score “determines how compliant your business is with

the leftist agenda.”

:{And

last week, the global head of responsible investments for HSBC Asset

Management, Stuart Kirk, made a provocative presentation titled “Why

investors need not worry about climate risk” at a Financial Times event in London.}:

Describing

climate risk as a problem in the far-off future, Mr. Kirk said,

“Climate change is not a financial risk that we need to worry about,”

adding, “Who cares if Miami is six meters underwater in 100 years?”

That

view is at odds with the findings of the world’s leading climate

scientists. A major United Nations report warned last month that the

world could reach a threshold by the end of this decade beyond which the

dangers of global warming — including worsening floods, droughts and

wildfires — will grow considerably. In 2021, there were 20 weather or

climate-related disasters in the United States that each cost more than

$1 billion in losses, according to the federal government.

social media, Mr. Kirk was celebrated by some and derided by others. Top

executives at the bank said his words did not reflect HSBC’s position.The Financial Times reported that Mr. Kirk had been suspended, pending an internal investigation, something HSBC would not confirm. In a LinkedIn post, Noel Quinn, HSBC’s group chief executive, repeated the bank’s commitment to combating climate change.

“Our ambition is to be the leading bank supporting the global economy in the transition to net zero,” he said.

grab assets cheap on the promise to be less evil later?!

https://theconversation.com/engine-no-1s-big-win-over-exxon-shows-activist-hedge-funds-joining-fight-against-climate-change-159983

desjardins

One of the most expensive Wall Street shareholder battles on record could signal a big shift in how hedge funds and other investors view sustainability.

Exxon Mobil Corp. has been fending off a so-called proxy fight from a hedge fund known as Engine No. 1, which blames the energy giant’s poor performance in recent years on its failure to transition to a “decarbonizing world.” In a May 26, 2021 vote, Exxon shareholders approved at least two of the four board members Engine No. 1 nominated, dealing a major blow to the oil company. The vote is ongoing, and more of the hedge fund’s nominees may also soon be appointed.

While its focus has been on shareholder value, Engine No. 1 says it was also doing this to save the planet from the ravages of climate change. It has been pushing for a commitment from Exxon to carbon neutrality by 2050.

As business sustainability scholars, we can’t recall another time that an energy company’s shareholder – particularly a hedge fund – has been so effective and forceful in showing how a company’s failure to take on climate change has eroded shareholder value. That’s why we believe this vote marks a turning point for investors, who are well placed to nudge companies toward more sustainable business practices.

Hedge funds to the rescue?

Climate strategies aimed at saving the planet are an odd play for a hedge fund. Such investment firms are better known for getting companies to stop investing in this type of thing so they can collect quick profits.

Recent research undertaken by one of us found that activist hedge funds tend to target companies that spend more of their resources on these types of sustainability initiatives. That is, they buy shares of a company to gain influence and then convince other investors to join them in demanding efficiency enhancements and cost-cutting protocols to return more cash to shareholders. A follow-up study found that companies cut spending on sustainability initiatives within five years of a hedge fund getting involved.

In other words, hedge funds focus on short-term returns – not long-term concerns such as climate change or even a company’s own future profitability. And this is because of how hedge funds fundamentally operate.

Hedge funds usually charge their investors – often wealthy individuals and institutional investors – a 1% to 2% management fee in addition to a 20% cut of any gain in their investments. In return, these clients expect quick and substantial returns that substantially outperform the market.

Engine No. 1, a new type of hedge fund?

This is what makes Engine No. 1’s fight so interesting.

It began in early December 2020, shortly after tech investor Chris James launched Engine No. 1 with two other hedge fund industry veterans. The firm said it was “purpose-built to create long-term value by harnessing the power of capitalism.”

Engine No. 1’s first order of business was to pick a fight with one of the world’s largest energy companies, Exxon Mobil. It sent a letter to the company’s board on Dec. 7, 2020, urging it to focus on clean energy and shake up its board of directors – a bold move for an upstart investment firm with just a 0.02% stake in the nearly US$250 billion company.

But Exxon was an obvious target for this strategy. It has been a laggard on developing low-carbon fuels for years and has promoted misinformation about the human impact on climate change for decades.

After Exxon refused to commit to a transition to carbon neutrality, Engine No. 1 formally launched its proxy battle in March to force a change of strategy at the company, which traces its history back to 1870, when**John D. Rockefeller founded the Standard Oil Compan**y.

A proxy battle is when a group of shareholders tries to garner enough support from other investors – in the form of votes – to force a company to do what it wants, whether it’s to cut costs or change strategy.

Exxon said it expected to spend $35 million more than its usual costs to deal with the proxy battle; unfortunately, by increasing Exxon’s expenses, these are costs that are actually footed by investors. Engine No. 1 put its expenses at $30 million. The total cost, by some estimates, has exceeded $100 million.

Engine No. 1 was hoping to replace a third of the oil giant’s board of directors with four individuals who have more clean energy experience. The hedge fund was also seeking corporate governance reforms, a review of Exxon’s climate action plan – and its impact on the company’s finances – and greater public disclosure of its environmental and lobbying activities.

Even before the vote, the campaign was already changing the way Exxon does business. In the past few months, Exxon has proposed a $100 billion carbon capture project in Houston and committed $3 billion to low-emission technologies through a new venture.

Though Exxon denies any of these investments were due to pressure from Engine No. 1, it’s hard to believe the hedge fund wasn’t a catalyst. These are some of the biggest investments Exxon has proposed in sustainability in recent years, and they came right after pressure from the hedge fund – as well as the election of a new U.S. president who has made fighting climate change a priority.

Another likely reason for the new initiatives is that Engine No. 1’s campaign was enlisting significant support from other major Exxon investors, such as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which laid additional pressure on Exxon to do something about its lagging sustainability strategy.

So despite its pushback against Engine No. 1 and its proposed climate plan, clearly Exxon Mobil’s attention to its sustainability plans has been piqued.

What it all means

So why is Engine No. 1 really doing this – and do its motives matter?

While the firm is pushing hard for more investment in sustainability and clean energy, the focus in its statements on what’s driving this fight is mostly about shareholder value. And many of its demands, such as better long-term capital allocation strategy, a plan to enhance shareholder value and a “misaligned” management compensation, are straight out of a typical hedge fund’s playbook.

What we see as fundamentally different here is the emphasis the hedge fund is putting on the connection between sustainability and long-term profits. It makes a strong case that the reason Exxon’s financial position has been deteriorating is because of its failure to invest in low-carbon technologies.

Or, like a hedge fund, Exxon has been focusing on the short-term gains from fossil fuels at the expense of its long-term future in a global economy that puts a premium on sustainability and a penalty on carbon-intensive activities.

Moreover, the readiness of so many major investors – including thethree largest U.S. pension fundsandBlackRock, the world’s biggest investment manager with $7.4 trillion in assets under management – in joining Engine No. 1 shows which way the winds are blowing, which Exxon seems to now also realize.

So the vote itself isn’t the story here. It’s that the weight of activist hedge funds – the most potent form of shareholder activism – seems to be shifting in favor of sustainability. As we see it, this means companies and executives that don’t invest in the transition low-carbon energy will increasingly risk incurring their wrath.

how BlackRock is on track to infiltrate a Biden administration

Max Moran Independent Media Institute

October 22, 2020

The Democratic base, still scarred from the 2016 election, is frantic not to count its chickens before they hatch. But Wall Street and corporate America have no such qualms. As Joe Biden leads in national polls and swing states, the most powerful firms in the country are seeking assurances that his administration won't crack down on their crimes.

For many, that means tapping the Obama-era alumni...

https://stopthemoneypipeline.com/raymond-gets-demoted/

under Pressure, JP Morgan Chase Demotes Former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond from Board Leadership Role

MAY 2, 2020BY JAMIE HENN

New York, NY — Bowing to pressure from climate and shareholder activists, JP Morgan Chase will be demoting former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond from his Lead Independent Director position on the bank’s board. The news was buried in a filing with the SEC released on Friday.

Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 100 groups working to pressure Wall Street institutions to stop financing fossil fuels, have been pressuring JP Morgan Chase for months to kick Raymond off the board entirely.

Tens of thousands of activists with organizations such as the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and others have sent messages in recent months calling on Chase to remove Lee Raymond from the board. Tens of thousands more have sent messages to Chase’s largest shareholders — BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street — to vote against Lee Raymond at the bank’s upcoming annual general meeting.

