Unknown's avatar

About stuartbramhall

Retired child and adolescent psychiatrist and American expatriate in New Zealand. In 2002, I made the difficult decision to close my 25-year Seattle practice after 15 years of covert FBI harassment. I describe the unrelenting phone harassment, illegal break-ins and six attempts on my life in my 2010 book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee.

Ex-FBI Official’ Would-be Assassin May Have Had Inside Info on His Schedule


Jim Hoft

Ryan Wesley Routh, 58, the alleged would-be assassin arrested for targeting former President Donald Trump at his Florida golf club, may have had access to inside information about Trump’s whereabouts, a former FBI official has warned.

The Gateway Pundit reported earlier that former President Donald Trump’s Sunday golf outing at his Trump International Golf Club was a last-minute decision.

Chris Swecker, a retired FBI assistant director, told Newsweek that the law enforcement community is now focused on determining how Routh appeared to know Trump would be at the West Palm Beach golf course on Sunday.

“The biggest question to answer is: ‘How did the would-be assassin know to be at that location at that time?’” Swecker said.

He added that the possibility of inside knowledge is “a scary” and dangerous reality that cannot be ignored.

Swecker, who previously oversaw all FBI criminal investigations, outlined three possible explanations: Routh either got incredibly lucky with a guess, conducted surveillance on Trump, or was privy to inside information.

“The last answer is scary and has implications that another person was involved,” he said ominously.

[…]

Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/would-be-assassin-targeting-trump-may-have-had/

Governor Ron DeSantis: Florida Will Conduct Own Investigation into Attempted Trump Assassination to Prevent Federal Cover-up

PHOTO: JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES

Jim Hoft

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) announced that the state will launch its own investigation into the shocking assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump at his West Palm Beach golf club.

The decision comes after a close call on Sunday, where Secret Service agents thwarted a potential sniper attack targeting Trump as he played a round of golf at the prestigious Trump International Golf Club.

Trump was targeted by a man wielding an AK-47-style rifle, who was spotted by Secret Service agents from a distance of 300 to 500 yards.

Secret Service agent fired at the suspect, causing him to flee, leaving behind the rifle.

Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw stated that the suspect, identified as 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh, was later apprehended on I-95 in Martin County after a witness captured a photo of his vehicle. Law enforcement discovered an AK-47-style rifle, two backpacks, and a GoPro camera stashed in the bushes.

In the hours following the alarming incident, both authorities and the Trump campaign assured the public that the former president was safe and unharmed.

Governor DeSantis, however, was not content to simply accept the federal investigation as sufficient.

Taking to X, he wrote, “The State of Florida will be conducting its own investigation regarding the attempted assassination at Trump International Golf Club. The people deserve the truth about the would-be assassin and how he was able to get within 500 yards of the former president and current GOP nominee.”

[…]

Governor Ron DeSantis: State of Florida Will Conduct Its Own Investigation into Attempted Assassination of President Trump — Aims to Prevent Federal Cover-up

Dmitry Orlov: NATO Missile Threat Pure Theater

In this revealing interview, Russian-American political analyst discloses that the so-called NATO threat (announced at a “public” meeting of CIA and MI5 officials) to allow Ukrainians to deploy NATO missiles deep inside Russia is pure theater. US special forces stationed in Ukraine* have been firing missiles into Russia for months. According to Orlov, Russia intercepts nearly all of them and shoots them down – with only one fatality thus far, a woman killed at a shopping center.

Now what possible reason reason would the US/UK political leadership have for threatening to do something they are already doing and then pretending to back off to avoid thermonuclear conflagration?

Orlov believes this most recent psyops was intended as a cover for NATO’s failed military operations in Kursk and Donbass and for Ukraine’s failure to recruit replacements for their massive casualties in Kursk. I myself suspect it was concocted to conceal continued US dependence on key Russian exports (despite the so-called “sanctions”) with an imminent presidential election.

According to Orlov, Putin has no need whatsoever to retaliate militarily to these NATO missiles. It’s far easier and more effective to retaliate economically by cutting off the enriched uranium Russia supplies to the 100 US nuclear plants that require it to deliver 1/4 of America’s electrical power and the heavy Russian crude oil the US relies on to produce diesel and jet fuel. The so-called Russian sanctions that supposedly banned all Russian imports are another brazen lie. At present the US is totally reliant on Russian heavy crude to keep its trucking industry operational.**

Putin is also looking at banning exports to the US (and Europe) of the essential minerals nickle and cobalt. They’ve already discontinued titanium exports to the US. Orlov asserts Boeing’s inability to source titanium is a main cause of their current financial difficulties.


*He asserts the missiles are fired by US special operations personnel as no Ukrainians are trained to operate the missile launchers.

**The US used to rely on Venezuela for heavy crude, but were cut off after multiple coup attempts against their leadership.

