Steve Milloy
Bottomline commonsense: “While asset owners may pursue a social purpose or “sacrifice some performance on their investments to achieve an ESG goal,”25 investment managers entrusted to make financial investments for Kentucky’s public pension systems must be single-minded in their motivation and actions and their decisions must be “[s]olely in the interest of the members and beneficiaries [and for] the exclusive purpose of providing benefits[26] to members and beneficiaries.” Read the entire letter.
YES!!!
These asset managers, who are so violating their fiduciary duties need to be sued into oblivion. Like Blackrock’s ironically named Larry Fink.
Take the recent Engine 1 attack on Exxon’s board. E1 owned almost no XOM stock, yet with the help of the likes of Blackrock, they got, what, two rogue members elected to Exxon’s Board? Where they are now damaging XOM’s stock value with politically driven positions.
And don’t buy the line that XOM is up. Yes, but it may have been up much more – just compare it to COP or CVX. I’m pissed…I own XOM and feel defrauded.
Rod, maybe look into Minority Shareholder Legal Rights?
Agree. ESG is a cancer.
The aptly named, Larry Fink.
Good!
After a short search Google finds this:
The Attorney General of Kentucky is elected for a four-year term in the same year other statewide officers are elected, rather than being appointed as in some states such as Alaska. A 1992 amendment to the Kentucky Constitution permits the Attorney General of Kentucky to serve two consecutive terms.
____________________________________________________
Here’s Wikipedia on Kentucky Attorney General Election
Refreshing to see the law being followed instead of catering to nut-jobs. The fiduciary responsibility of persons with their hands on investment money is usually spelled out in writing.
Very interesting.
The thought of Larry Fink and Jeremy Grantham and the rest of the ESG charlatans facing hard time warms the cockles of my heart.
Cool! Let the lawsuits commence!
Reminds me of the Synod of the Church of England planning to disinvest their pension fund for threadbare impoverished priests from lucrative fossil fuel companies unless they followed the Paris Agreement. But there is no guidance for ffc’s in the PA
ffc’s in the PA? please elaborate what this means.
fossil fuel companies in the Paris Agreement? Just guessing.
ESG results would be nearly impossible to fairly and objectively judge, while return on investment is measurable. Allowing managers to be judged by intangibles is folly.
Folly is the new normal. success!
Good heavens! A sane judge….in this day and age?
Attorney General, not judge. I guess this is a warning shot.
James ==> Quite right….however, overall, AGs then to be conspiratorial, banding together secretly to coerce money from oil companies through a secret coordinated series of law suits.
We need many more AGs to think through this assault on fiduciary duty, freedom, and common sense.
Welcome to energy policy helter skelter.
Biden Administration Seeks Restart Of Idled Oil Refineries (yahoo.com)
Are thingsin flux, especially since ‘Captain Kirk’ blew the whistle on HSBC?
This may also be of interest:
Vanguard refuses to end new fossil fuel investmentsWorld’s second-largest asset manager cites its duty to maximise returns for clients
MAY 25 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/435a9384-8711-4b99-95a8-d55e962343c6#comments-anchor
I believe Vanguard backed the Engine 1 anti-hydrocarbon directors in last year’s XOM proxy battle. Sounds ESG to me.
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/05/27/blackrock-and-vanguard-played-key-roles-in-exxons-shareholder-proxy-vote/
States are going to have to pass specific legislation about protecting the economy and well-being of their state and it’s people. The dark side has readily available environmental legislation that they are able to totally corrupt and do what they (global agents) want.Texas passed a law that decertified financial entities from engaging in business that discriminates against the O&G industry re financing. BlackRock got “memo” and had to backtrack fast!
The same warning was given to Australian Super funds you can’t use ethical investing as an excuse for making bad decisions and losing investor funds.
This has been law for many years ibn the common law legal environment. The Scargill case Cowan v Scargill [1985] Ch 270 held that a direction on trustees of the Mine Workers Union pension fund (UK) to not invest in competitors to coal was a breach of the clear fiduciary duty to invest solely to get the best returns for members.
As a pension fund trustee myself (and a lawyer) I remind our fund managers of this when they try to peddle their ‘ethical investment’ options. The only response I get is vague statements that ethical investment gives as good or better returns than traditional investments.
My fellow trustees are of a like mind to me and we continue to get the best available returns for members and pensioners.
About time !!!
I don’t know why shareholders haven’t been suing companies/boards for all of the woke nonsense that reduces their dividends and such.