“Shareholders have demanded that JPMorgan Chase be held accountable for its failure to address the systemic risks presented by climate change, and the announcement to remove Raymond from the lead independent director position is a clear victory for long-term shareholder value and the mitigation of climate risk. JPMorgan Chase shareholders will be best served when Raymond is removed from the board entirely,” saidEli Kasargod-Staub, executive director of Majority Action.

On April 24, Bill McKibben, an environmental author and a leader of the Stop the Money Pipeline campaign, wrote aneditorial in the New York Timescalling for Chase shareholders to vote against Raymond at the bank’s upcoming shareholder meeting.

McKibben reacted to today’s news by saying, “This is the man who, more than any other, exemplifies the fossil fuel industry’s decades of climate denial. That he’s retreating under pressure from the climate movement is a moment of real historical significance.”

The effort to remove Raymond from the board gained an important ally when NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer announced that he would be urging JPMorgan Chase & Co shareholders to vote against Raymond’s re-election. The comptrollers of Pennsylvania and New York state soon followed his lead.

“This move helps ensure improved oversight of the board and the company’s long-term strategy when it comes to transitioning to a low carbon economy. But our work does not stop here,”said Comptroller Stringer.“JPMorgan has been the largest global lender and underwriter to the fossil fuel sector, providing $269 billion in financing to fossil fuel expansion from 2016 to 2019. The company needs to move away from financing the dirty fossil fuels of the past and toward the big, strategic clean energy investments of the future. There must be no place for a climate change denier and former Exxon CEO on JPMorgan’s board.”

Stop the Money Pipeline is celebrating today’s news as a win, while vowing to keep up pressure on JP Morgan Chase to kick Raymond off the board entirely and move forward on climate. JP Morgan Chase is the world’s number one banker of fossil fuels, having dumped over $268 billion into coal, oil and gas since 2016 according to theBanking on Climate Change report.

Members of the Stop the Money Pipeline Coalition reacted to the significance of today’s announcement:

“Lee Raymond’s demotion is a testament to the power of the growing movement calling on Chase to get its act together on climate,” saidSierra Club campaign representative Ben Cushing. “Removing one of the world’s leading climate deniers from the bank’s Lead Independent Director position is a sign of progress. Our movement will keep up the pressure to vote him out entirely and push Chase to stop the flow of money to the polluters driving the climate crisis.”

“My family lost everything in Sandy, which was a climate change disaster. More than maybe any other corporate executive, Lee Raymond is responsible for climate change. JP Morgan Chase should clean up its dirty act and its shareholders should boot this climate denier off the bank’s board of directors, not just sideline him as lead independent director,”said Rachel Rivera, a Sandy survivor and member of New York Communities for Change.

“The ousting of Lee Raymond from his leadership role on the JPMorgan Chase board is a historic win for climate activists against the fossil oligarchs and climate deniers who once held sway over Wall Street,” saidPaddy McCully, Climate and Energy Program Director of Rainforest Action Network. “JPMorgan Chase shareholders now need to vote Raymond right off the bank’s board and vote for the resolutions that would force Chase to reckon with the reputational damage from its tar sands and Arctic oil and gas financing, show how they will align with the Paris Agreement, and stop Jamie Dimon from being his own boss due to his positions as both CEO and board chair.”

“Lee Raymond’s demotion loosens Big Oil’s stranglehold on Chase, another signal that the power of the oil industry is waning. But Raymond’s tenure at Chase not over until this climate-denying fossil fool is kicked off the board completely,” saidDoug Norlen, Director, Economic Policy Program, Friends of the Earth U.S.

“It’s a good step, but let’s remember that Lee Raymond bears criminal responsibility for the climate crisis. The fact that he isn’t being removed from the board entirely shows where Chase’s priorities remain,”said Alec Connon, 350 Seattle

“People power got us to this point and people power is what will eventually force JP Morgan from its pedestal as the largest banker of fossil fuels in the world. There’s no place for a climate denying mastermind on the board of any bank. This is a first step in the right direction to clear him out. All JP Morgan shareholders should be paying close attention to this defensive move by the bank and vote to unseat Lee Raymond.” saidRichard Brooks, Campaign Coordinator with 350.org.

“While the demotion of Lee Raymond is good news for climate progress at JP Morgan Chase, it does not absolve BlackRock of the need to demonstrate that it will actually act upon the climate commitments it made in January. To pass the climate test, BlackRock mustvote pro-climateon resolution and board votes at JP Morgan, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and more,” saidMoira Birss, Climate and Finance Director at Amazon Watch.

https://www.crediblecarbon.com/news-and-info/news/fossildespite-emergency-belligerent-exxon-refuses-to-act-on-climate-at-agm-oil-change-international/

Despite Emergency, Belligerent Exxon Refuses to Act on Climate at AGM – Oil Change International

MAY 28, 2020

BY ANDY ROWELLBLOG POSTC:350.org

Yesterday, Big Oil behemoth Exxon held its Annual General Meeting, where the company and its shareholders once again fundamentally flunked the climate test.

For years, activists and progressive shareholders have been trying to get the company to act on climate and divest from oil and gas and transition swiftly into renewables.

They have pointed to the fact that Exxon has known for decades about climate change but still carried on drilling, whilst funding a huge network of right-wing groups to deny the science over climate.

But Exxon is an oil company to its black core.Other oil majors, such as Shelland BP, may be trying at least make the symbolic gesture of going carbon neutral by 2050, even though critics say the plans are flawed and not ambitious enough.:{But no so Exxon, it cannot be bothered to even do that.

The company is still blinded by a “*drill, baby, drill”* mentality that is hurtling us toward climate catastrophe.It is also losing its shareholders billions}:in investments as the company’s share price has plummeted due to COVID-19.

Exxon still has the most radical expansion plan of any oil major, despite a longstanding campaign of investor groups to bring the company in line with climate goals.

The Challenge establishes a clear “climate-safe” boundary for any financing to the fossil fuel industry. It outlines simply how companies such as Exxon should only be eligible for investment if they commit to stop expansion of fossil fuels and release a detailed plan for a phase out.

One of the organizations signing on was Oil Change International (OCI). Hannah McKinnon, the Energy Transitions and Futures Program Director from OCI, said: “Maintaining a safe climate requires an ambitious just transition away from fossil fuel production starting now.” McKinnon added that “New production is not Paris-compatible and investors should plan a fast exit from any company that says otherwise.”

The disinvestment campaign has been joined by BlackRock, the world’s largest fund manager, often seen as a climate villain itself, which is one of the company’s largest shareholders. The investment company, which owns about 5 per cent of Exxon, lodged multiple votes against the oil giant over the oil company’s failure to make progress on its climate change targets.

BlackRockalso voted in favor of a shareholder motion that proposes splitting the role of chief executive and chairman, something campaigners have been calling for decades trying to make the oil company more accountable for its disastrous climate policy.

However, according to *Reuters* underCEO Darren Woods, the company “blocked six climate resolutions from this year’s ballot.” Moreover, only a third of shareholders backed the proposal to split the CEO and Chairman.

This means that Exxon, which has been bruised, battered, and bloodied by a catastrophic collapse in the oil price, and is hemorrhaging money, wants us all to drive over a climate cliff too. It is reckless corporate behavior, which the executives must know will cost lives.

Indeed with a timing that is deeply ironic, the morning of the AGM, the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, one of the leading climate research institutes in the world, concluded that the “human fingerprint on the climate is now unmistakable”after 30 years of tracking the impact of humans on our changing climate.

Peter Stott, a Professor and expert on climate attribution science at the Hadley Centre, told the *Guardian*: “The climate now is completely different from what we had 30 years ago. It is completely outside the bounds of possibility in natural variation.”

He added “Reality has proven that what we were saying 20 to 30 years ago was right. As scientists, that is vindication… The worry is that we are now taking risks globally that we don’t fully understand… there will be no winners of climate change if we continue.”