More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

9/11 Commission Report - Wikipedia
Michel Chossudovsky

Much of this  detailed information (911 Commission Report) was based on alleged cell phone conversations between passengers and family members. Yet the technology to use a cell phone on a plane above 8500 feet did not exist in September 2001.  

[…]

“We Have Some Planes”

The 9/11 Commission’s Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes.

In the absence of surviving passengers, this “corroborating evidence”, was based on passengers’ cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. According to the Report, the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was only recovered in the case of one of the flights (UAL 93).

Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission has built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them “into large guided missiles”

The Technology of Wireless Transmission

The Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.

More significantly, what this carefully drafted script fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet:

[…]

Expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry casts serious doubt on “the findings” of the 9/11 Commission. According to Alexa Graf, a spokesman of AT&T, commenting in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks:

“it was almost a fluke that the [9/11] calls reached their destinations… From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude”

(http://wirelessreview.com/ar/wireless_final_contact/)

New Wireless Technology

While serious doubts regarding the cell calls were expressed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a new landmark in the wireless telecom industry has further contributed to upsetting the Commission’s credibility. Within days of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July, American Airlines and Qualcomm, proudly announced the development of a new wireless technology –which will at some future date allow airline passengers using their cell phones to contact family and friends from a commercial aircraft (no doubt at a  special rate aerial roaming charge)

(see https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2004/07/15/american-airlines-and-qualcomm-complete-test-flight-evaluate-cabin-mobile)

[…]

The information gathered during this proof-of-concept demonstration flight will be used to further research into the quality, convenience and safety of communications with personal CDMA mobile phones carried by passengers on a commercial aircraft.

Note The Date: : July 14, 2004  [Almost 3  Years after September 11, 2001]

[…]

The untimely American Airlines / Qualcomm announcement acted as a cold shower. Barely acknowledged in press reports, it confirmed that the Bush administration had embroidered the cell phone narrative (similar to what they did with WMDs) and that the 9/11 Commission’s account was either flawed or grossly exaggerated.

The Washington Post: (July 27, 2004) confirms without referring explicitly to 9/11 that: 

Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls.”

 (WP, July 27, 2004, emphasis added)

.

Altitude and Cellphone Transmission

According to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude. Beyond a certain altitude which is usually reached within a few minutes after takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.

In other words, given the wireless technology available on September 11 2001, these cell calls could not have been placed from high altitude.

The only way passengers could have got through to family and friends using their cell phones, is if the planes were flying below 8000 feet. Yet even at low altitude, below 8000 feet, cell phone communication is of poor quality.

The crucial question: at what altitude were the planes traveling, when the calls were placed?

While the information provided by the Commission is scanty, the Report’s timeline does not suggest that the planes were consistently traveling at low altitude. In fact the Report confirms that a fair number of the cell phone calls were placed while the plane was traveling at altitudes above 8000 feet, which is considered as the cutoff altitude for cell phone transmission.

Let us review the timeline of these calls in relation to the information provided by the Report on flight paths and altitude.

United Airlines Flight 175

United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:

“It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14.”

The Report confirms that by 8:33, “it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet.” According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it “deviated from its assigned altitude”:

“The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it.”

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] “At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone).

[…]

Another call was received at 8.52 (one minute after it deviated from its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say whether this is an air phone or a cell phone call:

Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco, reaching Marc Policastro. The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane. The call lasted about two minutes, after which Policastro and a colleague tried unsuccessfully to contact the flight.

It is not clear whether this was a call to Policastro’s cell phone or to the UAL switchboard.

At 8:58, UAL 175 “took a heading toward New York City.”:

“At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney tried to call his wife, Julie. He left a message on their home answering machine that the plane had been hijacked. He then called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

It’s getting bad, Dad—A stewardess was stabbed—They seem to have knives and Mace—They said they have a bomb—It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we are going down—I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building—Don’t worry, Dad— If it happens, it’ll be very fast—My God, my God.

The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.50 At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. All on board, along with an unknown number of people in the tower, were killed instantly.”

American Airlines Flight 77

American Airlines Flight 77 was scheduled to depart from Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8:10… “At 8:46, the flight reached its assigned cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.”

At 8:51, American 77 transmitted its last routine radio communication. The hijacking began between 8:51 and 8:54. As on American 11 and United 175, the hijackers used knives (reported by one passenger) and moved all the passengers (and possibly crew) to the rear of the aircraft (reported by one flight attendant and one passenger). Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. Finally, a passenger reported that an announcement had been made by the “pilot” that the plane had been hijacked….

On flight AA 77, which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon, the transponder was turned off at 8:56am; the recorded altitude at the time the transponder was turned off is not mentioned. According to the Commission’s Report, cell calls started 16 minutes later, at 9:12am, twenty minutes before it (allegedly) crashed into the Pentagon at 9.32am:

” [at 9.12] Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane.”

According to the Report, when the autopilot was disengaged at 9:29am, the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and some 38 miles west of the Pentagon. This happened two minutes before the crash.

