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.
@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 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.
@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.
-
@George-K said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:
Are there enough votes to override the veto?
Not even close.
-
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.
@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.
-
@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.
@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 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?
@LuFins-Dad No it just permits it.
-
@LuFins-Dad No it just permits it.
@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 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.
@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.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
The only cut and dried effect of the original legislation I could see, was that funds with explicit ESG goals were prohibited. The veto would have reinstated that rule.
The language about ESG being an allowed parameter, but within existing fiduciary responsibilities, seems meaningless, if maybe relevant in a court where a case in point might be argued. There are always ways to hand-wave an economic connection to social or environmental values.
-
@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.
@jon-nyc said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:
@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.
It doesn't eliminate it at all. But as I read it, it might only come into play if the decision were between two roughly equal financial instruments where one was associated with ESG programs and the other was not.
As always, the devil is in the details, and also the implementation.
-
My problem is the “Social” of the governance. We need less corporate involvement in the social issues of the day. We don’t need companies increasing their DEI initiatives to drive up share price.
The Brad
-
My problem is the “Social” of the governance. We need less corporate involvement in the social issues of the day. We don’t need companies increasing their DEI initiatives to drive up share price.
@LuFins-Dad said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:
My problem is the “Social” of the governance. We need less corporate involvement in the social issues of the day. We don’t need companies increasing their DEI initiatives to drive up share price.
It also vastly increases Union power.
The Brad
-
So… If I wanted to invest into funds that don’t do so well on the ESG scoreboard, which would those be?
The Brad
-
My problem is the “Social” of the governance. We need less corporate involvement in the social issues of the day. We don’t need companies increasing their DEI initiatives to drive up share price.
@LuFins-Dad said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:
My problem is the “Social” of the governance. We need less corporate involvement in the social issues of the day. We don’t need companies increasing their DEI initiatives to drive up share price.
How do you go from "social" in the ESG context to "DEI"?
Kindly explain. -
@LuFins-Dad said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:
My problem is the “Social” of the governance. We need less corporate involvement in the social issues of the day. We don’t need companies increasing their DEI initiatives to drive up share price.
It also vastly increases Union power.
@LuFins-Dad said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:
@LuFins-Dad said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:
My problem is the “Social” of the governance. We need less corporate involvement in the social issues of the day. We don’t need companies increasing their DEI initiatives to drive up share price.
It also vastly increases Union power.
Also, how do you go from "DEI" to Union power?
Kindly explain. -
So… If I wanted to invest into funds that don’t do so well on the ESG scoreboard, which would those be?
@LuFins-Dad said in Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support:
So… If I wanted to invest into funds that don’t do so well on the ESG scoreboard, which would those be?
