ESG

nemesis24k

While it's a good firm, it's going to be very hard to generate alpha on stocks like these. They are B2B in a very crowded space and the only path to outperformance is to take market share from other extremely strong firms -SPGi, ICE, LSE etc. The TAM is tied to underlying shift to passive and ESG and general equity markets which are probably saturated/ slower growth now that fixed income is a viable alternative. Their analytics/ software division does not have the kind of growth to sustain. This is probably high risk stock due to the enhanced valuation.

P_BatemanPhonkMix

Of course they work but if it wasn’t mandated by western govt using ESG as a policy to get votes from extreme leftists, they would never see mass adoption. The market, objectively, is showing people don’t want them. In fact, since car companies have been facing extreme cafe standards and carbon taxes etc they have been having to artificially inflate costs of their gas cars and STILL they tremendously outsell. I have anecdotes of true believer friends of mine (leftists) who are activist ESG people (and we have excellent discussions on this and I acknowledge some Points) that realize an EV wouldn’t work for them even in a major metro and purchased a gas suv this year much to my amusement. They had infrastructure. But the SUVs already start cutting into the practicality of the technology. It’s just that bad. I just can’t wait until the poors start buying used EVs and get stuck with 20k battery replacement costs. How often does the average American forget to recharge their cell phone over night? Given half the people I know never remember shit and many are on drugs (legally proscribed or otherwise) imagine them all having to plan out charging their cars overnight. They won’t. They will have to supercharge in large numbers so to be charitable to you, let’s assume the infrastructure goes completely electric and there isn’t a wait for superchargers (there absolutely would be if we had same number of supercharger to gas pumps right now due to peak use times and how fucking long it takes to charge) So instead of a few minutes of gassing up and gone, it’s 20-30 min and then off to work. Now that charge has taken a toll on their vehicle. Just like our cell phones, the lithium ion battery will last only a few years and will very quickly degrade in range and when they go to sell a car with unknown degradation of battery they will get Pennie’s on the dollar. Cost for electricity will of course raise due to increased demand and transmission via lines is extremely inefficient so its battery only. You see how all of a sudden cost of vehicle, battery, and electricity start to make zero sense unless it’s a fun toy ? People who want an A-B can get a used Toyota and go a million miles with like 5k of repairs max if an engine blew or something, though there are engines and transmissions with millions of miles on them at Toyota . That would be like $100k+ worth of batteries, according to generous Tesla data as they never inflate of course, always very honest and conservative.

P_BatemanPhonkMix

Of course. But they have to stop and “fast charge” many times to get to the same destination because the piss poor performance of their batteries with equivalent loads. Ford, Tesla, rivian are all unmitigated disasters in towing anything. I’m not some right wing conspiracy theorist saying this it’s just so hilarious to see people like you admit what im saying is factually correct but “not important because it’s a small percent of cars.” It’s not about pretending that f1 is the main way people get to work, it’s showing that the way electric cars have been promoted is disingenuous. Mileage for trucks isn’t the real mileage for their real world use by many factors, their racing performance is an absolute joke as you agreed, and the only argument left is that commuters can use EVs. Ok why isn’t everyone buying them? It’s been almost 2 decades of absurd hype over EVs and demanding is DYING despite govt regulation forcing prices on ICE cars sky-fucking-high. Even with extreme measures EV isn’t selling. Shit look at Porsche with their taycan. They are sitting on lots. Look, if there is a quantum leap in battery tech I’ll swap over to electric no problem. There are for sure some pros to the tech. But the battery part of the system is so abysmally bad with no light at the end of the tunnel that it makes zero sense to entertain this as the future right now. The fact everyone pretends it is, is hilarious. The worst part is I can’t even bet on this because timing it is extremely hard because people like you are so cucked by politicians and ESG that you will probably Invest your life savings into this shit before the economy has to completely give out. Try comprehensive thinking for once about why use at the extremes (commercial and racing) show the very severe limitations of a technology that is being forced on consumers.

Spl00ky

This stocks has been on my watchlist, My only concerns are that BlackRock makes up a little more than 10% of their revenues and the ESG backlash. But other than those minor issues, it is an exceptional company.

jkhanlar

Facebook, and YouTube and Google and Alphabet Inc already are max scam lying using CCP Chinese Communist Party ESG Environmental Social Governance DEI Diversity Equity Inclusion techniques, and the penetration is public market with ftd failure to deliver theft of assets replacing real price discovery replacing supply and demand with https://youtu.be/FID0BLkZXuY?t=2058s > 34:24 "Markets are efficient because of active managers setting the prices of securities, firms like Citadel, firms like Fidel.....lity (Fidelity) [...] trying to drive the value of companies towards where we think they should be valued." - Kenneth Cordelle Griffin, Citadel Securities, November 2023

InfiniteRaccoons

ding ding ding. he was bored to boost the ESG score.

Iwanttogolfallday69

Yea, it’s definitely the ESG ratings. 1,000% not the fact that they just issued 21M new shares and Truth is generating $4M in revenue with $60M in losses and an almost $5B market cap. Definitely none of those things. Just leftist woke ideologies abound.

Right-in-the-garbage

Never let your leftist woke ideologies affect your trades.  This guys probably checking a companies ESG ratings before making a gamble on options.