Most of the calls on Flight 77 were placed between 9.12am and 9.26am,  prior to the disengagement of automatic piloting at 9.29am.  The plane could indeed have been traveling at either a higher or a lower altitude to that reached at 9.29. Yet, at the same time there is no indication in the Report that the plane had been traveling below the 7000 feet level, which it reached at 9.29am.

At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. [using an airphone]

(Report p 7, see http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf )

United  Airlines Flight 93

UAL flight 93 was the only one of the four planes that, according to the official story, did not crash into a building. Flight 93 passengers, apparently:”alerted through phone calls, attempted to subdue the hijackers. and the hijackers crashed the plane [in Pennsylvania] to prevent the passengers gaining control.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_93 ). Another version of events, was that UAL 93 was shot down.

According to the Commission’s account:

“the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft….”

At least ten cell calls are reported to have taken place on flight 93.

The Report confirms that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report’s confirmation of the plane’s attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)

“At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93’s transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then south.164 “

This suggests that the altitude was known to air traffic control up until the time when the transponder signal was lost by the Cleveland Center. (Radar and visual sightings provided information on its flight path from 9.41 to 10.03.)

Moreover, there was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-happened-on-the-planes-on-september-11-2001-the-911-commission-script-was-fabricated/5428771

Largest BlackRock Shareholders: Who Owns the Most BLK Stock in 2024?

A man standing in a building

BlackRock is one of the most well-known investment and asset management companies in the world, based in New York City. Founded in 1988, it has quickly expanded worldwide, with a strong presence in the U.S., Asia, Brazil, and the Middle East.

Along with State Street and Vanguard, it is believed to control most global corporations through various investments.

In the first quarter of 2024, the company’s assets under management (AUM) hit a record $10.5 trillion, up $1.4 trillion year-over-year.

So, what does BlackRock’s ownership structure look like? In this article, we examine BlackRock’s major stakeholders and the number of BLK shares they own.

Let’s explore who owns the most BlackRock stock in 2024.

Key Takeaways

    • The diverse and strategic shareholder composition of BlackRock encompasses both influential individual shareholders, like its founders, and major institutional investors.
    • This mix highlights BlackRock’s robust market presence and underscores its appeal to a wide range of investors in the global financial landscape.
    • BlackRock’s largest institutional shareholders are Vanguard Group, BlackRock itself, State Street Global Advisors, Temasek Holdings, and Bank of America.
    • Blackrock’s investment in its BLK shares represents only a tiny fraction (0.2%) of the company’s holdings. As of Q1 2024, the top five Blackrock holdings included Microsoft (5.3%), Apple (4.2%), Nvidia (3.8%),  Amazon (2.7%), and Meta Platforms (1.8%).
    • The company’s largest individual shareholders include original BlackRock owners and founders Larry Fink and Susan L. Wagner, Robert S. Kapito, as well as its top executives Richard Kushel and Murry S. Gerber.
    • Blackrock declared a quarterly cash dividend of $5.10 of common stock, payable on June 24, 2024.

As of April 30, 2024, the company had 148,599,981 shares outstanding, considerably less than its competitors, such as Bank of America, Invesco, or UBS.

At the time of writing, its stock was trading at $718.13 per share. The company had a market capitalization of about $116.07 billion.

The company’s revenues clocked in at about $17.859 billion for the full year 2023, and $4.728 billion for the Q1 2024, according to BlackRock’s latest financial reports.

On May 15,  Blackrock declared a quarterly cash dividend of $5.10 per share of common stock, payable on June 24, 2024, to shareholders of record at the close of business on June 7, 2024.

BlackRock Historical Performance Chart

 

As of June 28, 2024, BlackRock (BLK) stock appreciated by 5,022.16%, according to data from TradingView.

Note that past performance is not indicative of future results.

But who are the stakeholders of BlackRock?

The shareholders are divided into Investor A, Investor B, Investor C, Institutional, and Class R shares. The type of ownership, sales charge, management fees, and other operating expenses can vary depending on the type of share purchased.

BlackRock shareholders are also classified into individual and institutional shareholders.

BlackRock has 2,824 institutional owners and shareholders that have filed 13D/G or 13F forms with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These institutions hold a total of 136,830,864 shares, according to the data compiled by Fintel.io as of June 28, 2024.

Who Owns BlackRock?

Top 5 Largest Institutional BlackRock Shareholders

Institutional investors are the largest owners of Blackrock shares. Amongst BlackRock’s major shareholders are investment and asset management companies like Vanguard Group and State Street Global Advisors, which have some of the largest stakes.

BlackRock has a higher percentage of institutional shareholders than other similar investment companies. Currently, institutional investors hold 51.78% of the company’s stock.

Out of these, the top 5 largest BlackRock owners are outlined below, with holdings as of 31 March 2024.

Top BlackRock Institutional Shareholders

5.  Temasek Holdings – 5,115,491 – 3.44%

Temasek Holdings, owned by the Government of Singapore, possesses a 3.44% stake in BlackRock. This equates to approximately 5,115,491 shares, valued at around $4.26 billion.

