Biden vetoes resolution that had bipartisan support

[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.

[Horace]

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]

@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.

[LuFins Dad]

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]

@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]

So… If I wanted to invest into funds that don’t do so well on the ESG scoreboard, which would those be?

[Axtremus]

@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.

[Axtremus]

@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.

[Axtremus]

@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?

https://www.morningstar.com/esg-screener

[jon-nyc]

ESG means whatever its gatekeepers want it to mean, Ax. And it clearly has evolved over time.

It’s basically a privatized version of Senator Warren’s monstrous proposal from 2019.