Saturday Hashtag: #PrivateFinanceCoup
From Bailout Manager to Shadow Empire CEO
Welcome to Saturday Hashtag, a weekly place for broader context.
|
Listen To This Story
 |
How did Larry Fink — the CEO of an average asset management firm and a key architect of the financial weapons that detonated the 2008 crash — get a contract (est $500 million) from the Federal Reserve and Treasury to direct bailouts for the same institutions he was financially linked to? And then emerge as head of the world’s largest asset manager?
In the first quarter of 2025, BlackRock — now the world’s largest asset manager, helmed by Fink — reported a staggering $11.6 trillion in assets under management. The Vanguard Group trails behind at $10.4 trillion.
These absurd numbers underscore the unprecedented concentration of financial power in the hands of a few firms that now exert more influence over global markets than most sovereign states with zero democratic accountability.
From Jump Street
After earning a BA in political science and an MBA from UCLA, Larry Fink led First Boston’s bond department, where he pioneered modern mortgage-backed securities (MBS) by bundling mortgages into pooled assets.
Fink helped turn what had been a cornerstone of the American middle class — homeownership — into just another commodity that Wall Street could slice, rank, and sell.
His genius came into question in 1986, when a major interest rate miscalculation cost First Boston $100 million.
Instead of ending Fink’s career, it launched him higher — Pete Peterson and Stephen Schwarzman tapped him to co-found Blackstone’s financial arm, which became BlackRock in 1992 under his leadership.
A Financial WMD with Multiple Warheads
By the 2000s, the MBS Frankenstein had transformed into a financial weapon of mass destruction, amplified by complex derivatives such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDSs). Built on the same logic of commodified debt, these instruments spread through global financial systems like a virus.
Financial WMDs, weak regulation, and corporate greed enabled Wall Street to annihilate the global economy in 2008, while Larry Fink and BlackRock profited from the crisis they helped engineer.
The 2008 Crash: From Collapse to Control
In 2008, BlackRock was just another asset manager, managing $1.3 trillion, like Barclays ($1.6 trillion), Fidelity (1.3 trillion), and J.P. Morgan ($1.3 trillion). Yet when the US government and Federal Reserve needed help directing the bailouts, they turned to Larry Fink.
The man who helped create the financial infrastructure behind the crash was now directing trillions in taxpayer-funded bailouts, with little oversight or transparency, while BlackRock continued to profit from investments in the companies being rescued.
Covert Financial Empire
BlackRock’s empire now spans virtually every critical sector:
- Big Tech: Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft
- Big Finance: JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs
- Energy & Defense: Major oil and weapons manufacturers
- Health care, infrastructure, and real estate
But BlackRock’s strategy goes far beyond traditional buyouts. It holds equity positions in almost every major industry, primarily through cloaking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and index funds. This allows the firm to quietly access proprietary data and wield significant influence via proxy voting — shaping corporate policies and industry trends without outright ownership.
The scale of BlackRock’s influence has become so immense that respected outlets like The Economist and Financial Times have raised alarms about the rise of a new financial oligarchy.
What was once viewed as astute business growth now appears to be a calculated and illegal strategy to leverage public trust for private profit — to the detriment of US taxpayers, consumers, economic stability and human rights.
A Post-Modern Monopoly
By 2024, BlackRock’s influence stretched across global industries, distorting markets, limiting competition, inflating prices, and degrading services. What began as a regulatory support role in the 2008 bailout morphed into a form of corporate authoritarianism that violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.
- Conflicted Interests: BlackRock holds stakes in rivals like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, undermining real competition.
- Real Control, Hidden Power: BlackRock shapes corporate decisions, from executive pay to board structure, through its votes on thousands of issues annually.
- Rigged Capital Flow: BlackRock’s index funds prioritize size over merit, funneling capital to dominant firms and stifling smaller competitors.
- Bailout Profiteering: BlackRock profited from managing government bailout funds, benefiting from the very crisis it helped worsen, with no transparency or accountability.
Revolving Door Regulation
The revolving door spins efficiently. BlackRock alumni filled key roles in the Obama and Biden administrations while Fink’s name was often floated for treasury secretary. His influence extended far beyond finance — into policymaking.
By 2024, BlackRock evolved into an unelected, unaccountable force in US economic policy, quietly shaping the flow of hundreds of billions in assets with no transparency and only token accountability.
Prosecution Choke
Laws and legislators are failing to keep up with modern monopolies, while regulators, often ex-BlackRock execs, more than tacitly enable this issue.
Politicians of both parties, reliant on BlackRock’s stability, ignore the danger. BlackRock isn’t just breaking antitrust laws; it’s replacing democracy with unchecked financial power, threatening democracy, competition, and economic justice.
A 21st-century Antitrust Framework
The unprecedented concentration of capital and influence in 2025 demands structural reform, greater transparency, and modernized antitrust laws. Firms managing over $10 trillion in assets should be subject to special public interest regulations, and there must be a clear separation between asset management — and public policy advising, to prevent conflicts of interest and preserve democratic accountability.