In 2023, Temasek Holdings led a $140 million funding round for Ola Electric.

According to the latest news, Temasek Holdings has recently backed a new $250 million tech fund, Alpha Intelligence Capital (AIC), which invests in artificial intelligence companies, including OpenAI.

4. Bank of America – 5,196,941 – 3.49%

Bank of America is one of the biggest BlackRock shareholders, with a 3.49% stake in Blackrock, which amounts to 5,196,941 shares valued at approximately $4.33 billion.

In contrast to other Wall Street banks, Bank of America has been avoiding job cuts until recently.

However, as the layoff trend continues, Bank of America has started a round of job cuts, following its rivals Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, which collectively cut over 10,000 roles last year.

3. State Street Global Advisors – 5,928,745 – 3.98%

State Street Global Advisors holds a 3.98% stake in BlackRock, equivalent to about 5,928,745 shares valued at approximately $4.94 billion. This stake makes State Street the third-largest BlackRock owner among institutional shareholders.

The company offers exchange-traded funds (ETFs) such as the SPDR S&P 500 Ucits ETF and the SPDR S&P 500 ESG Leaders Ucits ETF.  Recently, State Street Global Advisors reduced the fees for these two funds, positioning them among the most cost-effective options for tracking the S&P 500 Index.

This decision is seen as a strategic and forward-thinking move, particularly in a market where investors are increasingly well-informed about the variety of funds and fee structures available.

2. BlackRock – 9,604,250 – 6.46%

BlackRock owns a 6.46% stake in BlackRock, totaling approximately 9,604,250 BLK shares with an estimated value of $8 billion. This amount makes BlackRock the second-largest institutional shareholder of its own company.

But what does BlackRock own besides BLK stock?

Blackrock’s investment in its BLK shares represents only a tiny fraction (0.2%) of the company’s holdings. As of Q1 2024, the top five Blackrock holdings included Microsoft (5.3%), Apple (4.2%), Nvidia (3.8%),  Amazon (2.7%), and Meta Platforms (1.8%).

1. Vanguard Group – 13,182,262 – 8.87%

The Vanguard Group holds an 8.87% stake in BlackRock, equivalent to around 13,182,262 shares valued at approximately $10.9 billion.

These shares are distributed across various mutual funds and ETFs managed by Vanguard, including the Vanguard 500 Index Fund, the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF, and the Vanguard Value ETF.

Top 5 Largest Individual BlackRock Shareholders

Amongst the individual shareholders of BlackRock, the founders and long-time employees of the company hold the most shares. This was because BlackRock famously implemented a strategy of offering equity options to new employees it hired.

Although this caused friction amongst the early management, it is a practice that still holds true and attracts some of the best talent in the world.

Below, we highlight the key individuals who not only hold substantial shares in the company but have also played pivotal roles in its growth and operations.

Top BlackRock Individual Shareholders

5. Murry S. Gerber – 42,648 – 0.02%

Murry S. Gerber has been serving as BlackRock’s Lead Independent Director since 2017.

BlackRock has recently announced that Murry S. Gerber decided to not stand for re-election at the conclusion of his term in May 2024 and retire after 23 years of service to the firm and its shareholders.

Before BlackRock, Gerber held prominent positions at EQT Corporation, including Chairman, Executive Chairman, President, and CEO. His extensive leadership experience also includes a tenure as CEO of Coral Energy.

Additionally, Gerber contributes to the cultural sector as a member of the board of trustees of the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust.

According to his latest SEC filing, Murry S. Gerber owned 42,648 shares of BlackRock as of January 16, 2024.

4. Richard Kushel – 67,107 – 0.04%

Richard Kushel holds the position of Senior Managing Director at BlackRock, where he also oversees the Portfolio Management Group.

His expansive role at BlackRock includes past leadership as the Head of Multi-Asset Strategies and Global Fixed Income. Additionally, Kushel has significantly contributed to the company’s growth in his former capacities as Chief Product Officer and head of the Strategic Product Management Group, BlackRock Investment Stewardship, and the BlackRock Investment Institute.

As of May 02, 2024, Richard Kushel owned 67,107 shares in the company.

3. Robert S. Kapito – 217,127 – 0.14%

Robert Kapito is the President and director of BlackRock. He is distinguished as one of the eight founders of the company. In his extensive leadership roles, he chairs the Global Operating Committee and is a member of the Global Executive Committee. Additionally, Kapito holds a director position at iShares.

His key responsibilities include overseeing Risk and Quality Analysis, Investment Strategies, Technology and Operations, as well as Client Business.

Robert Kapito owned 217,127 shares as of January 31, 2023. This stake makes him the third-largest individual BlackRock owner.

2. Larry Fink –  414,146 – 0.27%

Larry Fink, one of the original eight Blackrock owners and founders, currently holds the positions of CEO and Chairman and is the second-largest individual shareholder of the company.

