The Wounded Deer Strategy: When banks seek to destroy business for politically strategic reasons

The practice of financial institutions abruptly severing relationships with clients—often termed “debanking”—has emerged as a serious threat to American businesses, particularly those in politically sensitive sectors like defense contracting. This phenomenon is not merely a business decision; it can resemble a calculated impairment strategy, where a bank or lender deliberately wounds a company financially, leaving it vulnerable to acquisition or collapse by opportunistic players, such as private equity firms. I refer to this as the “wounded deer strategy,” drawing from a vivid analogy: imagine a majestic buck, seasoned and resilient, evading hunters for years. One day, lured by trusted advice toward greener pastures across a road, it is struck by a vehicle, breaking its legs and leaving it helpless on the roadside. The driver speeds away, and soon a truck full of opportunists arrives, claiming the easy prize as a trophy without the risk or skill of a true hunt.

In the business world, the “trusted advisor” is often the bank that has provided liquidity and guidance for years. When ideological or political divergences arise—perhaps a lender’s leadership shifts toward progressive priorities incompatible with supporting defense suppliers under a particular administration—the institution can withdraw credit lines, demand accelerated repayments, or impose punitive terms. The company, suddenly cash-strapped and unable to meet obligations, becomes the wounded deer: limping, exposed, and prime for plunder by private equity firms eager to acquire distressed assets at fire-sale prices.

This is not hypothetical. Reports have highlighted cases where companies face account closures or service denials seemingly tied to political affiliations or industries disfavored by regulators or bank leadership. For instance, defense contractors and suppliers aligned with certain administrations have encountered scrutiny, with some executives and observers pointing to “politicized debanking” as a tactic to undermine supply chains indirectly. While direct evidence of widespread ideological targeting in defense remains anecdotal in public discourse, the broader pattern of debanking—often justified under vague “reputational risk” guidelines—has affected industries from cryptocurrency to politically active individuals and businesses. In one high-profile context, executive actions have sought to curb such practices by requiring risk-based, individualized assessments rather than blanket political exclusions.

The vulnerability stems from the absence of strong guardrails. Banks hold immense power over liquidity, and without legislative protections, they can exit relationships with minimal recourse for the client. A clean “divorce”—mutual termination of lending without malice or destruction—should be possible, but too often, the exit inflicts maximum damage: frozen accounts, called loans, or reputational smears that cascade into further isolation. This leaves companies unable to pivot to new lenders quickly, especially in capital-intensive fields like aerospace or defense, where contracts demand stability.

Compounding this is the explosive growth of private equity, which thrives on distressed opportunities. Private equity firms manage trillions in assets; global private equity deal value rebounded sharply in recent years, reaching $2.6 trillion in 2025, with buyouts alone nearing $1.8 trillion. Assets under management in the sector have ballooned, with estimates placing private equity-held companies at record levels and dry powder (uninvested capital) fueling aggressive acquisitions. Firms often use leveraged buyouts—acquiring targets with borrowed money loaded onto the acquired company itself—leading to high failure rates: roughly one in five large leveraged buyouts results in bankruptcy within a decade.

Brendan Ballou’s book Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America (2023) provides a stark examination of this dynamic. Ballou, a former federal prosecutor and special counsel for private equity at the Justice Department, details how firms acquire businesses—often retailers, medical practices, nursing homes, or other essential services—using minimal equity while saddling them with debt. Profits are extracted through fee structures, cost-cutting (including job reductions), price hikes, and quality reductions, shifting resources from productive enterprise to financial engineering. The result: higher costs for consumers, lost jobs, and weakened companies. Reviews describe the book as “infuriating” and “essential,” highlighting how private equity has reshaped the economy by prioritizing extraction over long-term value creation.

A parallel Ohio example illustrates how regulatory pressure can wound companies, creating openings for corruption and plunder. FirstEnergy, facing challenges from Obama-era policies promoting renewables over traditional nuclear and coal, sought bailouts amid financial strain. This culminated in the House Bill 6 scandal—the largest corruption case in Ohio history—involving $60 million in bribes funneled through dark money groups to secure legislation subsidizing failing nuclear plants. FirstEnergy admitted involvement, paying $230 million in penalties, while executives and politicians faced charges. The scandal exposed how wounded utilities, pressured by federal regulations, turned to political influence rather than market adaptation—ultimately harming ratepayers and eroding trust.

Private equity’s role in housing offers another cautionary tale. Firms like Blackstone (often confused with BlackRock) pioneered large-scale single-family home purchases post-2008 crisis, converting them to rentals. While institutional ownership remains a small fraction nationally, concentrated in certain markets, it has driven up prices and rents in hotspots by outbidding families with cash offers and low borrowing costs. Tenants face added fees, and communities lose owner-occupied stability. This mirrors the “plunder” pattern: acquire undervalued or distressed assets, extract value, and leave diminished foundations.

