Jump to content

ESG Takes A Hit


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Not a new idea. Around the late 80s, early 90s, Rush Limbaugh informed us about a Jesse Jackson plan to raid pension funds to pay for infrastructure spending. Rush said that pension funds were the only TRUE wealth that existed and was otherwise protected.

And these SAME Democrats who would not allow private Social SEcurity accounts (where each worker could actually INVEST his own FICA) have no problem with a money grab based on Woke policies.

A new version of an old game then...goodie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, ESG isn't necessarily optional.

Consider if you belong to a union in America for instance and that union puts its pension fund in the hands of some big money management company, like say Black Rock or Vanguard. And suppose they like the idea of the ESG racket for their own devious, globalist friendly purposes. 

So your pension fund is what's at play and you personally have very little choice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Also, ESG isn't necessarily optional.

Consider if you belong to a union in America for instance and that union puts its pension fund in the hands of some big money management company, like say Black Rock or Vanguard. And suppose they like the idea of the ESG racket for their own devious, globalist friendly purposes. 

So your pension fund is what's at play and you personally have very little choice.

I could be wrong about this, so I'm happy to be corrected, but hasn't that always been the case?  Haven't all pension funds, (teachers, unions, government employees, etc) always been run by fund managers with no input at all from those paying into and expecting a pension?  At best they get an annual statement, after the fact.

Nothing has changed except there are more options.  It still behooves a pension fund manager to act in the best interests of the members. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

OK you have a point there. However in this case, governmental meddling in the way people invest their money is going to produce shoddy results. Hell its already producing shoddy results.

Can I ask how this is an example of the government meddling? ESG-focused funds aren't a government creation or product. It's just an option in the marketplace. 

About half of consumers are willing to pay a premium to do business with companies that have positive ESG programs and that number is going to continue to go up. Employees--top talent--increasingly factor ESG into their career decisions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that there is a market for investing that takes ESG into account. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow fund managers to factor in that value and future market value. 

Now I realize that it gets less clear cut when fund managers are working with other people's money, but It's also true that fund management styles and approaches have always been differentiators between funds. Organizations that don't want to be involved with these funds can make the market decision to choose others. It seems to me that legally prohibiting fund managers from considering ESG (rather than letting the market do the work) would actually the government interference. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Can I ask how this is an example of the government meddling? ESG-focused funds aren't a government creation or product. It's just an option in the marketplace. 

About half of consumers are willing to pay a premium to do business with companies that have positive ESG programs and that number is going to continue to go up. Employees--top talent--increasingly factor ESG into their career decisions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that there is a market for investing that takes ESG into account. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow fund managers to factor in that value and future market value. 

Now I realize that it gets less clear cut when fund managers are working with other people's money, but It's also true that fund management styles and approaches have always been differentiators between funds. Organizations that don't want to be involved with these funds can make the market decision to choose others. It seems to me that legally prohibiting fund managers from considering ESG (rather than letting the market do the work) would actually the government interference. 

 

I guess you missed this...

https://hbr.org/2022/03/an-inconvenient-truth-about-esg-investing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't think that addresses any of my questions. How is it government meddling? How is this investment strategy fundamentally different from other strategies? How will the market not sort this out? Etc.

Because Biden was/is forcing retirement funds to use a method that produces less bang for the buck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Can I ask how this is an example of the government meddling? ESG-focused funds aren't a government creation or product. It's just an option in the marketplace. 

About half of consumers are willing to pay a premium to do business with companies that have positive ESG programs and that number is going to continue to go up. Employees--top talent--increasingly factor ESG into their career decisions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that there is a market for investing that takes ESG into account. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow fund managers to factor in that value and future market value. 

Now I realize that it gets less clear cut when fund managers are working with other people's money, but It's also true that fund management styles and approaches have always been differentiators between funds. Organizations that don't want to be involved with these funds can make the market decision to choose others. It seems to me that legally prohibiting fund managers from considering ESG (rather than letting the market do the work) would actually the government interference. 

 

Today it all depends on where you live - Canada or America.