As of February 28, 2024, he held 414,146 shares of the asset management firm.

In his 2024 annual letter to shareholders, Larry Fink shared a very personal story of his parents’ successful investments and how they “could have lived beyond 100 and comfortably afforded it.”

Their experience reminded Fink why he founded BlackRock in the first place. He said:

“Obviously, we were ambitious entrepreneurs, and we wanted to build a big, successful company. But we also wanted to help people retire like my parents did. That’s why we started an asset manager — a company that helps people invest in the capital markets — because we believed participating in those markets was going to be crucial for people who wanted to retire comfortably and financially secure.”

In an interview with CNBC’s Jim Cramer, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said he’s hopeful about the younger generation despite a looming retirement crisis.

 

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink: Younger generations don't know who to listen to about retirement

1. Susan L. Wagner – 427,887 – 0.28%

Susan Wagner, celebrated as one of the original founders of BlackRock, has served in various significant roles within the company, including Head of Corporate Strategy, Chief Operating Officer, and Vice Chairwoman.

Wagner played a crucial role in expanding BlackRock’s reach into international markets such as Brazil, Asia, and the Middle East. Even after retiring, she continues to serve on BlackRock’s board.

In addition to her contributions at BlackRock, Wagner is a member of the board of trustees at Hackley School and holds positions on the boards of both Swiss Re and Apple.

As of February 22, 2024, she held 427,887 shares in BlackRock, which makes Wagner the largest individual BlackRock owner at the time of writing.

[…]

Via https://www.techopedia.com/who-owns-the-most-blk-stock

60% of Young People With COVID Vaccine-induced Myocarditis Showed Heart Damage 6 Months Later

child hands holding heart and covid vaccine bottles

Sixty percent of young people who were hospitalized with myocarditis after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine still showed signs of myocardial injury roughly six months after getting the shot, according to a new peer-reviewed study funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Critics said the study authors — who published their report in The Lancet on Sept. 6 — downplayed the seriousness of the study’s findings. They also noted that some authors had ties to the government and Big Pharma that may have influenced the research.

The study authors, led by Dr. Supriya S. Jain, a pediatric cardiologist and researcher at Maria Fareri Children’s Hospital in Valhalla, New York, analyzed health outcome data and biomarkers from 333 patients ages 5-30, from 38 U.S. hospitals, who were diagnosed with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-induced myocarditis.

The researchers used late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in cardiac MRIs to determine which areas of the patients’ heart tissue were injured.

Gadolinium is a metal used to help doctors see abnormal tissues in MRI scans with more detail, according to Drugwatch. The presence of LGE is often associated with worse outcomes, such as a higher risk of heart failure or arrhythmias, according to Trial Site News in its coverage of the study.

The authors followed up with 307 of the 333 patients by analyzing their health data collected from April 2021 to November 2022. The time between vaccination and follow-up varied, with a median of 178 days.

The results revealed that LGE persisted in the cardiac MRIs of 60% of the patients at the follow-up. Jain and her co-authors called these results “reassuring,” noting that there had not been any reported cardiac-related deaths or heart transplants at the time of writing their report. They recommended “continued clinical surveillance and long-term studies.”

Daniel O’Conner of Trial Site News criticized the FDA as the study’s funder. “The FDA is not keeping up with its tradition of ‘patient safety first,’” he told The Defender, adding:

“The procedures that were used and the outcomes that were identified are associated with a higher probability of more severe conditions.

“The FDA [study authors] rightly called for ongoing surveillance — but they don’t have the urgency they should, given the vulnerabilities of the population.”

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker agreed, telling The Defender he was “disgusted” by the study authors’ downplaying of cardiac harm caused by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

“It’s telling that 60% of the myocarditis patients were still showing significant inflammation and damage,” he said. “You get vaccinated, get myocarditis and then have a ticking time bomb in your chest for the rest of your life.”

Trial Site News — which aims to “drive more interest and awareness in clinical research” — made a similar point. “We here at TrialSite have concerns about the incidence, commonality of LGE and its association with propensity for more severe conditions if not now into the future.”

Trial Site News also said it was concerned about the many vaccine-induced myocarditis cases that aren’t presenting in the hospital and which thus weren’t included in the study. “What happens as they age?”

Heather Ray, a science and research analyst with CHD, pointed out that prior studies show that myocarditis can be life-threatening and can cause subclinical changes and scarring of the heart.

“I don’t feel that any incidence of vaccine-induced myocarditis is reassuring,” Ray told The Defender. “Additionally, we have all witnessed several anecdotal or personal reports of individuals who died from vaccine-induced cardiac issues over the past four years.”

Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender that as a cardiologist, he was “greatly concerned” that COVID-19 vaccine heart damage in the majority of young people studied hadn’t resolved at the time of follow-up.