And more than most it is Exxon’s dirty fingerprints all over our climate catastrophe. By the time the Hadley Centre was set up in 1990, Exxon knew that its emissions were causing climate change. It could have acted. But it did not. Instead it did the opposite and funded decades of denial. By doing so its finger have slowly tightened around our collective necks. It is time to break their dangerous grip before it is too late.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/the-end-of-oil-adds-to-fossil-fuel-glut-but-19-relief-money-flows-to-oil-industry/

as the coronavirus pandemic contributes to a glut of fossil fuels, groups like Greenpeace are calling on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to ban fossil fuel interests from his campaign and administration, if he wins, even as he recently declared at a campaign stop that he “will not ban fracking.” We discuss the politics of fossil fuels with reporter Antonia Juhasz, who says the end of oil could be near, and look at how the industry has profited from theCOVIDbailout. “The pandemic has taken essentially every weakness that already existed in the oil industry and then made each of them much, much worse, leaving the oil industry in a situation where I would argue it is at its weakest since its inception,” she says.

GOODMAN:Longtime Massachusetts senator and Green New Deal champion Ed Markey won his primary against challenger Congressmember Joe Kennedy III Tuesday, marking a victory for progressives and the first time a Kennedy has lost an election in the state of Massachusetts. Senator Markey secured 54% of the vote in a primary race seen by many as a showdown between the Democratic establishment and its new and growing progressive wing. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed Kennedy, while Markey had the support of New York Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the youth-led Sunrise Movement. The Sunrise Movement tweeted in response to the victory, quote, “After winning elections across the country, you think we’re gonna stop now? They wish. We will protest outside the halls of Congress while our allies on the inside negotiate the Green New Deal,” they said.

This comes as Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said he would not ban fracking during a speech in Pittsburgh. A group of 145 organizations, including Sunrise Movement and Greenpeace, have released a letter calling on Biden to ban fossil fuel interests from his campaign and administration, if he wins. The letter reads, quote, “To advance environmental justice, you must stand up to fossil fuel CEOs, stop the expansion of oil, gas and coal production, and rapidly transition us away from fossil fuels,” unquote.

This comes as the global oil industry is in crisis with falling demand and crashing prices exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. Despite this, fossil fuel companies continue to pump out an excess of oil, much of it stored on tankers in the ocean. In May, as 390 million barrels of oil and gas sat in storage on the world’s oceans, Greenpeace activists sailed out along the San Francisco Bay, unfurling a banner saying “Oil Is Over! The Future Is Up to You.”

GREENPEACE ACTIVIST:I’m here in San Francisco Bay, where floating oil storage tankers are now idling, storing oil that no one wants and where we have nowhere to put.

AMY GOODMAN: Despite this, Congress has poured billions of dollars of COVID relief funds into bailing out the fossil fuel industry.

We go now to Boulder, Colorado, where we’re joined by Antonia Juhasz, an oil and energy reporter, a Bertha fellow in investigative journalism. And her recent cover story for Sierra magazine is “The End of Oil Is Near,” along with another report, “Bailout: Billions of Dollars of Federal COVID-19 Relief Money Flow to the Oil Industry.” She’s the author of several books, most recently, Black Tide: The Devastating Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill.

Antonia, welcome back to Democracy Now! Let’s start with the pandemic and this glut of oil. I don’t know if people realize that — some call them armadas of oil tankers, are docked off coasts, everywhere from the United States to Africa to Asia. Explain what the pandemic — how it relates to the oil industry.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, I think the most important place to start — and thanks for having me on this morning — is that the problems that have been plaguing the oil industry, that have led to the glut in oil that we’re experiencing right now, well precede the COVID-19 pandemic, that the pandemic has taken essentially every weakness that already existed in the oil industry and then made each of them much, much worse, leaving the oil industry in a situation where it is right now, where I would argue it is at its weakest since its inception, and, essentially, public policy and public will will now determine the fate of the oil industry, period.

And how we got to this place, where the height of this problem was in June with just oil tankers stacked up — anyone who lived on a coast would have seen pretty much these armadas of oil tankers that were holding oil. How we got to that place was, essentially, years of the oil industry obsessively overproducing a product of shrinking value and shrinking demand. So, starting in 2015, the growth in demand for oil worldwide started to fall, and it fell precipitously from 2017 to 2019. The price of oil was falling, but the companies and the countries just kept producing more and more and more and more, with the United States one of the leading countries.

At the same time, you’ve got movements that are successfully weakening demand, desperately trying to get off this product, increasing the value and accessibility of alternatives, reducing the political payoff for supporting the oil industry, and the economic payoffs just dwindling, the companies falling in profits, falling in share value, investors not wanting to put money backing these companies’ plays, and a worse and worse and worse and worse financial situation for the companies and the countries producing it. But they kept producing, so you have this glut of buildup.

Then comes COVID-19. COVID-19 happens. We’re all in lockdown. Demand for oil products just craters into the ground. And at the same time, the companies and the countries keep producing more oil, which led to an even greater glut, which led to the oil being stored offshore in tankers.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet you have COVID-19 money, with how many tens of millions of people out of work, people desperate for support, small businesses. So much of that COVID money is going to bail out the largest corporations, oil corporations.

ANTONIA JUHASZ:Yeah.So, you had — first you had the Trump administration say, and Trump himself say, “We’re going to design a ballot specifically for the oil and gas industry.” And there was tremendous pushback against that in the public, and Democrats in Congress said, “No, that’s not going to happen.” So, instead, what we ended up getting is three, essentially, stealth mechanisms that have really heavily tried to prop up this industry, that, left without that support, we would see a much greater shrinkage than we’re seeing right now, although we’re already seeing a good deal of shrinkage.

But so, these three mechanismswere, first, in the CARES Act, the Paycheck Protection Program, documented — a research organization did research for me for my Sierra magazine articles, that found 7,000 oil and gas companies receiving as much as $7 billion in Paycheck Protection Program money. Because the oil and gas industry is dominated by white men, globally and nationally — those are the people that own the companies, and in the U.S. a good deal of the workforce is white men — that also contributed to the overall bias of the PPP program towards white male-owned businesses, so they got Paycheck Protection Program money, which has propped up a lot of companies that wouldn’t — certainly wouldn’t have made it on their own.

Then you had tax loopholes snuck into the CARES Act, which Democrats are trying to close in this next version of the CARES Act, that allowed over $3 billion to go to at least 50 publicly traded oil and gas companies, and probably many, many more, because we only know about the publicly traded ones because they have to report it in their reports to the Security Exchange Commission, and private companies don’t have to do that.

But I would say the most problematic pot is this unprecedented move to have the Federal Reserve, for the first time — so, excuse me, the American taxpayer, through the Federal Reserve, for the first time, now become owners in oil company debt.So, the Federal Reserve set up, throughBlackRock, several different mechanisms to try to prop up the economy. And through two measures, the oil industry has received inordinate support. And the research group InfluenceMap looked at one of these mechanisms and found that the Federal Reserve’s funding is overweighted in fossil fuels.So, through BlackRock, you and I, the American taxpayer, are now owners in debt, through the Fed, of Exxon, of Chevron, of Energy Transfer Partners, of Phillips 66, of Schlumberger,which is a company that just moved itself out of U.S. fracking altogether, after we bought up their debt.

So we are literally, through the Federal Reserve, propping up the oil industry at a time when, you know, for a huge host of reasons — climate crisis, environmental justice, the lives of people who live next to oil and gas facilities — that we need to allow this industry to do what it would be doing on its own anyway, which is going away, because the world is trying — and succeeding — in moving away from this resource.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/citing-climate-change-blackrock-will-start-moving-away-from-fossil-fuels

4/27/20

aha sys fail insanity: no brainer to stop subsidizing ?! banks keep loaning $ to frack tho NEVER MADE A PROFIT?! NOW GOV'T BAILOUT HAMM ETP KELCY; EXXON AND CHEVRON LOOKING TO BANKRUPT SMALL INDEP [THAT DJT CLAIMS TO CARE ABOUT] BUY UP ASSETS CHEAP METHANEWHICH ARE FRYING THE PLANET; MEANWHILE COVIS DEMOS FAIL OF LIBTARD, WE HAVE WINDOW GND, WAY CHEAPER THEN CLEAN UP COVID MESS WHICH HIT US B/C WE TAKE OUT HABITAT AND EAT WILD ANIMALS

icn 420

super-Polluting Methane Emissions Twice Federal Estimates in Permian Basin, Study Finds

BY: PHIL MCKENNA

The methane is a byproduct of fracking for oil, often burned off at well heads or emitted into the atmosphere instead of being captured for use as fuel.

covid bail bill

cf antonia juhaz bakken bailout? oil -40$ bakken, 200b$ debt; in 2008 oil 150$, many poor cty could not afford, helped trigger Gt Recession?

amazonwatch 320

Last week, we released agroundbreaking report exposing five major financial institutions– JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup,BlackRock, HSBC and Goldman Sachs – whichcontinue to pour billions into oil extraction in the western Amazondespite their recently celebrated climate commitments.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-08/republican-senators-want-to-help-coal-get-u-s-bailout-money

Politics

Republican Senators Want to Help Coal Get U.S. Bailout Money

A group of 17 lawmakers sent a letter calling on the Fed to be “broad and flexible” in its distribution of bailout funds.