BlackRock Rolling Acquisitions
Global Infrastructure Partners (2024) Deal Size: $3 billion, largest shareholder
- Impact: Allows the firm to dictate the pricing, privatization, and expansion of critical infrastructure once held by governments, raising concerns about the commodification of vital services.
HPS Investment Partners (2024) Deal Size: $12 billion, largest shareholder
- Impact: Solidified the firm’s role in private financing, gaining more influence over the corporate debt market and positioning itself as a key player in private equity.
SpiderRock Advisors (2024) Deal Size: $4.8 billion, largest shareholder
- Impact: Strengthened the firm’s influence over personalized wealth management, further expanding its control over capital flows and global wealth distribution.
Preqin (2024) Deal Size: $3.2 billion, largest shareholder
- Impact: The firm gained an unprecedented edge in private equity, venture capital, and alternative investments, enabling it to predict and influence global financial strategies.
MEDITECH (2023) Deal Size: €25 million ($27.9 million) investment, private company
- Impact: Enhanced the firm’s role in health care technology, enabling it to influence digital transformation in global healthcare systems.
Bristol-Myers Squibb (2023) Deal Size: $12.8 billion, top 5 shareholder
- Impact: Expanded BlackRock control over pharmaceutical production, shaping policies on drug pricing and access to health care.
Geopark (2018) Deal Size: $2.5 billion, top 5 shareholder
- Impact: Expanded the firm’s influence over oil and gas extraction in Latin America, positioning it to influence regional energy policy, oil pricing, and environmental regulations.
FirstEnergy Corp. (2018) Deal Size: $2.5 billion, top 5 shareholder
- Impact: This provided influence over electricity pricing, environmental regulation, and energy policies. The firm can leverage this position to lobby against or for policy changes, further consolidating its grip on energy distribution in key US regions.
Cinemark (2012) Deal Size: est. $512 million (13.2 percent share), largest shareholder
- Impact: Positioned the firm to influence media consumption trends, theatrical releases, and entertainment industry consolidation.
T-Mobile US (2013) Deal Size: est. $9 billion (3.3 percent share), top 5 shareholder
- Impact: Provided influence on key decisions in the telecommunications and 5G rollout, which are crucial to both global communication and surveillance infrastructures.
Petrobras Assets (2024) Deal Size: est. $3.57 billion (6.5 percent share), top 5 shareholder
- Impact: Enabled the firm to control key oil assets in Brazil, affecting the global oil supply chain and energy pricing policies while shaping Brazil’s energy policy, including its stance on climate change and renewable energy development.
Riot and Marathon Bitcoin Mining (2024) Deal Size: $650 million, top 5 shareholder
- Impact: Provided significant control over crypto mining operations. This positions the firm to benefit from the growing cryptocurrency market, while also holding sway over digital asset regulations.
Lumen Technologies (2021) Deal Size: $586 million, largest shareholder
- Impact: Reinforced the firm’s stake in global internet infrastructure, further expanding its dominance in broadband and fiber-optic service provision.
Cigna Health Services (2023) Deal Size: $7.2 billion, second largest shareholder
- Impact: This expanded the firm’s power to influence health insurance pricing, market trends, and health care access on a global scale.
Microsoft/MGX AI Infrastructure (2024) Potential: $100 billion, second largest shareholder
- Impact: Positioned the firm at the heart of the AI revolution. By owning data centers and energy networks crucial to AI’s growth, BlackRock not only benefits from AI’s rise but also exerts control over its foundational infrastructure.
Netflix (2020) Deal Size: $39 billion, second largest shareholder
- Impact: Provided influence on content creation, pricing strategies, and platform governance. It also holds sway over the distribution of global cultural narratives.
Uber Technologies (2020) Deal Size: $11 billion, second largest shareholder
- Impact: Granted influence over ride-sharing policies, digital mobility, and the future of transportation on a global scale.
Tesla (2021) Deal Size: $36.5 billion, top 5 shareholder
- Impact: Deepened its hold in the electric vehicle (EV) and clean energy sectors. This investment strengthens the firm’s influence over Tesla’s innovation trajectory, pricing, and market dominance, especially as the world transitions to sustainable energy.
Panama Canal — Balboa/Cristobal (2025) Deal Size: $22.8 billion, largest shareholder
- Impact: The firm gained de facto control over a global trade chokepoint that links the Atlantic and Pacific. This acquisition positions BlackRock to exert significant geopolitical leverage, potentially shaping the flow of global commerce and trade policy.
Sierra Space (2021) Deal Size: $1.4 billion, top 5 shareholder
- Impact: Provided influence on the future of space technology and defense contracts, potentially shaping military policies and global space governance.
Jio BlackRock India (2023) Deal Size: $300 million, largest shareholder
- Impact: Provides an influential stake in India’s rapidly growing asset management market. The firm now holds the power to shape the future of India’s financial services landscape, including retail investments and corporate strategies.