“The investigators should extend their efforts and measure spike protein or its antibodies in the blood and study strategies to eliminate mRNA and spike protein from the body,” McCullough said. “This is the best hope of reducing the damage done by COVID-19 vaccination.”

Is vaccine-induced myocarditis less serious than myocarditis caused by COVID virus?

In their study, Jain and her co-authors also compared the results from the vaccine-inducted myocarditis patients with health data from 100 children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a “rare but serious condition associated with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in which different body parts become inflamed, including the heart,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The authors explained:

“To gain a better perspective of the severity of cardiac involvement and myocardial injury in myocarditis associated with the COVID-19 vaccine in the pediatric population, we compared it with MIS-C, a serious complication of COVID-19 with common cardiac dysfunction.”

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., a senior research scientist with CHD, told The Defender the authors’ choice was “scientifically perplexing.”

“Why compare C-VAM [COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis] to MIS-C?” he asked. “Wouldn’t comparing vaccine-induced myocarditis to virus-induced myocarditis be an even better perspective?”

The health data reported in the study show what a bad comparison the two make, he said:

“Table 1’s C-VAM vs. MIS-C p-value shows the children and adults who make up the two cohorts are radically different in age, weight, sex and race.

“And because they are different diseases, 5 of 8 presenting symptoms are different, 7 of 11 biomarkers are different, 9 of 10 hospital course metrics are different, both echocardiography metrics are different, 3 of the 5 left ventricular dysfunction metrics are different, and 5 of the 14 cardiac magnetic resonance metrics are different.”

Jablonowski speculated that the authors chose MIS-C as a comparator so they could compare vaccine-inducted myocarditis to “something worse.”

The authors concluded that cardiac dysfunction was “less common” in patients with vaccine-induced myocarditis than in patients with MIS-C.

They also said that the “initial clinical course” of myocarditis among those with vaccine-induced myocarditis was “more likely to be mild.”

Researchers use dismissive words for vaccine-induced myocarditis

Jablonowski said the study authors used language to do “a lot of narrative-building” around vaccine-induced myocarditis and its symptoms, “namely that it’s ‘mild,’ ‘rare,’ ‘transient’ and ‘worth the risk.’”

They used the word “mild” no less than 24 times, almost always when describing vaccine-induced myocarditis, while the word “serious” appeared only once — and as a descriptor of MIS-C.

Shiral Halal and her family would not consider it mild,” Jablonowski said. “She was a healthy 22-year-old Israeli woman, and the first publicly disclosed fatality, who died two weeks after her second Pfizer-BioNTech dose.”

McCullough said, “I disagree with the authors that this is a ‘mild condition,’ as Takada et al. recently reported a 9.6% mortality rate in young persons with vaccine myopericarditis. Even small areas of damage invisible to cardiac MRI could put vaccine recipients at risk for a future cardiac arrest.”

Myopericarditis is an umbrella term for myocarditis, inflammation of the heart, and pericarditis, inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart.

Hooker said, “The use of the terms ‘mild’ and ‘rare’ have no place in this type of discourse. However, these researchers ‘pepper’ that type of wrong-headed and dismissive verbiage throughout the paper while genuflecting to the vaccine gods about how the clot shot is a ‘cornerstone in the mitigation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.’”

Critics call out conflicts of interest

More than 60 researchers are listed as co-authors with Jain.

Ray noted that some of the co-authors came from the same universities or research labs involved with Pfizer-BioNTech’s clinical trials for its COVID-19 vaccine in children.

“For instance,” she said, “the report states that co-author Alexandra B. Yonts’ institution received funds for conducting Phase 3 clinical trials for the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

The study numbers listed — C4591007 and C4591048 — were the clinical trials for emergency use authorization for subsequent doses (four doses total) of the COVID-19 shot for children 6 months to 4 years old, Ray said.

Jablonowski pointed out that the study’s second author, Steven A. Anderson, Ph.D., directs the FDA’s Office of Biostatistics and Pharmacovigilance yet declared “no competing interests.”

“It is nonsensical,” he said, “to declare no competing interests while studying adverse reactions to a product that your employing agency approves for everyone 6 months and older, including during pregnancy.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-vaccine-myocarditis-under-30-fda-study/

The battle over net zero has only just begun

image

By Paul Homewood (from Daily Telegraph)

Scotland’s last remaining oil refinery – Grangemouth – is to shut, we learned last week, with the loss of 400 jobs.

The plant – co-owned by Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos – is closing due to the UK’s incoming ban on new petrol and diesel cars to hit net zero targets.

Grangemouth produces most of the petrol, diesel, heating oil and aviation fuel used in Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland. The closure, said Ineos, reflected lower fuel demand given the “ban on new petrol and diesel cars due to come into force”.

While Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, accused Grangemouth’s “billionaire owners” of “industrial vandalism”, she also highlighted the car ban. “The road to net zero cannot be paid for with workers’ jobs,” said the boss of Britain’s second-biggest union.