By Akshat Rathi

Cooling towers belonging to the Tennessee Valley Authority Paradise Fossil Plant, a generating station that used to burn coal mined by Murray Energy Holdings Co., are seen in Paradise, Kentucky, U.S., on Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2019. Photographer: Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg

LISTEN TO ARTICLE

3:52

A group of powerful Republican senators wants to make sure the bailout program being administered by BlackRock Inc. on behalf of the federal government won’t leave fossil-fuel companies behind.

The U.S. government tapped BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, to become the buyer of corporate bonds as part of a $454 billion effort to bail out companies hit by the coronavirus lockdown. That triggered a letter from Greenpeace, Sierra Club, 350.org and other environmental organizations on March 27 urging Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to weigh climate risk in its guidelines for BlackRock as it decides what sectors of the economy get financial support.

Now, in a letter sent Tuesday, a group of 17 Republican senators, including James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Ted Cruz of Texas, are asking Powell and U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchinto ensure that fossil-fuel companies aren’t excluded from the bailout program being administered by BlackRock.

The pandemic has created an unprecedented upheaval in the global economy. With governments around the world pouring huge sums of money into propping up struggling companies, climate advocates see an opportunity to speed up the transition to clean energy and make entire industries as green as possible. Republican lawmakers have opposed this encroachment from environmental groups, pushing back and largely succeeding so far in separating stimulus spending from climate concerns.

Senate Leaders Meet As Secretary Mnuchin Sees Emergency Package On Track For Monday Passage

Senator Kevin Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota]

Led by Kevin Cramer, Senator from North Dakota, the group of Republican lawmakers seeking to safeguard fossil-fuel companies in the bailout draws heavily from states with concentrations of coal, oil, and gas extraction. Wyoming Senator John Barrasso,who also signed the letter, heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

A Top Financier of Trump and McConnell Is a Driving Force Behind Amazon Deforestation

About a third of that beef is exported by JBS, the spectacularly corruptBrazilian meat-packing conglomerate BlackRock is heavily invested in. But even as Fink publicly urged business leaders to consider their environmental impact, BlackRock increased its stake in JBS by $41 million between 2016 and 2018, according to research conducted for Friends of the Earth.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, The Guardian, and Repórter Brasil revealed in February that a giant ranching company that was fined for using deforested Amazon land delivered hundreds of heads of cattle raised in the Amazon to other farms the firm owned for fattening. Cattle was later sent from those farms to slaughter at JBS plants.

It’s not just private American capital that is funding the destruction of the Amazon. Public money is at work, too. President Donald Trump has been compensating American farmers hurt by his trade war to the tune of billions of dollars, and $62 million of that has gone to JBS, because the company has an American subsidiary.

As Colorado’s Greeley Tribune reported in May, “JBS USA secured nine contracts for federal purchases of JBS pork since mid-January, totaling nearly 18.5 million pounds of pork for $40.1 million. That’s in addition to previously awarded contracts for nearly 9.8 million pounds of pork for $22.3 million. In total, the company, a subsidy of Brazil-based JBS SA, will receive $62.4 million from the program, which is meant to mitigate trade war impacts to local farmers.”

In 2016, Fink was angling to become treasury secretary under Hillary Clinton.Fink was on the short listto replace Tim Geithner as President Obama’s treasury secretary, and in 2013, hired Cheryl Mills, a close aide to Clinton, at BlackRock. Just ahead of the 2016 election, he was endorsed for the position by Steve Schwarzman,a top Republican donor and the co-founder and CEO of Blackstone. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had promised to work to block any Clinton nominees from BlackRock.

BlackRock began as a fund inside of Blackstone, but Fink and Schwarzman had a falling out in the 1990s that led to a split. As The Intercept reported earlier this week, Blackstone is also heavily involved in deforestation of the Amazon, through its financing of highway and port projects that facilitate agribusiness.

According to a recent study by Amazon Watch, a nonprofit monitoring group, AgroSB, the JBS supplier, was fined in 2017 and 2018 by Brazil’s main environmental agency, known by its Portuguese acronym IBAMA. That agency has lost a quarter of its funding since January, when Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a far-right former army captain, took office promising to roll back protection for the Amazon to boost agribusiness. Government data provided to Reuters by opposition lawmakers showed that the cuts to IBAMA’s budget included a 23 percent reduction in funding for the prevention and control of forest fires.

This summer, the New York Times reported, “Ibama was unable to carry out operations in the state of Pará, where deforestation has been soaring, because the local police officers would not provide backup.”

As the Amazon burns, Bolsonaro has mocked environmentalists for nicknaming him “Captain Chainsaw,” disputed data from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research showing that deforestation in the Amazon was up 88 percent in June compared to the same month in 2018, promised “to develop this wonderful region called the Amazon,” and even promoted a conspiracy theory that local environmentalists, not ranchers, had started the fires there.

...

===

new 919

:{Amazon Destruction Financed by BlackRock, World’s Biggest Investment Firm | Take Action Tuesday @EarthFoodLife:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}:

NEW

By representing millions of everyday investors, these money managers have the power to sway fossil fuel companies to take real action on climate change.Tell BlackRock and Vanguard to vote for climate and democracy at ExxonMobil's and Chevron's shareholder meetings next month.

If you have a 401(k) or other retirement account, there's a good chance these money managers are speaking for you.

capt recover 6/18

===

not to be confused with blackSTONE schwarzman

black rock group (two words is forti astroturf?)

===

https://shadowproof.com/:{2009:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:/11/01/big-pharma-front-group-60-plus-scaring-seniors-with-2m-ad-buy/

In a new out this week, the group “60 Plus” asserts that seniors would lose access to doctors, treatments, and life-saving drugs if the Democratic health care plan is adopted. The group, with ties to the national GOP and almost fully funded by the pharmaceutical industry, is pumping $2 million dollars into airing the ad in eight states, including Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

The ad includes the standard scare tactics about proposed cuts to Medicare “to pay for a plan that could lead to a government takeover of health care.” An older man pleads at the end of the ad, “Don’t make us pay for health care reform by cutting Medicare. We’ve sacrificed enough.” The ad targets individual Senators in those eight states, Democrats and Republicans who are potential swing votes on health care. This is an extension of ads from 60 Plus that started back in August. They’ve also sent out mailers to seniors featuring similar dire warnings.

Not mentioned in the ad is the makeup of the organization 60 Plus, a kind of conservative counter to the AARP. Among their past contributions to the national debate are advocacy against the “death tax” and for “saving Social Security,” which they label as their top priorities. And their website claims that 60 Plus is “a non-partisan seniors advocacy group.” But the ties to national Republicans and industry lobbyists are numerous, as the Center for Media and Democracy’s Sourcewatch has detailed.

According to Sourcewatch, Jim Martin, the President of 60 Plus, has a long affiliation with the Republican Party and “claims to have given then-‘Texas Gov. George W. Bush his first political job … way back in 1967.’” The PR contact on thepress release touting their latest adisCarl Forti, the former communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, national political director for Mitt Romney’s 2008 Presidential campaign, and the executive VP at FreedomWatch, which has been active in the tea party movement and the anti-health care town hall meetings back in August. Forti now runs the Black Rock Group, which he founded.This Politico articledetailsForti and Black Rock’s key involvement in trying to exploit a loophole in FEC rules to basically gut campaign finance law and allow “individual corporations to coordinate with no restrictions their own advertising and direct mail attacks on candidates.”

