I've been thinking about $BLK's #LarryFink and his line recently that " investors should be 100% in equities". In my haste to take him to task given the surrounding fundamental data that in my opinion is in no way supportive of this position, other than equity prices are rising and his living depends on people's commitment to the market, I omitted a very important element of the story. That part being Mr. Fink's aiders and abettors, the mainstream media prostitutes at the propaganda outlet CNBC.
Did any of the purported financial journalists of CNBC ask Mr. Fink if he is personally 100% in equities? How about his wife's account or his mother's? Did it even cross their mind?
Of course they didn't ask a question like that. They didn't because this would require onions. They didn't because they like their jobs at CNBC and as pathetic as you and I may feel it is to grovel on bent knee before so many of these Federal Reserve and Wall St. shills this groveling is job security.
Watch Steve Liesman any day. Oh, he's a tough buy with Rick Santelli but with a Fed head or Wall St. shill on Liesman takes grovelling to the next level such that he could teach a PhD level course on the subject. Kinda makes me think of the Seinfeld episode and shrinkage. (Way too funny!)
It's much easier to ask fawning questions about Mr. Fink's philanthropic endeavors or praise his market acumen and position rather than risk offending, his Wall St. maven-ness or Wall St. titan-ness I know not which, by asking a basic journalism 101 question for fear of offending and losing access to Mr. Fink and Blackrock.
Larry Fink might very well be a great guy and its not his fault the professional grovellers that masquerade as journalists at CNBC, won't or can't ask the tough questions that need to be asked. I betcha Fink laughed his ass mocking those faux-journalists for their lack of spine.
I'd also betcha dollars to doughnuts that Fink is NOT 100% in equities?