Along with Grangemouth, the Government recently confirmed the closure of the last two blast furnaces at the iconic Port Talbot steelworks, resulting in 2,500 more layoffs.

Labour’s green policies are “hollowing out working-class communities”, said Gary Smith, the leader of GMB, Britain’s third-biggest union. The Government, he said, must stop “decarbonisation through deindustrialisation”.

At last week’s Trades Union Congress conference, Unite and GMB highlighted union concerns about the route to “net zero” – a journey Labour is determined to pursue more doggedly than the Tories.

The two unions pushed through a joint motion opposing Labour’s incoming ban on new North Sea drilling licences, championed by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband.

They want “cast-iron” guarantees for the workers affected – some 30,000 off-shore North Sea oil and gas jobs, plus another 200,000 or so along the UK’s oil and gas supply chain.

Graham evoked the coal mine closures of the 1980s. “Unite will not stand by and watch those workers becoming the miners of our generation,” she said, one of Britain’s most powerful union barons raising the spectre of Thatcher-era industrial relations, marred by chaos and violence, barely two months into the first Labour Government for 14 years.

Attention has lately focused on the row between Downing Street and the Labour Left over the means-testing of pensioners’ winter fuel payments – complaints Downing Street has largely waved away.

But there are signs of a much more substantial, long-term conflict, as the existential industrial cost of the UK’s bid to hit legally binding “net zero carbon emissions” target by 2050 comes into sharper focus.

Grangemouth and Port Talbot are just the latest in a growing list of closures linked to net zero at plants that have long provided decent, well-paid jobs in parts of the country where such jobs are hard to come by.

The destruction of the UK’s North Sea oil and gas operations, and the huge range of related activities, will cause enormous industrial tensions – exposing the chasm between Labour’s relatively wealthy, often urban-based “environmental” voters and its traditional base.

Already, there is growing awareness among voters that “net zero” is aggravating the cost of living crisis. Yes, the UK boasts a relatively high share of what Miliband insists on calling “cheap renewables” – which produced around two-fifths of our electricity over recent months.

But the subsidies involved, added to bills, mean despite the growing use of renewables, or even because of it, UK firms and households are paying almost the highest electricity prices in Europe.

Unless net zero starts delivering soon for ordinary people, instead of just adding to their financial burden, the consensus to pursue the 2050 targets – taken for granted by much of our political and media class – could come under serious pressure.

And as trade unions fight for tens of thousands of blue-collar jobs during Sir Keir Starmer’s “first term”, the resulting environmental-industrial conflicts could tear the Labour movement apart.

The first big test is the incoming ban, from 2035, across Britain and the European Union, on new petrol and diesel cars – with second-hand sales remaining legal.

The Labour manifesto pledged to bring that forward to 2030 – which I strongly suspect won’t happen. I predict the 2035 deadline will slip as well.

Why? Because consumer take-up of electric vehicles (EVs) is far lower than forecast and imposing the planned ban could destroy much of the UK car industry, which employs around a million people – while handing vast swathes of our car market to massively subsidised EVs made in China, which already accounts for around 60pc of global production.

UK car sales, up around 3pc over the last year, remain 15pc lower than before lockdown. Within that, EV sales have slumped, with their market share stuck at around 18pc for the last three years.

Last week I interviewed Robert Forrester, co-founder and chief executive of Vertu Motors – one of the UK’s biggest car retailers – for The Telegraph’s Planet Normal podcast. He described how the incoming petrol and diesel ban is already impacting sales.

That’s because manufacturers, since January, face fines if 22pc of the cars they sell in Britain aren’t fully electric – paying £15,000 for every vehicle by which they fall short. The target ratchets up to 28pc next year and is expected to hit 80pc by 2030 – even if the complete ban remains at 2035.

Forrester describes how this will lead to the “rationing” of petrol and diesel cars as the ban approaches, with prices soaring as low EV sales mean manufacturers can only avoid ruinous fines by dramatically curtailing petrol and diesel car production.

He is just the latest senior car industry figure to highlight the dangers of a rapid switch to EVs – joining bosses at Ford, Stellantis and Renault.

Governments in the UK and across Europe face a mighty industrial battle over the coming years to push through net zero policies, in the teeth of trade union and popular resistance which is certain to grow.

With each high-profile plant closure, the intensity of that fight ratchets up.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/15/battle-over-net-zero-has-only-just-begun/

Can Russia Bankrupt Western Economies?

Via Sputnik

Russian force majeure on resource exports could bankrupt West’s economies: here’s why

“The pain” of a Russian freeze on strategic resource exports “would be felt by both the US and the EU, and all countries listed as ‘unfriendly’ to Russia, as they would have to source the required elements from third country suppliers, and that would entail an appreciable price increase for the commodity, and the extended supply chain costs that entails,” investment consultant Paul Goncharoff told Sputnik, commenting on President Putin’s remarks this week that Russia may restrict its nickel, titanium and uranium exports in response to Western countries’ unfriendly actions.