And that really looks like what 60 Plus is already doing, to some extent. 60 Plus has been a front group for the pharmaceutical industry since its inception. It was part of a coalition called Citizens for Better Medicarefinanced mainly with pharma money, which spent around $65 million dollars during the 2000 elections. That relationship has only expanded from there, with 60 Plus aiding fights at the state and national level for the drug lobby. From Sourcewatch:

In 2002, 60 Plus fought state legislation that would create formularies, or lists of preferred, lower-cost prescription drugs for Medicaid patients.60 Plus fought “such legislation in Minnesota and New Mexico,” with assistance from theBonner & Associatesfirm, which specializes in astroturf lobbying. “The firm’s paid callers, reading from scripts that identified them as representatives of 60 Plus, urged residents to ask their governors to veto the legislation. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. later said it had paid Bonner & Associates to make the calls,” reported AARP. At the time, 60 Plus president Jim Martin denied “anyone was misled. ‘The callers had an outline,’ said Martin. ‘This is an important issue that impacts people’s health.'”

“In its 2001 fiscal year, 60 Plus got a total of $275,000 from PhRMA(the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), CBM (Citizens for Better Medicare) and three drug companies (Merck, Pfizer and Wyeth-Ayerst) plus another $300,000 from Hanwha International Corp., the U.S. subsidiary of a Korean conglomerate with chemical and pharmaceutical interests — amounts that made up about 29 percent of its revenue,” reported AARP.

60 Plus supported a lawsuit by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America against the state of Maine (in a “friend of the court” brief) for daring to try to pass a law that will authentically reduce prices for Medicare drugs by allowing the state to buy in bulk directly from manufacturers. It has also joined a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission regarding campaign reform (specifically in support of soft money for issue ads).

In the 2002 election campaigns, 60 Plus paid for issue ads on local radio and TV stations across the country saying that local Republican candidates “care for seniors” so much that they “passed a prescription drug bill” that “saved us from an inept government bureaucracy meddling with health plan benefits.”

Bonner and Associates, you recall, is the group which sent fake letters to members of Congress opposing climate and energy legislation, the recent subject of a Congressional investigation.

In a sense, 60 Plus exists in a long continuum with other conservative movement front groups and recipients of corporate money. They date back to direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie, and they have ties to conservative movement types like Jack Abramoff,:{according to}:{. They have multiple connections to GOP lobbyists and movement types, including}:the former head of the Virginia Republican Party:{. And in an amusing additional bit of information, the current national spokesman for 60 Plus is Republican activist and alleged entertainer Pat Boone.}:

But clearly, the wing of the conservative movement funding 60 Plus and directing its attacks is the pharmaceutical lobby. AARP did the definitive work on this subject a few years back, finding that “virtually all of (60 Plus’) largest contributions in recent years have come from the same source—the nation’s pharmaceutical industry.”In 2002, 60 Plus received 91% of its total revenue – $11 million dollars – fromone undisclosed donor, which the Washington Postreportedlined up perfectly with “an unrestricted educational grant” to 60 Plus from PhRMa, the drugmaker lobby group. Jim Martin, the 60 Plus President, has acknowledged in interviews that it received money from pharmaceuticals, saying “I wish it was more.”

A call to Carl Forti,the spokesman for the new 60 Plus ad, was not returned.

===

see also inc

Larry Fink | BlackRock

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-ch/about-us/leadership/larry-fink

https://www.google.com/search?q=Larry+Fink%2C+CEO+of+BlackRock&oq=Larry+Fink%2C+CEO+of+BlackRock&aqs=chrome..69i57.1655j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Mvnzz4-L4B0J:https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-ch/about-us/leadership/larry-fink+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-ch/about-us/leadership/larry-fink+Larry+Fink,+CEO+of+BlackRock&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE6-egqffQAhXLzFQKHdHDBkEQHwggMAA

:{:{Larry Fink:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. :{Laurence D. Fink:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: is Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive ... by Fortune in 2016, ":{CEO:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of the Decade" by Financial News in 2011, and one of the ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Laurence D. Fink - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_D._**Fink**

https://www.google.com/search?q=Larry+Fink%2C+CEO+of+BlackRock&oq=Larry+Fink%2C+CEO+of+BlackRock&aqs=chrome..69i57.1655j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JtyIPo-NneYJ:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_D._Fink+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_D._Fink+Larry+Fink,+CEO+of+BlackRock&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE6-egqffQAhXLzFQKHdHDBkEQHwgmMAE

:{Laurence Douglas ":{Larry:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:" :{Fink:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (born 1952) is an American financial executive. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of :{BlackRock:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, an American ... In 2003, Fink helped to negotiate the resignation of the :{CEO:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of the New York Stock ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Early life and education · ‎Career · ‎Community involvement · ‎Personal life

Blackstone CEO Endorses BlackRock's Larry Fink for Treasury Secretary

fortune.com/2016/11/08/blackrock-larry-fink-blackstone-treasury-secretary/

https://www.google.com/search?q=Larry+Fink%2C+CEO+of+BlackRock&oq=Larry+Fink%2C+CEO+of+BlackRock&aqs=chrome..69i57.1655j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c03On5sjOI0J:fortune.com/2016/11/08/blackrock-larry-fink-blackstone-treasury-secretary/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

:{Nov 8, 2016 -Laurence ":{Larry:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:" :{Fink:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, chairman and :{CEO of BlackRock:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, speaks during the :{BlackRock:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Asia Media Forum in Hong Kong on May 17, 2016.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

**==**

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c03On5sjOI0J:fortune.com/2016/11/08/blackrock-larry-fink-blackstone-treasury-secretary/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

**wiki**

A **hedge fund** is an investment fund that can undertake a wider range of investment and trading activities than other funds, but which is only open for investment from particular types of investors specified by regulators. These investors are typically institutions, such as pension funds, university endowments and foundations, or high net worth individuals. As a class, hedge funds invest in a diverse range of assets, but they most commonly trade liquid securities on public markets. They also employ a wide variety of investment strategies, and make use of techniques such as short selling and leverage.

===

Blackrock is "far and away the largest money manager on the planet," a distinction it earned in December 2009 following the finalization of a $13.5 billion acquisition of Barclays Global Investors.[1][2] Blackrock CEO Larry Fink "watches funds equal to a little less than four times the current U.S. budget."[3] Additionally, According to Vanity Fair:[4] "A global colossus—with $3.3 trillion in assets under its direct management and another $9 trillion it supports—BlackRock manages about $1 trillion of pension and retirement funds for millions of Americans and oversees the investments of scores of institutions around the world: from state and local governments to college endowments, from Fortune 500 companies to the sovereign-wealth funds of, among others, Abu Dhabi and Singapore." At the time of the **Deepwater Horizon** blowout, Blackrock was the single largest shareholder of **BP**.**[5]**

BlackRock and its CEO, Fink, both gained from the 2008 financial crisis and the bailouts that followed. Vanity Fair continues, saying:[6] "Today, through an array of government contracts, BlackRock has effectively become the leading manager of Washington’s bailout of Wall Street." Blackrock oversees $130 billion in toxic assets for the U.S. government (assets the U.S. government "took on" in the Bear Stearns sale and the A.I.G. rescue). Additionally, BlackRock provides services to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the New York Fed.

Contents[hide]

1 Articles and resources

Articles and resources

References

↑ Graydon Carter, "Wild on the Street", Vanity Fair, April 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010.
↑ Suzanna Andrews, "Larry Fink’s $12 Trillion Shadow", Vanity Fair, April 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010
↑ Graydon Carter, "Wild on the Street", Vanity Fair, April 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010.
↑ Suzanna Andrews, "Larry Fink’s $12 Trillion Shadow", Vanity Fair, April 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010
↑ John Collins Rudolf, "Just How British is BP?", New York Times, June 14, 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010
↑ Suzanna Andrews, "Larry Fink’s $12 Trillion Shadow", Vanity Fair, April 2010, Accessed August 8, 2010

External resources

External articles

Graydon Carter, "Wild on the Street", Vanity Fair, April 2010.
Suzanna Andrews, "Larry Fink’s $12 Trillion Shadow", Vanity Fair, April 2010

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

Categories: Stubs | Deepwater Horizon

scary error msg

https://firedoglake.com/2010/12/31/audit-the-fed-a-success-through-transpartisan-activism/

The Fed reported on the usage of its many programs on December 1. You can see those results for yourself here. The initial release of data did not cause a market crash, as the scaremongers from the opposition predicted. It did show that an enormous amount of money was transferred to Wall Street.