Canada's globalists and wannabe Socialist in charge have jumped on ESG with both feet and there aren't a lot of options:

Canada’s pension fund will punish ESG failings

In America the fight goes into another gear with Republicans winning the house. ESG is referred to as woke capitalism and the opposition describes it like this:

Quote

Republican critics of the Labor Department’s new rule say it undermines 401(k) retirement funds by allowing investment managers to put ideological issues such as climate change ahead of investment returns.

“The last thing we should do is encourage fiduciaries to make decisions with a lower rate of return for purely ideological reasons,” Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana, the Senate’s lead sponsor of the bill, said earlier this month.

But yeah, for and against in America by those that matter seems to be a left or right, 50/50 split.

Quote

The final vote in the Senate was 50-46, with two Democratic senators crossing party lines to support the repeal bill: Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Jon Tester of Montana. Both are up for reelection next year in conservative-leaning states.

Senate overturns federal rule on ESG investments, Biden vows to veto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Because Biden was/is forcing retirement funds to use a method that produces less bang for the buck.

Link?

I don't think that's accurate. I believe the DoL rule ALLOWS funds to consider ESG. I'm not aware of any forcing. It actually give market decision makers more freedom, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Link?

I don't think that's accurate. I believe the DoL rule ALLOWS funds to consider ESG. I'm not aware of any forcing. It actually give market decision makers more freedom, not less.

They don't understand "optional".  I tried.

You could try "voluntary" or "discretionary" but those are big words too.  You might be wasting your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Link?

I don't think that's accurate. I believe the DoL rule ALLOWS funds to consider ESG. I'm not aware of any forcing. It actually give market decision makers more freedom, not less.

Not if your retirement fund is in an esg fund. Then you're rather screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Not if your retirement fund is in an esg fund. Then you're rather screwed.

So are you conceding that you misunderstood the topic? That, indeed, Biden is not forcing retirement funds to do anything related to ESG? Because you definitely didn't provide a link or address that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Hodad said:

So are you conceding that you misunderstood the topic? That, indeed, Biden is not forcing retirement funds to do anything related to ESG? Because you definitely didn't provide a link or address that issue.

The link is 5 posts up from this one and just above the post where you started whinging.

"

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday voted to overturn a Labor Department rule that permits fiduciary retirement fund managers to consider climate change, good corporate governance and other factors when making investments on behalf of pension plan participants.

President Joe Biden said Monday that he will veto the Senate bill if it comes to his desk — the first veto of his presidency."

Nationalist is correct. If a union member's union invests in a pension fund he donates to throughout his working life and the funds go to an ESG compliant company like say Black Rock or Vanguard he has no option but to accept it. There is no choice for that guy. Biden passed a law allowing his choice to be taken away from him.

Not that you asked but Trudeau applied the force of law demanding acceptance of ESG even harder.

I repeated that last bit of information on choice so Sapper could hopefully hear it this time. I think he might be going for the record of not reading what's in front of his face though.

I'll just copy and paste next time, Sappy and we'll run a counter for you. 

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I could be wrong about this, so I'm happy to be corrected, but hasn't that always been the case?  Haven't all pension funds, (teachers, unions, government employees, etc) always been run by fund managers with no input at all from those paying into and expecting a pension?  At best they get an annual statement, after the fact.

Nothing has changed except there are more options.  It still behooves a pension fund manager to act in the best interests of the members. 

In Canada Trudeau has removed the option of refusing ESG so that appears to be new. In America, depending on who's in power, the membership might still have the option of pressuring the leadership not to go ideology over profit.

But even if the Biden regime does offer an option to their friends in union leadership of refusing ESG there is still the possibility of drip, dripping towards a monopoly of ESG the way they did with social media. At this point leadership can simply throw up their hands with a smile on their face and say 'sorry guys, you're building windmills. Oh...and your pensions will be a little less. Sorry about that."

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

In Canada Trudeau has removed the option of refusing ESG so that appears to be new. In America, depending on who's in power, the membership might still have the option of pressuring the leadership not to go ideology over profit.

But even if the Biden regime does offer an option to their friends in union leadership of refusing ESG there is still the possibility of drip, dripping towards a monopoly of ESG the way they did with social media. At this point leadership can simply throw up their hands with a smile on their face and say 'sorry guys, you're building windmills. Oh...and your pensions will be a little less. Sorry about that."