The US and Europe can expect a 15-20% bump in the costs of its strategic resource imports if Moscow moves forward with restrictions, especially since Russia is in a unique position globally in the production of high-quality nickel, aviation-grade titanium, and enriched uranium, says Maxim Khudalov, chief strategist at the Vector X investment and brokerage firm.

Furthermore, if the Europeans were deprived of access to Russian aviation-grade titanium, that would add to Airbus’s production costs, hitting their bottom line in the high-stakes rivalry with Boeing. Meanwhile, higher nickel costs would mean higher prices for virtually all of Europe’s high-tech products, including electronics and specialized mechanical engineering, the observer said, emphasizing that “all of this will become more expensive in Europe and again allow their American ‘friends’ to grab the remainder of their markets.”

Russia, over the short term, might lose a bit of its export revenues if resources’ exports to the West were curtailed, Khudalov admitted.

“But on the other hand, why do we need export revenues? Generally speaking, the whole point of international trade for us is to sell raw materials in exchange for technology. Western countries have refused to supply us with technology basically going back to 2014. Then the question is: why do we continue to supply them with strategic raw materials? To get some green pieces of paper which they then seize from us? This is a rather strange position. Therefore, here it turns out that since they limit our access to technology, we are starting to limit their access to raw materials,” Khudalov said.

China could become the main beneficiary of a Russian reorientation on resource exports, receiving a 15-20% bump in its cost competitiveness against Western finished goods, and getting a much-needed advantage in the looming trade war with the US, Khudalov summed up.

[…]

Via https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2024/09/15/can-russia-bankrupt-wests-economies

The Impending Birth of the Petroyuan

Rise of the Petroyuan: The End of the Petrodollar’s Reign and the Impact on Global Markets ...
Algora Blog

China’s global economic juggernaut status could get major boost through power of petroyuan

Saudi Arabia is ready to “do what’s in its best interest” and “try new things,” including as far as the possible use of the yuan in settlements for crude oil is concerned, Minister of Industry and Mineral Resources Bandar Al-Khorayef told media this week.

The comments, made on the eve of Chinese Premier Li Qiang’s trip to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to discuss expanded cooperation with the oil rich Gulf kingdoms, signal a “new dawn” in relations between China and the Gulf, Dr. Wang Zhimin, director of the Institute of Globalization at China’s University of International Business and Economics, told Sputnik.

“In energy cooperation between China and the Middle East, settlements using the yuan have become an important topic. The expansion of the use of the currency in settlements for energy transactions is a gradual and long-term process that requires step-by-step reforms, opening up, and natural market selection. In addition, given the relationship with the United States, the process of using the yuan to settle cross-border oil transactions by countries such as Saudi Arabia may encounter certain difficulties,” Wang said.

Commenting on the broader trend of “dedollarization” in China-Middle East trade, Wang cited the currency swap agreement reached between Beijing and Riyadh last year, and cited interest in the yuan for oil payments as a reflection of a “growing trend of diversification of the international monetary system, including the decline of the dollar’s share in international payments.”

Russian economist Nikita Maslennikov says the petroyuan has good prospects as a major alternative to the petrodollar, despite “strong pressure, including political pressure, from other market players.”

[…]

Via https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2024/09/13/petroyuan-getting-ready

New study links personal care products to development disruption in children

The study linked endocrine disruptors, which “mimic, block or interfere with the body’s own hormones,” and disruptions in children “during key developmental moments.”

A link between the use of personal care products such as lotions, ointments, shampoos and hair conditioners and higher levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals called phthalates in children was directly correlated in a new study. Published in the journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, the study, which was conducted at George Mason University, examined clinical data from urine samples collected from 630 children ages 4 to 8.

The study linked endocrine disruptors, which “mimic, block or interfere with the body’s own hormones,” to disruptions in children “during key developmental moments,” NPR reported.

“We found that the recent use of several different types of skin care products was associated with higher urinary concentrations of several different types of phthalates,” Michael Bloom, a professor and researcher at George Mason University, said.

While prior studies have found similar results in infants and pregnant women, the link hasn’t been made with children between the ages of 4 and 8. But the new study “provides clear evidence of the links between kids’ exposures and a range of personal care products, Dr. Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and epidemiologist who formerly served as an assistant administrator for toxic substances at the Environmental Protection Agency,” said, according to NPR.

“I think we should be much more concerned than we have been in the past about the fact that these [chemicals] might be allowed in cosmetics and personal care products,” Goldman said.

Some health impacts on children with regular exposure to phthalates during pregnancy and early development includes, impaired brain development and behavioral problems, along with many other health concerns. Because phthalates don’t remain in the body for long, researchers are worried about the cumulative effects of such exposures.

“And this is why we have great concern, especially among these very young children whose brains are still very actively developing,” Bloom said.

[…]

Via https://www.nationofchange.org/2024/09/13/new-study-finds-personal-care-products-cause-development-disruptions-in-children/