May 2023 INSIGHTs - Pg.3

“BlackRock: The $10 Trillion Giant – Its Asset Dominance Outshines National Economies and Raises Questions of Corporate Influence and Accountability” 

“Unmasking the Reality: A Sobering Wake-Up Call to the True Motives and Implications” Is BlackRock Profiting from Market Disruption again? Connection to Fox Corporation and Anheuser-Busch InBev Raises Questions”

Researching the subject turns up interesting facts that BlackRock, the fund management group responsible for global market disruption using social and markets manipulation is a significant shareholder in both Fox Corporation (which owns Fox News) and Anheuser-Busch InBev, which owns Budweiser and Bud Light. Could it be that Blackrock’s strategy to turn a profit, is by owning massive shares in major news media outlets and then drive social narratives by pushing an agenda through social media.

A recent newbie from Okeefe Media Group revealed an interview with one of these fund managers bragging about his ability to purchase politicians and create scenarios exactly like this with outrage being directed towards the Bud Light brand due to the Dylan Mulvaney antics. 

But, you may ask why is this important? Here is a little background.

BlackRock manages nearly $10 trillion in assets under management, surpassing the GDP of every country in the world except for the United States and China. As a prominent shareholder in various global industries such as oil and gas, technology, retail, big banks, healthcare, and weapons manufacturing, BlackRock holds significant influence as one of the most powerful corporate entities worldwide. Its reach extends to all aspects of our daily lives.

Considering the eagerness of fund managers to satisfy BlackRock’s Founder and CEO, Larry Fink, it is not far-fetched to speculate that they may engage in behaviors that led to BlackRock’s inclusion in the 2022 Corporate Hall of Shame by Corporate Accountability. If this in fact turns out to be a continuation of that policy,

This prompts the question: why Bud Light?

“Unmasking ESG: Is BlackRock’s Commitment to Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance a Ruse for Profit? Despite misconceptions, the practice of ESG isn’t confined to China’s corporate governance, as critics suggest. In fact, the World Economic Forum recognizes it as a guiding principle for business regulation worldwide. However, the potential misuse of ESG by financial titans like BlackRock — seemingly using it as a cover to devalue portfolio companies — is a worrying deviation from the values ESG is meant to uphold.

A closer look at BlackRock’s actions raises eyebrows. If the company is indeed manipulating markets under the guise of ESG policy backlash, this tactic contradicts the core ethos of corporate governance central to ESG. Could it be that, rather than championing ethical and sustainable business, BlackRock is using ESG as a smokescreen to shift blame for company devaluations?

The implications of such behavior extend far beyond the boardroom. Market manipulation under the pretense of ESG can have real, harmful effects on the communities and individuals who rely on these companies for their livelihood.”

What are the  implications?

It is unnerving to see that portfolio companies of BlackRock are central to driving a narrative about a brand devaluing effort on the part of the fund managers. Why would a fund manager devalue shares in a long standing company like Anhuesar Busch, the parent company of Budweiser and by default, Bud Light?

Let’s look at the most common causes of share devaluation:

A fund management company may choose to devalue certain assets for various reasons.

Here are a few possible explanations:

  1. Market Conditions: Changes in market conditions, such as economic downturns or shifts in industry dynamics, can lead to a decrease in the value of certain assets. The company may adjust the valuation to reflect the current market reality.
  2. Performance Assessment: Fund management companies regularly evaluate the performance of their portfolio holdings. If an asset consistently underperforms or fails to meet expectations, the company may decide to devalue it to reflect its true market value.
  3. Accounting Standards.Accounting principles and regulatory requirements may necessitate the devaluation of assets. Companies must adhere to accounting standards, such as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which may require the recognition of impairment or changes in fair value.
  4. Portfolio Realignment: Fund managers often rebalance their portfolios to optimize risk and return. In such cases, assets that no longer align with the investment strategy or that are considered non-core may be devalued or divested.
  5. Financial Distress: If an asset or investment faces financial difficulties, such as high debt burdens or declining revenues, the fund management company may devalue it to reflect the increased risk or potential losses associated with the asset.
  6. Anonymous Short Activism:  Creating a false narrative about the value of a stock like Anhueser Busch so the shareholder can take a discounted position on illegally manipulated stock values. (In plain English – Artificially destroying a stocks value by using its other positions in companies like Fox News Corp to sway public opinion and destroying shareholders market positions.) This is done by manipulating public perception about a brand over a manufactured outrage and when the stock is devalued, they can then repurchase any outstanding shares at a greatly reduced valuation a technique called Anonymous Short Activism)


“Why Does It Matter? Unpacking the Significance Behind the Scenes.”

This behavior, if proven, is in clear violation of the Dodd-Frank act to reform Banking manipulation.

A great article illustrating on the Dodd-Frank Rules can be found at

Note: There is nothing illegal about use of common consumer practices like boycotts. However, when a fund manager like BlackRock utilizes portfolio assets to devalue a portfolios holdings for the purpose of gaining an unfair position on the assets future price, it raises questions about the ethical impact on other shareholders’ positions when the stock is devalued. The standing question is whether BlackRock gains an unfair advantage through this behavior and is there an appetite for regulators to provide oversight?

I can just see the headlines now:

BlackRock May Be Using Market Manipulation To Gain Stronger Position On Devalued Stock: Alleged Use Of Media Assets Could Violate Federal Laws Related To Dodd-Frank, New Calls For Oversight Escalate.

“Setting aside personal insults and outrage, BlackRock appears to be demonstrating its market manipulation capabilities yet again. The company leverages its media assets and social media influencers to steer a narrative that effectively creates value through the devaluation of major brands, followed by the subsequent repurchase of those depreciated assets at significantly reduced prices.

If this turns out to be the case, it would represent a clear violation of federal law relating to illegal share devaluation, should BlackRock need or acquire any shares at these discounted prices. This classic case of stock value manipulation calls for comprehensive oversight, and the promise of civil and criminal penalties for those involved in the ruse.”

Michael Wright

Additional Insights