But it is optional.  I haven't heard about a Trudeau decision (cite?) but the thread was about a US Congress decision and Joe Biden's potential veto, and its effects on the decisions of pension fund managers.  Those decisions are still made by the fund managers, based on whatever they see fit. 

Worldwide, I'm sure other jurisdictions are different.  I'm pretty sure the UK is.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

The link is 5 posts up from this one and just above the post where you started whinging.

"

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday voted to overturn a Labor Department rule that permits fiduciary retirement fund managers to consider climate change, good corporate governance and other factors when making investments on behalf of pension plan participants.

President Joe Biden said Monday that he will veto the Senate bill if it comes to his desk — the first veto of his presidency."

Nationalist is correct. If a union member's union invests in a pension fund he donates to throughout his working life and the funds go to an ESG compliant company like say Black Rock or Vanguard he has no option but to accept it. There is no choice for that guy. Biden passed a law allowing his choice to be taken away from him.

Not that you asked but Trudeau applied the force of law demanding acceptance of ESG even harder.

I repeated that last bit of information on choice so Sapper could hopefully hear it this time. I think he might be going for the record of not reading what's in front of his face though.

I'll just copy and paste next time, Sappy and we'll run a counter for you. 

This is starting to feel like a VERY remedial vocabulary lesson.

From your quote: "permits fiduciary retirement fund managers to consider"

Are you using some kind of special conservative dictionary in which "permit" means "force"?

Fund managers are permitted to invest in all kinds of companies with all kinds of considerations. They are permitted to invest in petroleum companies. Does that mean that Biden is forcing people to invest in petroleum?  They are permitted to invest in companies with active boards of directors. Does that mean Biden is forcing people to do so?

Of course not. It's an utterly absurd premise. But you're turning yourself inside out for the sake of partisan hackery. Get real.

 

ETA: It used to be that conservatives said that we didn't need regulations, that if some issue is important it will be priced into the market and the market will sort it out. But you hacks that have hijacked the banner of conservatism are entirely without principle, fueled purely by antagonism and spite. You'll actively exclude choice from the marketplace if it feels politically convenient. 

Edited by Hodad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bcsapper said:

But it is optional.  I haven't heard about a Trudeau decision (cite?) but the thread was about a US Congress decision and Joe Biden's potential veto, and its effects on the decisions of pension fund managers.  Those decisions are still made by the fund managers, based on whatever they see fit. 

Worldwide, I'm sure other jurisdictions are different.  I'm pretty sure the UK is.

Again, the cite is already posted above ^^^. Right after:

"

Today it all depends on where you live - Canada or America.

Canada's globalists and wannabe Socialists in charge have jumped on ESG with both feet and there aren't a lot of options:."

I wrote that in reply to a comment from Hodad and then I continued talking about America.

But yeah if you're talking about what's optional even in America you should be aware of which way the momentum is swinging globally. I believe they've also withdrawn choice on ESG in parts of Europe.

And I believe that's the direction Biden would like to take it given the opportunity. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Again, the cite is already posted above ^^^. Right after:

"

Today it all depends on where you live - Canada or America.

Canada's globalists and wannabe Socialists in charge have jumped on ESG with both feet and there aren't a lot of options:."

I wrote that in reply to a comment from Hodad and then I continued talking about America.

But yeah if you're talking about what's optional even in America you should be aware of which way the momentum is swinging globally. I believe they've also withdrawn choice on ESG in parts of Europe.

And I believe that's the direction Biden would like to take it given the opportunity. 

 

Sorry, I didn't see it up there.  That link talks of the fund that provides the Canada Pension Plan, which I did not know was taking that stance.  That said, are other pension funds in the country being forced to take the same stance?  The government will underwrite that pension if something goes wrong.  Other funds don't have that luxury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hodad said:

This is starting to feel like a VERY remedial vocabulary lesson.

From your quote: "permits fiduciary retirement fund managers to consider"

Are you using some kind of special conservative dictionary in which "permit" means "force"?

