Ok, one last bullish BlackRock tweet to round out the weekend.
People don't realize that BlackRock really made the gold market as we know it today.
Pre-BlackRock it was a $1T market.
Now it's about $13T.
So how did they do it?
2/12
BlackRock has an army of advisors around the world who receive commission for pushing their products.
And while they've got a lot of brands for their funds, they are most known for "iShares" which offers 3 of the 5 largest gold ETFs in the world.
3/12
BlackRock has tools to let its advisors earn a 3% advisory fee on the products they sell, as well as to add on custom advisory fees.
Depending on the jurisdiction of the offering and advisor, there can also be trailing fees.
4/12
But in most places the fees are for new products sold.
And, due to various regulations can be more lucrative for alternative assets than standard shares.
But when BlackRock introduced their gold product, they began to add it to their model portfolios for advisors.
5/12
Advisors, eager to push the product and get commission on a new asset class began to tell Boomers that gold was the perfect component to round out a portfolio and hedge against inflation and other risks.
This led to a boon in gold investment demand.
6/12
While much of global demand for gold is still purpose driven (Jewelry and tech) this push grew the investment sector of demand to almost 25%, which led to a second order effect of increasing the amount of gold central banks were buying.
7/12
Because people valued gold, central banks in turn valued gold and rapidly increased demand for it.
All driven from this push.
8/12
Gold had exchange traded products prior to this - in fact as far back as 1961 there was a gold ETF in Canada.
And, State Street launched their SPDR gold ETF in 2004, which is the largest of all the gold ETFs.
9/12
But BlackRock through its army of advisors pushed the narrative that gave gold broader legitimacy in a portfolio.
It's network told millions of users that you *needed* gold to have a well balanced financial safety net.
10/12
After doing this for a two decades, we now find that young wealth managers and economists who have climbed to seats in central banks and sovereign wealth funds, view the "gold as portfolio safety" narrative as a no-brainer.
11/12
The same will hold true with crypto.
We have existing non-US ETFs and US ETPs.
BlackRock will arm advisors to educate millions of consumers on allocating X% of their portfolio to crypto and change the narrative entirely.
12/12
Then as the dollar declines, and a new generation of wealth managers, bankers and economists who grew up in the digital era ascend to the chairs of central banks - where do you think they will turn to for reserves?
What will they invest the future of their country in?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Realized a MASSIVE hole in Thomas' reasoning that would create a chaotic loophole:
* A child born here to non-US parents could end up Stateless but present in the US.
BUT that's an issue:
-Under INA § 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) an asylum claim regarding being 'stateless' is not enough for asylum to be granted.
2/7
BUT, if they are stateless because they were denied registration of their birth or citizenship in the country they were born because of ethnicity, social group, or nationality, that is a valid asylum case.
The child must be allowed to stay.
3/7
Even prior to that standards on holding of withdrawal (INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3).) mean that we cannot remove someone to a country other than:
* Their country of citizenship
* Their country of last entry
The child has neither a country of citizenship or of last entry and cannot be removed - and you cannot detain them if removal is not foreseeable (Zadvydas v. Davis.)
Trump has ERODED the US' global footprint in a way that will likely shape the world for the next century:
-Ending US aide
-Failing to stand up for Ukraine
-Violating sovereignty in Venezuela
-Weak statements on Taiwan
-Folding on Iran
-Having China push Iran to the table
-Ending US development investment in Africa and Latin America
-Trade wars with South East Asia
-Pushing Canada and the EU into deeper trade relations with China
These have all rapidly diminished the US global sphere of influence, to the smallest its EVER been in the modern era.
2/10
The US spent a century building a sphere of influence that was broad and unchallenged.
It triumphed through cultural export that came on the backs of economic development and unwavering defense agreements.
America was a country you could trust, and it's help was of value.
4/10
Under that doctrine, the US had it's peak global influence around the 2000s, especially as this aligned with EU peak influence and the EU was an unwavering US ally against the China-Russia axis.
Some Pakistani sources close to the negotiations think the current Iran trips are part of plan to *TRICK* American negotiators into a bias peace deal.
Aimed at *appearing* to appease the US until AFTER the midterms, and then continuing a hardline agenda.
2/7
* Multiple sources have told me that Iran’s discussion of any potential concessions are oddly fixated on the first 8-12 months.
* One source said they’ve been told that’s because Iran believes after the mid-terms Trump will be a “lame duck” not authorized for aggression
3/7
* The trips to Oman and Russia seem to be focused on having allies implement short term programs, that “take 6-8 months to implement” and have the “appearance of concessions”
* For Oman this would mean a “joint responsibility” in the Strait in a “transition phase”