These examples underscore a systemic issue: without regulatory constraints, financial institutions can act as activists against disfavored sectors or politics. Large international banks, with global priorities over domestic patriotism, pose particular risks. They fund diverse causes, yet behind the scenes may undercut supply chains supporting certain administrations—eroding American infrastructure indirectly. Fiduciary responsibility demands impartiality, but temptations arise when no guardrails exist. Ethics alone fails; self-discipline yields to pettiness or ideology.

Ohio can lead by enacting legislation to protect businesses. Proposals could include:

•  Mandating civil, non-destructive terminations of financial relationships, with notice periods and transition assistance.

•  Prohibiting impairment tactics driven by political or ideological motives, with penalties for violations.

•  Strengthening fiduciary standards to prevent malicious wounding.

•  Requiring transparency in debanking decisions, allowing appeals or independent reviews.

Such measures would encourage local and regional banks—more rooted in community values—over distant giants. Entrepreneurs deserve protection to innovate without fear of becoming roadkill for ideological or opportunistic predators.

The stakes are high. A thriving economy relies on confident investment and job creation. When private equity controls trillions, often through plunder rather than creation, and banks enable impairment without consequence, the foundation weakens. Ohio, with its manufacturing and defense ties, must act to install guardrails before irreversible damage. Reading Plunder and examining cases like FirstEnergy provides the intellectual foundation; legislative action provides the solution.

Bibliography

•  Ballou, Brendan. Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America. PublicAffairs, 2023.

•  Morgenson, Gretchen, and Joshua Rosner. These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America. Simon & Schuster, 2023.

•  McKinsey & Company. “Global Private Markets Report 2026.” McKinsey, 2026.

•  Preqin and iCapital. “Alternatives Decoded,” with data to February 2026.

•  U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission filings on FirstEnergy/Ohio nuclear bribery scandal (various, 2020–2025).

•  Ohio Public Utilities Commission decisions on FirstEnergy penalties (2025).

•  Various reports on debanking, including executive orders and congressional investigations (2025–2026).

•  PitchBook and KPMG analyses of private equity trends (2025–2026).

Footnotes

¹ Ballou, Plunder, on leveraged buyout bankruptcy rates.

² McKinsey Global Private Markets Report 2026, deal value statistics.

³ Preqin/iCapital data on private equity AUM growth to $7 trillion by end-2025.

⁴ Wikipedia and AP News summaries of Ohio nuclear bribery scandal involving FirstEnergy and HB 6.

⁵ Reports on institutional single-family rental ownership (e.g., Blackstone/Invitation Homes strategies).

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Why The World Needs Tesla Semis: There is just too much regulation in the trucking industry

It was unfortunate that Elon Musk went sideways with President Trump, because there are enough problems in the world without something like a minor scuffle to derail what are otherwise fantastic opportunities.  Inflation is down, as predicted, and the economy is expected to boom.  And a lot of the debt we are currently incurring will easily be paid off with growth, if you can keep foreign and domestic terrorists from shutting the world down again with another COVID-type bioweapon.  The relationship Elon Musk has had with the White House has been positive so far in 2025, and there are many people who would like to see that optimism end.  And because of Elon Musk’s embrace of the MAGA movement and the great work he did with DOGE, I have been planning to get a Cybertruck.  I think it’s the best vehicle in the world being made right now.  I don’t mind that it’s electric.  I like traditional fossil fuel vehicles, but the power that these electric engines produce is an excellent example of fantastic engineering, so I am very interested in all Tesla products.  And I want them to continue to grow in market share.  But when Elon Musk got upset and supported an impeachment of President Trump, I dropped those plans for a Cybertruck faster than a New York second.  If Musk isn’t supporting MAGA, I’m not supporting Musk.  I might like him.  I might cheer him on as an innovator.  But I’m also not going to go out of my way to buy a Tesla if I can’t believe in the creator himself.  I only looked at Tesla vehicles because of Musk’s embrace of President Trump.  So we’ll see if any reconciliation lasts, or if it’s just a matter of personal survival.  Always judge people not by what they say, but by what they do.