How to Reclaim America’s ‘Democracy’ From the Big Finance Oligarchy
From the Institute for New Economic Thinking: “For many, American democracy seems increasingly empty. What drained it? In The Master’s Tools: How Finance Wrecked Democracy (And a Radical Plan to Rebuild It), sociologist Michael A. McCarthy, professor at UC Santa Cruz and economic activist, points to finance capital as the main culprit.”
Fund Giant BlackRock Is Out to Unite Public and Private Markets
The author writes, “Larry Fink built the world’s biggest asset manager by making access to stocks and bonds easy. Can the same be done with more opaque assets?”
BlackRock’s Fink Sees Trillions Of Dollars Idle as Volatility Persists
The author writes, “BlackRock CEO Larry Fink says tens of trillions of dollars of financial firepower is sitting idle in cash amid trade war worries and uncertainty over the United States economy, whose deficits are beginning to spook investors. ‘There is 12 trillion euros sitting in bank accounts in Europe. In the United States, there’s $11 trillion sitting in money markets funds. When there is uncertainty, you are going to keep more and more money in cash and that is what we witnessed,’ Fink told delegates at the Saudi-US Investment Forum in Riyadh on Tuesday.”
Republican US States Sue Blackrock for ‘Destructive’ Green Agenda
The author writes, “Texas and 10 other Republican-led states are suing BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard, alleging they conspired to curtail coal supplies to further ‘a destructive, politicized environmental agenda.’ The federal antitrust lawsuit accuses the three largest US index fund managers of using their holdings in the coal producers to constrict supplies and drive up prices in pursuit of net zero carbon emissions goals. The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, marks the latest effort by Republican states as they step up their war on what conservatives call ‘woke capitalism.’”
BlackRock Wins 67% Support for Pay as CEO Fink Assures on Global Economy
The authors write, “Top asset manager BlackRock said on Thursday that 67% of votes cast at its annual meeting were in support of its executive pay, a modest gain over last year, as CEO Larry Fink offered assurances about the state of the global economy and defended the company’s course on environmental and social issues. Proxy adviser Institutional Shareholder Services had recommended that investors vote against the pay of top executives including Fink, who received $30.8 million in 2024.”
With Markets on Edge, a Top Wall Street Influencer Tiptoes Around Politics
From CNN: “Each year, when the Larry Fink letter goes out, it’s required reading on Wall Street. The CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, pens a memo to shareholders that quickly becomes gospel. It was Fink’s 2018 letter, for example, that helped catalyze interest in do-gooder investing known as ESG (for environmental, social and governance) — a term he later swore off amid Republican backlash. Investors and the financial media tune in so closely because Fink’s firm controls an $11.5 trillion empire that influences the market through sheer volume. The annual letter is the finance bro equivalent of Oprah’s Favorite Things. This year, though, Fink’s letter is getting noticed as much for what it doesn’t say as for what it says.”
Billionaire BlackRock CEO: ‘Doesn’t matter’ Who Wins US election; Trump & Kamala Harris Benefit Wall Street
The author writes, “Billionaire BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said it ‘really doesn’t matter’ who wins the US presidential election, because both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris will be good for Wall Street. Academic studies show the USA is not a democracy but an oligarchy.”
Funds Wait on US Energy Regulator to Answer a $26 Trillion Question
The author writes, “U.S. energy regulators have another window of opportunity to clarify the role that giant fund firms should play in corporate ownership. It’s a good chance to resolve a nagging question for investors and stock issuers alike.”
Overlapping Financial Investor Ownership, Market Power, and Antitrust Enforcement: My Qualified Agreement with Professor Elhauge
From the Harvard Law Review: “More than a century ago, a loophole in the antitrust laws helped trigger a giant wave of industrial consolidation, by which rival manufacturing firms in one industry after another combined into a single large enterprise that controlled industry prices. The loophole was closed, but not before the industrial landscape had been transformed to allow the widespread exercise of market power. A recent working paper by economists José Azar, Martin Schmalz, and Isabel Tecu raises the possibility that a modern-day antitrust loophole or blind spot has similarly been allowing firms to exercise market power across the economy.”
The Common Ownership Trilemma
From The University of Chicago Law Review: “This Essay argues that it is impossible to achieve the following objectives simultaneously: (i) portfolio diversification, (ii) shareholder representation, and (iii) competition. In an economy in which everyone holds the market portfolio, all companies have the same shareholders. If, in addition, firms act in the interest of their shareholders (in other words, if the agency problem is solved), the equilibrium outcome is equivalent to an economy-wide monopoly. When managers are entrenched, however, the anticompetitive effects of common ownership are mitigated, yet they only disappear completely in the extreme case that managers are fully insulated from shareholder dissent. The trilemma highlights a fundamental systemic problem in stock market economies: their inherent tendency toward common ownership, and therefore away from market competition.”