There were interesting nuggets. Remember Steve Schwartzman, billionaire co-founder of hedge fund BlackRock, which went public in 2007 at $31 per share? Schwartzman is the guy who compared the effort to get rid of a huge tax break for him and his fellow hedge fund managers to the “Nazi invasion of Poland”? BlackRock entities, about 110 of them, used the Temporary Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to raise $2.8 billion. They usedthis cheap money to buy asset backed securities, like auto loans and credit card receivables. The Wall Street Journal reports that these purchases resulted in gains as high as 48%, and that returns in the 20-40% range were common. The Sunlight Foundation explains how the subsidy worked:

Bank of America was able to take advantage of the program by not only selling its assets through the program, but also to profit from non-recourse loans made to BlackRock, in which BofA has a seven percent ownership interest. BlackRock received $2.7 billion in loans from the TALF program to purchase assets. At the same time, Bank of America was also able to sell assets through the program to various investors that received more than $2 billion in federally-backed loans in order to do so. In total, $4.8 billion in loans benefited BofA.

Not only will Bank of America potentially profit from the subsidy BlackRock received from the Fed, but it was also able to increase its liquidity by selling its assets to other subsidized borrowers. According to the New York Times, “Federal auditors worried about firms like BlackRock, warning that such firms could use federally guaranteed loans to overpay for assets, creating a potential conflict of interest.”

The Fed took almost all the risk, and there was no reason to cut Schwartzman and his ilk in on the massive profits. But for Schwartzman, massive gifts from the Fed are the natural order of things. HIgher income taxes, on the other hand, are warfare. BlackRock stock was $14.28 when I checked today. The list of Fed beneficiaries will, if nothing else, add new ammunition to our capitalist hypocrisy posts.

Even the Wall Street Journal was grudgingly impressed:

The release of this data on some 21,000 Fed transactions over the last three years is one of the rare useful provisions in Dodd-Frank, but kudos to our favorite Socialist for demanding it.

It made important admissions:

We learn, for example, that the cream of Wall Street received even more multibillion-dollar assistance than previously advertised by either the banks or the Fed. Goldman Sachs used the Primary Dealer Credit Facility 85 times to the tune of nearly $600 billion. Even in Washington, that’s still a lot of money. Morgan Stanley used the same overnight lending program 212 times from March 2008 to March 2009. This news makes it impossible to argue that either bank would have survived the storm without the Fed’s cash.

It’s fun to be right, and it’s fun to win. It’s also fun to produce information that embarrasses the Lords of Finance, who got free money from the Fed and jumped into the gutter to scoop up dimes from their wounded brethren.

The political director of American Crossroads is Carl Forti, a veteran operative specializing in running independent expenditure campaigns. Forti ran an $80 million operation at the NRCC in 2006. The Crossroads family that Forti runs has spent $26 million on independent expenditures so far this cycle.

Forti also runs the communications strategy firm Black Rock Group with Michael Dubke. Dubke also operates the organization Crossroads Media, which is not directly associated with the Crossroads family. Crossroads Media, however, is the media company for the Crossroads family and has received $20.89 million from American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS for media and advertising services.

tcc one %:

Further, Freeport-McMoRan is connected to one of the most elite transnational capitalist groups in the world: over 7 percent of Freeport’s stock is held by BlackRock, Inc., a major investment management firm based in New York City.

The Investment Sector: The Case of BlackRock, Inc.

Internationally, many firms operate primarily as investment organizations, managing capital and investing in other companies. These firms often do not actually make anything except money, and are keen to prevent interference with return on capital by taxation, regulations, and governmental interventions anywhere in the world.

BlackRock, based in Manhattan, is the largest assets management firm in the world, with over 10,000 employees and investment teams in twenty-seven countries. Their client base includes corporate, public, union, and industry pension plans; governments; insurance companies; third-party mutual funds; endowments; foundations; charities; corporations; official institutions; sovereign wealth funds; banks; financial professionals; and individuals worldwide. BlackRock acquired Barclay Global Investors in December of 2009. As of March 2012, BlackRock manages assets worth $3.68 trillion in equity, fixed income, cash management, alternative investment, real estate, and advisory strategies.[xxiii]

In addition to Freeport-McMoRan, BlackRock has major holdings in Chevron (49 million shares, 2.5 percent), Goldman Sachs Group (13 million shares, 2.7 percent), Exxon Mobil (121 million shares, 2.5 percent), Bank of America (251 million shares, 2.4 percent), Monsanto Company (12 million shares, 2.4 percent), Microsoft Corp. (185 million shares, 2.2 percent), and many more.[xxiv]

BlackRock manages investments of both public and private funds, including California Public Employee’s Retirement System, California State Teacher’s Retirement System, Freddie Mac, Boy Scouts of America, Boeing, Sears, Verizon, Raytheon, PG&E, NY City Retirement Systems, LA County Employees Retirement Association, GE, Cisco, and numerous others.

According to BlackRock’s April 2011 annual report to stockholders, the board of directors consists of eighteen members. The board is classified into three equal groups—Class I, Class II, and Class III—with terms of office of the members of one class expiring each year in rotation. Members of one class are generally elected at each annual meeting and serve for full three-year terms, or until successors are elected and qualified. Each class consists of approximately one-third of the total number of directors constituting the entire board of directors.

BlackRock has stockholder agreements with Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation; and Barclays Bank PLC and its subsidiaries. Two to four members of the board are from BlackRock management; one director is designated by Merrill Lynch; two directors, each in a different class, are designated by PNC Bank; two directors, each in a different class, are designated by Barclays; and the remaining directors are independent.

BlackRock’s Board of Directors

Class I Directors (terms expire in 2012):

William S. Demchak—Corporate affiliations: senior vice chairman of PNC (assets: $271 billion); J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. (2011 assets: $2.2 trillion).

Kenneth B. Dunn, PhD—Corporate and institutional affiliations: professor of financial economics at the David A. Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University; former managing director of Morgan Stanley Investment (assets: $807 billion).

Laurence D. Fink—Corporate and institutional affiliations: chairman/CEO of BlackRock; trustee of New York University; trustee of Boys Club of NY.

Robert S. Kapito—Corporate and institutional affiliations: president of BlackRock; trustee of Wharton School University of Pennsylvania.

Thomas H. O’Brien—Corporate affiliations: former CEO of PNC; Verizon Communications, Inc. (2011 revenue: $110 billion).

Ivan G. Seidenberg—Corporate and policy affiliations: board chairman of Verizon Communications; former CEO of Bell Atlantic; Honeywell International Inc. (2010 revenue: $33.3 billion); Pfizer Inc. (2011 revenue: $64 billion); chairman of the Business Roundtable; National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee; President’s Council of the New York Academy of Sciences.[xxv]

Class II Directors (terms expire in 2013):

Abdlatif Yousef Al-Hamad—Corporate and institutional affiliations: board chairman of Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (assets: $2.7 trillion); former Minister of Finance and Minister of Planning of Kuwait, Kuwait Investment Authority. Multilateral Development Banks, International Advisory Boards of Morgan Stanley, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., American International Group, Inc. and the National Bank of Kuwait.

Mathis Cabiallavetta—Corporate affiliations: Swiss Reinsurance Company (2010 revenue: $28 billion); CEO of Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. (2011 revenue: $11.5 billion); Union Bank of Switzerland-UBS A.G. (2012 assets: $620 billion); Philip Morris International Inc. (2010 revenue: $27 billion).

Dennis D. Dammerman—Corporate affiliations: General Electric Company (2012 revenue: $147 billion); Capmark Financial Group Inc. (formally GMAC); American International Group (AIG) (2010 revenue: $77 billion); Genworth Financial (2010 assets: $100 billion); Swiss Reinsurance Company (2012 assets: $620 billion); Discover Financial Services (2011 revenue: $3.4 billion).

Robert E. Diamond Jr.—Corporate and policy affiliations: CEO of Barclays (2011 revenue: $32 billion); International Advisory Board of the British-American Business Council.

David H. Komansky—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Merrill Lynch (division of Bank of America 2009) (2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion); Burt’s Bees, Inc. (owned by Clorox); WPP Group plc (2011 revenue: $15 billion).

James E. Rohr—Corporate affiliations: CEO of PNC (2011 revenue: $14 billion).

James Grosfeld—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Pulte Homes, Inc. (2010 revenue: $4.5 billion); Lexington Realty Trust (2011 assets: $1.2 billion).