I believe I was pretty clear. Once you permit ESG and fund managers have accepted it for whatever ideological reasons the worker paying into the pension fund begins to lose his choice. And before he realizes what's happening ESG becomes a monopoly or under government control and he has no choice.

BTW did you read the part in the link where it told us this is actually the third rendition of this law. It started with a Trump law or rule to protect the worker with a profit over ideology restriction. He didn't want the worker getting Madoffed.

OK, I see it different than CNBC does but we're both talking about the same thing.

Quote

Democrats also noted that the Labor Department rule was voluntary, so it didn’t require fund managers to actually do anything.

Instead, it released them from the previous rules, enacted during the Trump administration, which required that managers of federally governed pension funds limit their investment decisions only to what would generate the highest returns, effectively prohibiting them from considering other factors.

Republican critics of the Labor Department’s new rule say it undermines 401(k) retirement funds by allowing investment managers to put ideological issues such as climate change ahead of investment returns.

 

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Sorry, I didn't see it up there.  That link talks of the fund that provides the Canada Pension Plan, which I did not know was taking that stance.  That said, are other pension funds in the country being forced to take the same stance?  The government will underwrite that pension if something goes wrong.  Other funds don't have that luxury.

Right. If you pay into the Canada Pension Plan, you don't get a choice. You're building windmills, funding gender affirmation surgery or whatever other of Justin's little pet projects might appease the globalists this week.

As far as private pensions go, feel free to jump in the tepid water with the soon to be boiling frogs finding out all to soon that ESG has become a monopoly and you've lost any choice you might have had at one time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

I believe I was pretty clear. Once you permit ESG and fund managers have accepted it for whatever ideological reasons the worker paying into the pension fund begins to lose his choice. And before he realizes what's happening ESG becomes a monopoly or under government control and he has no choice.

BTW did you read the part in the link where it told us this is actually the third rendition of this law. It started with a Trump law or rule to protect the worker with a profit over ideology restriction. He didn't want the worker getting Madoffed.

OK, I see it different than CNBC does but we're both talking about the same thing.

 

So, again, per your cite. "noted that the Labor Department rule was voluntary, so it didn’t require fund managers to actually do anything."

So it's 100% disingenuous to say that Biden is forcing anyone to invest in ESG. Individual investors have NEVER had a voice in how fund managers assess value.

Drop the lies and get real.

 

 

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

So, again, per your cite. "noted that the Labor Department rule was voluntary, so it didn’t require fund managers to actually do anything."

So it's 100% disingenuous to say that Biden is forcing anyone to invest in ESG. Individual investors have NEVER had a voice in how fund managers assess value.

Drop the lies and get real.

 

 

OK, I'll just keep saying it until you hear me then. The trump rule disallowed ideological based investments over profit.

Then the Biden regime came in with what you're calling the labor department rule. It allowed ideology based investments over profit prioritized ones.

But, and I've said this at least 3 times now there are ways to either drip, drip, drip new government restrictions in or to allow an inevitable ESG monopoly to take over so there is no other place to go.

And on the way there the working guys whose pension managers are on board with the globalist ideology over profit approach are screwed. Their only choice is to wait and see what's going to happen with their money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

So, again, per your cite. "noted that the Labor Department rule was voluntary, so it didn’t require fund managers to actually do anything."

So it's 100% disingenuous to say that Biden is forcing anyone to invest in ESG. Individual investors have NEVER had a voice in how fund managers assess value.

Drop the lies and get real.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, the US government is the biggest employer in the nation. If you work for the government, you have a pension plan that's returning a sub-standard return.

Can government employees chose the pension plan they want to invest in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Right. If you pay into the Canada Pension Plan, you don't get a choice. You're building windmills, funding gender affirmation surgery or whatever other of Justin's little pet projects might appease the globalists this week.

As far as private pensions go, feel free to jump in the tepid water with the soon to be boiling frogs finding out all to soon that ESG has become a monopoly and you've lost any choice you might have had at one time. 

If you pay into the CPP you will get a pension.  You don't need to worry about the investment strategy.  Barring apocalyptic events the government will pay it.

As for your second point, I guess we'll see.  Not now though, in the example that started the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,741
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    timwilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • User earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • User went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Videospirit went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...