In 2023, the backlash against ESG investing has gained momentum, particularly in the United States where conservative politicians and lobby groups have put pressure on the SEC and investors to abandon this approach as 'woke capitalism’. A recent survey of investors and executives shows that this approach seems to be backfiring and that is a good thing for the planet.
(1) There was (is?) ‘Greenwashing’ with funds attaching ‘ESG’ to the fund name (with holdings largely irrelevant to CC) to attract money - which it did until it did not.
(2) IMO climate change is an existential threat, and international governments should take action to address carbon emissions AND other pollution (ban many uses of plastics) AND spend on mitigation: flood defences etc. In the meantime pious talk does little. Among the other awful consequences of a Trump presidency, will the USA reverse its efforts?
(3) There is a need for Governments to announce measures with public sector involvement AND stick to them: stability & predictability AND SO enable private capital to be invested - correct capital allocation. I see Blackrock has raised $zillions for infrastructure funds, so private capital is there.
(3) Jeremy Grantham (think GMO) suggests the above and has given $zillions of his own money towards it. GMO Asset Management offers a Climate Change Fund, with good holdings, in a GBP class - but I can find no UK ‘platforms’ offering it. The so called ‘climate change’ funds in the UK have holdings which largely are not relevant and unexciting. I appreciate most money is institutional but it would be welcome to have suitable retail funds.
Quite the opposite. ESG is very much part of fiduciary duty because fiduciary duty means a duty to all stakeholders. In the US fiduciary duty is narrowly defined as duty to shareholders, which is not the case anywhere else in the world. The law in the UK and most other countries even defines the duties of the board of directors as to all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Defining fiduciary duty as only to shareholders is a relic of the times of robber barons.
Spoken like a true socialist. Time has proven that those with no skin in the game (aka “stakeholders”) are always willing to distribute someone else’s wealth. Your national socialist workers party ancestors would be proud.
Curious your thoughts on ESG+ ideas such as National Security as an Impact Investing theme.
https://newsletter.tuttleventures.com/p/a-new-era-in-global-investing-national
Interesting. What can a Private Investor think?
(1) There was (is?) ‘Greenwashing’ with funds attaching ‘ESG’ to the fund name (with holdings largely irrelevant to CC) to attract money - which it did until it did not.
(2) IMO climate change is an existential threat, and international governments should take action to address carbon emissions AND other pollution (ban many uses of plastics) AND spend on mitigation: flood defences etc. In the meantime pious talk does little. Among the other awful consequences of a Trump presidency, will the USA reverse its efforts?
(3) There is a need for Governments to announce measures with public sector involvement AND stick to them: stability & predictability AND SO enable private capital to be invested - correct capital allocation. I see Blackrock has raised $zillions for infrastructure funds, so private capital is there.
(3) Jeremy Grantham (think GMO) suggests the above and has given $zillions of his own money towards it. GMO Asset Management offers a Climate Change Fund, with good holdings, in a GBP class - but I can find no UK ‘platforms’ offering it. The so called ‘climate change’ funds in the UK have holdings which largely are not relevant and unexciting. I appreciate most money is institutional but it would be welcome to have suitable retail funds.
Sorry, but ESG and fiduciary responsibility are diametrically opposed.
Quite the opposite. ESG is very much part of fiduciary duty because fiduciary duty means a duty to all stakeholders. In the US fiduciary duty is narrowly defined as duty to shareholders, which is not the case anywhere else in the world. The law in the UK and most other countries even defines the duties of the board of directors as to all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Defining fiduciary duty as only to shareholders is a relic of the times of robber barons.
Spoken like a true socialist. Time has proven that those with no skin in the game (aka “stakeholders”) are always willing to distribute someone else’s wealth. Your national socialist workers party ancestors would be proud.