Sir Deryck Maughan—Corporate and policy affiliations: Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (2011 assets: $8.6 billion); former CEO of Salomon Brothers from 1992 to 1997 a Chairman of the US-Japan Business Council; GlaxoSmithKline plc (2011 revenue: $41 billion); Thomson Reuters Corporation (2011 revenue: $13.8 billion).

Thomas K. Montag—Corporate affiliations: president of Global Banking & Markets for Bank of America (2011 revenue: $94 billion); Merrill Lynch (division of Bank of America, 2009; 2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion); Goldman Sachs (2011 revenue: $28.8 billion).

Class III Directors (terms expire in 2014):

Murry S. Gerber—Corporate affiliations: executive chairman of EQT (2010 revenue: $1.3 billion); Halliburton Company.

Linda Gosden Robinson—Corporate affiliations: former CEO of Robinson Lerer & Montgomery; Young & Rubicam Inc.; WPP Group plc. (2011 revenue: $15 billion); Revlon, Inc. (2011 revenue: $1.3 billion).

John S. Varley—Corporate affiliations: CEO of Barclays (2011 revenue: $32 billion); AstraZeneca PLC (2011 revenue: $33.5 billion).

BlackRock is one of the most concentrated power networks among the global 1 percent. The eightteen members of the board of directors are connected to a significant part of the world’s core financial assests. Their decisions can change empires, destroy currencies, and impoverish millions. Some of the top financial giants of the capitalist world are connected by interlocking boards of directors at BlackRock, including Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, PNC Bank, Barclays, Swiss Reinsurance Company, American International Group (AIG), UBS A.G., Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, J. P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley.

A 2011 University of Zurich study, research completed by Stefania Vitali, James B. Glattfelder, Stefano Battiston at the Swiss Federal Institute, reports that a small group of companies—mainly banks—wields huge power over the global economy.[xxvi] Using data from Orbis 2007, a database listing thirty-seven million companies and investors, the Swiss researchers applied mathematical models—usually used to model natural systems—to the world economy. The study is the first to look at all 43,060 transnational corporations and the web of ownership between them. The research created a “map” of 1,318 companies at the heart of the global economy. The study found that 147 companies formed a “super entity” within this map, controlling some 40 percent of its wealth. The top twenty-five of the 147 super-connected companies includes:

Barclays PLC*

Capital Group Companies Inc.

FMR Corporation

State Street Corporation

J. P. Morgan Chase & Co.*

Legal & General Group PLC

Vanguard Group Inc.

UBS AG

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.*

Wellington Management Co. LLP

Deutsche Bank AG

Franklin Resources Inc.

Credit Suisse Group*

Walton Enterprises LLC

Bank of New York Mellon Corp

Natixis

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.*

T Rowe Price Group Inc.

Legg Mason Inc.

Morgan Stanley*

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc.

Northern Trust Corporation

Société Générale

Bank of America Corporation*

* BlackRock Directors

Notably, for our purposes, BlackRock board members have direct connections to at least seven of the top twenty-five corporations that Vitali et al. identify as an international “super entity.” BlackRock’s board has direct links to seven of the twenty-five most interconnected corporations in the world. BlackRock’s eighteen board members control and influence tens of trillions of dollars of wealth in the world and represent a core of the super-connected financial sector corporations.

Below is a sample cross section of key figures and corporate assets among the global economic “super entity” identified by Vitali et al.

Other Key Figures and Corporate Connections within the Highest Levels of the Global Economic “Super Entity”

Capital Group Companies—Privately held, based in Los Angeles, manages $1 trillion in assets.

FMR—One of the world’s largest mutual fund firms, managing $1.5 trillion in assets and serving more than twenty million individual and institutional clients; Edward C. (Ned) Johnson III, Chairman and CEO.

AXA—Manages $1.5 trillion in assets, serving 101 million clients; Henri de Castries, CEO AXA, and Director, Nestlé (Switzerland).

State Street Corporation—Operates from Boston with assest management at $1.9 trillion; directors include Joseph L. Hooley, CEO of State Street Corporation; Kennett F. Burnes, retired chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation(2011 revenue: $3.1 billion).

JP Morgan/Chase (2011 assets: $2.3 trillion)—Board of directors: James A. Bell, retired executive VP of The Boeing Company; Stephen B. Burke, CEO of NBC Universal, and executive VP of Comcast Corporation; David M. Cote, CEO of Honeywell International, Inc.; Timothy P. Flynn, retired chairman of KPMG International; and Lee R. Raymond, retired CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Vanguard (2011 assets under management: $1.6 trillion)—Directors: Emerson U. Fullwood, VP of Xerox Corporation; JoAnn Heffernan Heisen, VP of Johnson & Johnson, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Mark Loughridge, CFO of IBM, Global Financing; Alfred M. Rankin Jr., CEO of NACCO Industries, Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, Goodrich Corp, and chairman of Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.

UBS AG (2012 assets: $620 billion)—Directors include: Michel Demaré, board member of Syngenta and the IMD Foundation (Lausanne); David Sidwell, former CFO of Morgan Stanley.

Merrill Lynch (Bank of America) (2011 assets management: $2.3 trillion)—Directors include: Brian T. Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America; Rosemary T. Berkery, general counsel for Bank of America/Merrill Lynch (formerly Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc), member of New York Stock Exchange’s Legal Advisory Committee, director at Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association; Mark A. Ellman, managing director of Credit Suisse, First Boston; Dick J. Barrett, cofounder of Ellman Stoddard Capital Partners, MetLife, Citi Group, UBS, Carlyle Group, ImpreMedia, Verizon Communications, Commonewealth Scientific and Industrial Research Org, Fluor Corp, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs Group.

The directors of these super-connected companies represent a small portion of the global 1 percent. Most people with assets in excess of $588,000 are not major players in international finance. At best, they hire asset management firms to produce a return on their capital. Often their net worth is tied up in nonfinancial assets such a real estate and businesses.

Analysis: TCC and Global Power

Three prominent hedge fund managers each made more than $2 billion in 2011, a year when most traders failed to earn money for their wealthy customers, according to an annual survey by AR magazine.

Collectively, however, this exclusive group of the 25 richest hedge fund managers took a 35 percent pay cut last year, when hedge funds on average lost 5 percent.

AR's "rich list" of top hedge fund earners showed the group raked in $14.4 billion, down from $22 billion the year before. To see the AR story, click on: http://r.reuters.com/nan47s

Raymond Dalio clocked in at the top spot, earning nearly $4 billion as his Bridgewater Associates was one of the top-performing funds, with returns of about 20 percent.

Carl Icahn, who runs Icahn Capital, and James Simons, who retired from Renaissance Technologies Corp, also had multibillion-dollar earnings, rounding out the top three.

Noticeably absent from the AR ladder was 2010's top earner, John Paulson, who fell off the list entirely after a miserable year in which one of his biggest portfolios lost more than half its value, and his flagship Advantage Fund lost 36 percent. Paulson reportedly earned $4.9 billion in 2010.

But Paulson was not the only manager who experienced a change in fortune. Volatile markets last year hobbled many of the previous year's top earners. Fifteen managers who were part of the AR rich list in 2010 didn't make the cut in 2011.

Activist investor Icahn earned $2.5 billion during a year that his firm made about 35 percent, and mathematics professor turned hedge fund founder Simons made $2.1 billion. Citadel's Kenneth Griffin and SAC Capital Advisors' Steve Cohen, long-time top earners, rounded out the top five, taking home $700 million and $585 million, respectively.

Dalio, Simons and Cohen cruised into top positions for the second year in a row, though in 2010 each of their paydays was bigger, according to AR's calculations.

Hedge funds managers typically charge investors 2 percent for managing their money, meaning that the industry's largest funds often present their managers with the biggest checks. In good years, managers can also skim off 20 percent or more of the profits from their trades.

New arrivals to the top 25 in 2011 included Dalio's deputies at Bridgewater, Greg Jensen and Robert Prince, the firm's co-chief investment officers.

Chase Coleman, whose top double-digit returns in 2011 made him one of the industry's most sought-after managers, also zoomed into the list's upper echelons to land at spot No. 6.

At 36, Coleman ranks as one of the industry's younger managers but also as one its most successful, after his Tiger Global Management made most of its money last year on the short side, or by betting that certain securities would fall, investors in his fund said.