But speaking of Elon Musk, self-driving vehicles, especially the Tesla semi trucks, and MAGA, there is a lot of fear that the self-driving aspect of these modern vehicles is just another way to steal jobs away from Americans.  But I don’t see it that way at all.  I’ve pointed out before that electric semi-trucks don’t have the range to replace full-time, diesel over-the-road trucks.  The concern is that self-driving trucks will replace the jobs of professional truck drivers.  However, I believe it will only benefit them, as the transportation industry is overly regulated. Therefore, when asked, “Why the Tesla semi?” the answer is a solution to overregulation that makes being a truck driver a challenging occupation. And that if you could change the nature of the over-road part of it, then we might find more drivers who would want to enter that field.  The problem with shipping products from the West Coast to the East, for instance, is that drivers are forced to be on the road too long.   They have to stop every 11 hours within a 14-hour on-duty window after 10 consecutive hours off, and all of this has to be recorded in a logbook. It’s just a pain in the neck for the driver.  It forces them to be on the road longer and away from their families needlessly.  The regulators will say that it prevents accidents from driver fatigue.  I know a lot of truck drivers, I’ve dealt with thousands of them over the years and for them there is nothing worse than driving all across the country with all the regulations involved only to get to their destination and have to sit in the parking lot waiting for a manufacturing plant to open, to unload them, further wasting their time.  Transportation times across the country are ridiculously long due to excessive regulations and a lackadaisical approach to labor hours in manufacturing these days. 

Where the Tesla semi trucks come in is that they can drive automatically across the boring states, such as Arizona, New Mexico, Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana, and drop their loads off at designated drop lots outside major cities.  And from there, a live driver can get up and work an 8-hour day picking up that trailer and taking it the rest of the way to the destination.  I think it would create more truck driving jobs to use the self-driving trucks to haul loads over the vast distances where there isn’t much traffic.  Self-driving trucks could operate outside of that 11-hour window, significantly reducing delivery times and making the live driver’s time much more productive.  However, to impose all those restrictions on a live driver and force them to stay on the road for over a week due to regulatory burdens is unreasonable.  It is no wonder, then, that there is a shortage of drivers.  It’s fun to be on the road for short spurts, but day after day, year after year, it wears out families and makes life challenging.  We should be making the profession easier, not harder.  The Tesla semi would work well with a drop lot system, which would make more commerce available by removing the capacity ceiling.  With capacity being determined by the regulatory burdens.  The safest thing to do to a truck driver is to keep them from driving.  However, we want drivers to drive more and haul more product from one place to another, and that limit should not be confined to human driving hours. 

One of the most attractive aspects of Tesla vehicles to me is that they are self-driving.  I enjoy driving cars probably more than most people.  But I can think of a million things to do with my time than driving when I am just trying to get from one place to another.  And I could use that extra half hour in those drives around town to do other things if the car is driving itself.  I could improve my efficiency significantly if the car drove itself.  And I see that being the significant benefit to the Tesla line of products.  They enhance time management, which will undoubtedly benefit the trucking industry.  I always feel sorry for truck drivers at rest stops, forced to wait out their 11-hour driving window when they are still 2,000 miles from home, heading in the opposite direction.  If I were them, I’d want to drive for 16 hours straight and cut down my time on the road, so I could either spend more time with my family or have the opportunity to make more money with additional routes. However, as things stand, a significant amount of trucking capacity remains underutilized due to drivers being constrained by excessive regulation.  The Tesla Semi would help make those long routes much more manageable, making it more achievable to give drivers a regular 8-hour workday and the ability to get home to their families each night.  And to let the Tesla Semi handle the long over-the-road hauls, driving way past the 11-hour maximum.  I see an expansion of the trucking industry, making it more attractive for human drivers to become truck drivers, as the automated Tesla semis could handle the heavy lifting that is currently discouraging market entry.  And that part of making America Great Again is in making truck driving great, maybe for the first time.  Tesla’s innovation in self-driving vehicles can give human beings a great gift, greatly expanding economic opportunities in the future.  And that has more value than money, most of the time.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Now Everyone Wants Net Neutrality: People running to government for protection from actions the government committed.

Everyone suddenly is excited about Ohio’s Attorney General David Yost suing the government over control of the internet as a public utility explicitly targeting Google’s use of search engines to limit conservative speech.  Doesn’t everyone remember Net Neutrality that the government desperately wanted?  What everyone is cheering on with Yost is essentially the passage of Net Neutrality.  Because in free internet, we have seen a government alliance with Google, Facebook, Twitter, and many others where they have gone out and done the crimes of government, Chinese style censorship and all, and now people are saying “uncle,” they can’t take it.  Are these too big to fail? Tech companies have become villains, and now we are crying to the government to help us?  When it was government working both sides against the middle.  Doesn’t everyone smell the rat? 

Cliffhanger the Overmanwarrior


Share, subscribe, and see you later,https://rumble.com/embed/vciikp/?pub=3rih5#?secret=bniNjt4gIIhttps://rumble.com/embed/vd9a53/?pub=3rih5#?secret=I8cwvuaVB9


Sign up for Second Call Defense at the link below. Use my name to get added benefits.
http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707