(no title)
OrangeMonkey | 3 years ago
I know references and facts arn't as fun as emotional pleas and comparing investing for financial growth to cancer... but lets try it anyway?
> in May, under the banner of promoting ESG, nearly 50% of Travelers Insurance shareholders asked the company to break the law. Full stop. Specifically, about 47% of its investors backed a shareholder proposal that would have caused the company to collect and consider race when writing insurance policies, in direct violation of state law. [1]
> “Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners’ retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock’s climate agenda. [2]
> "As fiduciaries, trustees must act in ways that financially benefit the trust and its beneficiaries. Trustees who fail to do so are liable for damages to the beneficiaries, and may face additional legal penalties. The social and environmental goals involved in ESG investing create a greater potential for violations of fiduciary law by introducing motives for investment choices outside the traditional definition. Are trustees selecting ESG-focused mutual funds because they believe they are suitable investments, or do they merely hope to make the world a better place by deploying capital under their control according to socially pressured or personally held beliefs?" [4]
Of course, that doesn't stop well meaning fools from trying to change the definition of words to make what they are doing not illegal.
> As the landscape for investment changes, so too does the notion of fiduciary duty. The processes and approaches used to guide investment decisions have evolved over time in response to changes in the generally accepted understanding of market behavior. We are again at an inflection point. As the evidence and rationale behind addressing material and business related impacts of ESG factors in the investment process further develops and is increasingly accepted, so does our understanding of these factors through a fiduciary lens. [3]
[1] - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/24/is-environm...
[2] - https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton...
[3] - https://www.intentionalendowments.org/fiduciary_duty_is_not_...
[4] - https://www.palisadeshudson.com/2022/07/an-esg-investing-haz...
astrange|3 years ago
Are you against companies following the G in ESG? "Opposing ESG" is literally asking for "companies with bad governance". Which is why anti-ESG banks are run out of the house of their CEO with a drinking problem.
https://archive.ph/bM9LW
Of course, the "your ESG fund is against my fiduciary duties" people are also the "you need to invest in my state's fossil fuel companies" people regardless of whether that's a wise investment.
https://a4de8bd9-8c02-4b69-8f48-7792cfcaf8fd.usrfiles.com/ug...
OrangeMonkey|3 years ago