Industry veteran Paul Singer of Elliott Management Corp also scored a place in the exclusive group as did Baupost Group's Seth Klarman, widely followed in the investment community as a deep-value investor known for the originality of his securities selection.

More than a dozen managers also dropped off the list as tough market conditions took a toll on performance and subsequent paychecks. David Tepper, who had made the list for years, dropped off, as did George Soros, who turned his firm into a so-called family office where he and his staff oversee only the Soros family fortune.

AR has been estimating industry compensation since 2001 and the list is always closely watched, especially now that Wall Street paychecks are being scrutinized extra hard after the 2008 financial crisis.

FORBES LIST

AR's rankings closely correspond to the Forbes magazine list of 40 highest-earning managers of 2011, though the amount of compensation varies. In that survey the top 40 profit-makers pocketed $13.2 billion.

Dalio topped the chart on that list too. However, Forbes estimated his earnings at about $3 billion, about $1 billion less than AR calculated.

Determining the earnings of top hedge fund managers requires some amount of guesswork, since funds do not publicly disclose compensation. AR bases its estimates on the fees charged by funds and the percentage of capital a manager is believed to have in his fund.

On the Forbes list, Simons was runner-up to Dalio instead of AR's No. 2 placeholder, Icahn, who placed third.

forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/03/01/billionaire-hedge-fund-busts/

Hedge Fund Billionaires Who Stumbled

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/03/01/hedge-funds-a-2-trillion-industry

Hedge Funds: A $2 Trillion Industry?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/03/01/asias-2011-hedge-fund-stars-ortus-capital-and-dymon-asia/

Asia's 2011 Hedge Fund Stars

Video

http://www.forbes.com/video/?video=fvn/business/hedge-funds-ray-dalio-carl-icahn

Top 5 Hedge Fund Managers Bank $8.3 Billion

Gallery

See photos

The 40 Top-Earning Hedge Fund Traders

Other Lists

Browse The List

Rank	Name	2011 Earnings ($mil)	Company
1	Ray Dalio	3,000	Bridgewater Associates
2	James Simons	2,100	Renaissance Technologies Corp.
3	Carl Icahn	2,000	Icahn Capital Management
4	Steve Cohen	600	SAC Capital Advisors
5	David Shaw	580	D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P.
6	Chase Coleman	500	Tiger Global Management
7	Ken Griffin	400	Citadel LLC
7	Alan Howard	400	Brevan Howard Asset Management
9	John Arnold	360	Centaurus Advisors
10	Bruce Kovner	210	Caxton Associates LP
11	Andreas Holvorsen	200	Viking Global Investors
11	Paul Tudor Jones II	200	Tudor Investment Corporation
13	Israel Englander	190	Millennium Management, L.L.C.
14	Daniel Och	170	Och-Ziff Capital Management Group
15	David Harding	150	Winton Capital Management
16	Peter Brown	125	Renaissance Technologies Corp.
16	Seth Klarman	125	Baupost Group
16	Robert Mercer	125	Renaissance Technologies Corp

blackrockgp618

not to be confused with blackSTONE schwarzman

black rock group (two words is forti astroturf?)

https://shadowproof.com/2009/11/01/big-pharma-front-group-60-plus-scaring-seniors-with-2m-ad-buy/

In a new television ad out this week, the group “60 Plus” asserts that seniors would lose access to doctors, treatments, and life-saving drugs if the Democratic health care plan is adopted. The group, with ties to the national GOP and almost fully funded by the pharmaceutical industry, is pumping $2 million dollars into airing the ad in eight states, including Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

According to Sourcewatch, Jim Martin, the President of 60 Plus, has a long affiliation with the Republican Party and “claims to have given then-‘Texas Gov. George W. Bush his first political job … way back in 1967.’ ” The PR contact on the press release touting their latest ad is Carl Forti, the former communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, national political director for Mitt Romney’s 2008 Presidential campaign, and the executive VP at FreedomWatch, which has been active in the tea party movement and the anti-health care town hall meetings back in August. Forti now runs the Black Rock Group, which he founded. This Politico article details Forti and Black Rock’s key involvement in trying to exploit a loophole in FEC rules to basically gut campaign finance law and allow “individual corporations to coordinate with no restrictions their own advertising and direct mail attacks on candidates.”

In 2002, 60 Plus fought state legislation that would create formularies, or lists of preferred, lower-cost prescription drugs for Medicaid patients. 60 Plus fought “such legislation in Minnesota and New Mexico,” with assistance from the Bonner & Associates firm, which specializes in astroturf lobbying. “The firm’s paid callers, reading from scripts that identified them as representatives of 60 Plus, urged residents to ask their governors to veto the legislation. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. later said it had paid Bonner & Associates to make the calls,” reported AARP. At the time, 60 Plus president Jim Martin denied “anyone was misled. ‘The callers had an outline,’ said Martin. ‘This is an important issue that impacts people’s health.'”

“In its 2001 fiscal year, 60 Plus got a total of $275,000 from PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), CBM (Citizens for Better Medicare) and three drug companies (Merck, Pfizer and Wyeth-Ayerst) plus another $300,000 from Hanwha International Corp., the U.S. subsidiary of a Korean conglomerate with chemical and pharmaceutical interests — amounts that made up about 29 percent of its revenue,” reported AARP.

60 Plus supported a lawsuit by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America against the state of Maine (in a “friend of the court” brief) for daring to try to pass a law that will authentically reduce prices for Medicare drugs by allowing the state to buy in bulk directly from manufacturers. It has also joined a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission regarding campaign reform (specifically in support of soft money for issue ads).

In the 2002 election campaigns, 60 Plus paid for issue ads on local radio and TV stations across the country saying that local Republican candidates “care for seniors” so much that they “passed a prescription drug bill” that “saved us from an inept government bureaucracy meddling with health plan benefits.”

Bonner and Associates, you recall, is the group which sent fake letters to members of Congress opposing climate and energy legislation, the recent subject of a Congressional investigation.

In a sense, 60 Plus exists in a long continuum with other conservative movement front groups and recipients of corporate money. They date back to direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie, and they have ties to conservative movement types like Jack Abramoff, according to this report by Rachel Maddow. They have multiple connections to GOP lobbyists and movement types, including the former head of the Virginia Republican Party. And in an amusing additional bit of information, the current national spokesman for 60 Plus is Republican activist and alleged entertainer Pat Boone.

But clearly, the wing of the conservative movement funding 60 Plus and directing its attacks is the pharmaceutical lobby. AARP did the definitive work on this subject a few years back, finding that “virtually all of (60 Plus’) largest contributions in recent years have come from the same source—the nation’s pharmaceutical industry.” In 2002, 60 Plus received 91% of its total revenue – $11 million dollars – from one undisclosed donor, which the Washington Post reported lined up perfectly with “an unrestricted educational grant” to 60 Plus from PhRMa, the drugmaker lobby group. Jim Martin, the 60 Plus President, has acknowledged in interviews that it received money from pharmaceuticals, saying “I wish it was more.”

A call to Carl Forti, the spokesman for the new 60 Plus ad, was not returned.

Black Rock Gp $ Bak

The usual suspects: Fossil energy lobbyists

The other usual suspects: Trump supporters

The anti-ESG movement embraces Elon Musk and the religious right

Two recent policies to keep Florida underwater

Courting the oil industry for political gain

So stupid that it probably won’t work — for now

Hedge funds to the rescue?

Engine No. 1, a new type of hedge fund?

What it all means

how BlackRock is on track to infiltrate a Biden administration

Despite Emergency, Belligerent Exxon Refuses to Act on Climate at AGM – Oil Change International

Related

A Top Financier of Trump and McConnell Is a Driving Force Behind Amazon Deforestation

:{Amazon Destruction Financed by BlackRock, World’s Biggest Investment Firm | Take Action Tuesday @EarthFoodLife:(style="box-sizing:border-box;font-weight:700"):}:

Larry Fink | BlackRock

Laurence D. Fink - Wikipedia

Blackstone CEO Endorses BlackRock's Larry Fink for Treasury Secretary

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

External resources

External articles

Hedge Fund Billionaires Who Stumbled

Hedge Funds: A $2 Trillion Industry?

Asia's 2011 Hedge Fund Stars

Top 5 Hedge Fund Managers Bank $8.3 Billion

The 40 Top-Earning Hedge Fund Traders