Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support

[Jolly]

I thnk it does.

If one wishes to invest in "green" funds or companies, they're out there. You know it when you invest. But to make funds do so is compromising the best return on a client's money.

[Horace]

@Mik said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

My question is does this regulation affect fiduciary responsibility or not? If so, it has to go.

That must be the point of the original law. It allows managers to make bad financial decisions, as long as those decisions are supportable by leftist ideology.

If the ideology aligned with good financial decisions, the law wouldn't have needed to exist. It exists specifically to protect bad financial decisions.

[Mik]

According to this I don't think it really does.

https://www.investopedia.com/what-fiduciaries-need-to-know-about-the-new-esg-rules-for-retirement-planning-7197921

[Horace]

@Mik said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

According to this I don't think it really does.

https://www.investopedia.com/what-fiduciaries-need-to-know-about-the-new-esg-rules-for-retirement-planning-7197921

"You still have all your old obligations for financial prudence, but now you can consider ideology". That's literally meaningless, but these things end up being argued in court anyway. The law makes it more defensible to hand-wave a financial motivation for ideology. E.g, if we don't invest in green funds, the planet will melt, which will be bad for the economy. That argument now holds more water, if a claim of mismanagement is litigated.

[Horace]

Mostly I'm just curious who got wealthier upon passage of that law that allowed for ideological investments.

[mark]

So the veto does away with a financial manager using their ideology to invest in things that the investor might not be made aware?

That's a good thing as long as it doesn't prevent the actual investor from investing in things based on their ideology.

[Horace]

@mark said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

So the veto does away with a financial manager using their ideology to invest in things that the investor might not be made aware?

That's a good thing as long as it doesn't prevent the actual investor from investing in things based on their ideology.

The opposite. Biden kept in place the ability of fund managers to invest based on ideology. The removal of that ability had bipartisan support.

[mark]

Then he is wrong to veto it.

[George K]

Are there enough votes to override the veto?

[Mik]

@Horace said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

@mark said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

So the veto does away with a financial manager using their ideology to invest in things that the investor might not be made aware?

That's a good thing as long as it doesn't prevent the actual investor from investing in things based on their ideology.

The opposite. Biden kept in place the ability of fund managers to invest based on ideology. The removal of that ability had bipartisan support.

Not really. The regulation, which is not really a regulation at all, would only allow a fiduciary to invest in that type of fund or security if it were the financial best thing for the client.

[Horace]

@Mik said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

@Horace said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

@mark said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

So the veto does away with a financial manager using their ideology to invest in things that the investor might not be made aware?

That's a good thing as long as it doesn't prevent the actual investor from investing in things based on their ideology.

The opposite. Biden kept in place the ability of fund managers to invest based on ideology. The removal of that ability had bipartisan support.

Not really. The regulation, which is not really a regulation at all, would only allow a fiduciary to invest in that type of fund or security if it were the financial best thing for the client.

That was already explicitly their job. From this perspective, the legislation is meaningless.

[Horace]

I do see in the synopsis Mik linked that there was a prohibition against investments which had non financial goals as part of their strategy. That prohibition was lifted, and would have been reinstated if Biden didn’t veto.

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

Are there enough votes to override the veto?

Not even close.

[Jolly]

But it will be great to campaign on...

[Horace]

I would be curious why some democrats voted with the GOP.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

I thnk it does.

If one wishes to invest in "green" funds or companies, they're out there. You know it when you invest. But to make funds do so is compromising the best return on a client's money.

This doesn’t make them do so, it allows them to do so. The GOP’s messaging was also misleading.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

@Jolly said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

I thnk it does.

If one wishes to invest in "green" funds or companies, they're out there. You know it when you invest. But to make funds do so is compromising the best return on a client's money.

This doesn’t make them do so, it allows them to do so. The GOP’s messaging was also misleading.

My question is does it encourage them to consider ESG in the calculations?

[jon-nyc]

@LuFins-Dad No it just permits it.

[Mik]

@jon-nyc said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:

@LuFins-Dad No it just permits it.

But secondary to fiduciary responsibility. Of course, that's rather difficult to prove. The caveat here is to know your financial advisor.

[jon-nyc]

@Mik I don’t think it eliminates fiduciary responsibility per se, I think it allows considering ESG ratings to be considered within the bounds of fiduciary responsibility.

But I’m not entirely sure about that.