AnxiousDiva

Wintrust Financial (WTFC) is making moves to expand in the Midwest. I bought a small amount of equity three days ago after they announced their merger with Macatawa Bank, giving them access to Western Michigan ([https://ir.wintrust.com/investor-news-events/press-releases/news-details/2024/Wintrust-Financial-Corporation-and-Macatawa-Bank-Corporation-Announce-Plans-to-Merge/default.aspx](https://ir.wintrust.com/investor-news-events/press-releases/news-details/2024/Wintrust-Financial-Corporation-and-Macatawa-Bank-Corporation-Announce-Plans-to-Merge/default.aspx)). It's gone up every day since. Wintrust buys up community banks but lets them keep their name. That's unique in the banking industry and that local name recognition is a big asset. Plus, when a bank joins the Wintrust network, they get the digital infrastructure that comes with being a part of a big bank network (better app, website, etc.) If and when the economy tanks, they'll be in a position to add more community banks to their network. For the sake of due diligence, I should note that that Wintrust's ESG score could be better, particularly on environmental issues.

brewgeoff

You’re going to recurve some criticism for your interest in divesting in carbon. The investment corner of reddit can be a bit hostile to any investment philosophies it views as heterodox. What you’re describing is an ESG approach and it’s a valid approach if you prefer it. Folks (already in this thread) have suggested that you’re going to have negative results from taking such an approach but a brief look at funds like Calvert’s CSXRX/CVLC, iShares SUSA or Vanguard ESGV will demonstrate that you can achieve perfectly suitable returns with an ESG approach. All three funds take the approach of starting with an index and filtering out bad actors. Talk to a few investment companies about their approach. Do they pick a portfolio of individual stocks? Do they operate from an index? Follow up with questions about how their approach would reflect your values and how removing oil & gas companies could impact returns.

Barbossal

I'll be blunt here, but honestly just buy the market. If you ***truly*** care about ethics in corporate governance, contact your local politicians and/or organize to solve the actual issues. Any interest in ESG or money moving is essentially slacktivism.

EcleticThoughts28

One of the advisors at the firm I work for specializes in ESG investing and focuses on clients with needs identical to yours. Happy to send you more information or put you in contact with them. Just shoot me a DM!

KCalifornia19

What you're looking at is ESG investing. A good financial planner (probably not a big Wall Street one) will be more than happy to get you into primarily ESG investments. Fair warning, though, ESG funds tend to have much lower returns than other equity based investing depending on the specifics of the investment/funds. At least in my view, it's better to remove yourself from the ethical implications of having tiny parts of your portfolio supporting entities you have a moral objection to. You purchasing and owning stock is only tangentially beneficial to the issuing organization, and with the cost associated with the drastically reduced returns you're more likely to get from ESG style investing, you'd be giving up a lot in the pursuit of this. I'd consider just accepting it and using the extra gains you'd be getting by taking a more traditional path and using it for personal philanthropic projects. When you sacrifice the gains for yourself, someone without nearly as strong of an ethical obligation to themselves will happily take it in your stead, with which they're unlikely to be any more charitable than anyone else. At the very least, you take the excess gains and actually do something with the money that you've worked for. Not the mention the harem of tax and social benefits of personal philanthropy. It's up to you, but I'd tell you to steer clear of large wealth management firms. The industry is full of horrible behavior on a number of fronts. If you can find a quality local RIA firm that uses langauge like "fee-only" and "financial planner" as opposed to "financial advisor" you'd likely have a better experience.

wildcat12321

first any advisor should be chosen based on comprehensive advice, not just the idea that they can outperform the market with no care for risk. They should also be making investment strategies that fit your needs and goals. Having a specific profile that you want is fine. Someone should be able to do that for you. But you have to decide what those boundaries are, for instance, if Apple isn't ok with you -- presumably you can find a problem with any and every company. One more thing to call out with ESG investing. One of the biggest negatives of this approach is that by making it more expensive for "bad" companies to do business, they tend to cut ESG positive programs as they don't have positive business cases. Rewarding ESG positive companies doesn't always lead to better ESG. In short, if you really care about net impact, not just making a virtue signal, helping "bad" companies become "better" is far more effective than rewarding Google simply because they make so much money and are in a business where they can afford to be ESG without any real effort. I also think 1.5% is highway robbery.

icantplay

That’s why I say opinions are split, but the reason ESG was created was for people who did want to invest ethically. It’s been pretty bastardized since then. I recommended he research it not dive right into ESG investments. I wouldn’t say ESG and ethical investments are mutually exclusive. I’d say it’s like squares and rectangles. Not all ESG funds are fully ethical, but all ethical investments would likely include a number of companies in ESG funds. Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are by definition rectangles.

Rooflife1

ESG and ethical investment are completely different things. ESG will get you Coca-cola, Nestle and pretty much anyone else who pays the right consultants and makes the right donations.

icantplay

Is it Fisher investments? It sounds like Fisher. You can find much lower fees elsewhere with a more diversified and risk adjusted strategy. Given your desire to invest in an ethical manner, you may want to look into ESG investments. Opinions are pretty split on whether or not ESG works, but on the surface it would address your concerns about ethical investments in my opinion.

AICHEngineer

You bought high when discount rates on future cashflows were bad. The stock was pumped due to an ESG rally where investors were paying premiums to invest in "green" technologies. These are poor investments if good returns are your goal. The stock hemorrhaging is because they were overpriced to begin with, fossil fuels are more integral than the market was led to believe, and China is mass subsidizing solar panels to flood western markets with cheaper alternatives.

one_ugly_dude

Makes sense. Elon exploited ESG grants to get billions for Tesla. I wonder how well ESG would do if government didn't bankroll such behavior.

Affectionate_City966

ESG is not the issue, most of the big funds in the US has already pulled their assets from ESG programmes. But increasing demand for e-cigarette and weed in Europe and America are. You talked about demands in Asia, but you should know that BATS has just sold their stake in ITC, and it’s unlikely that they would expand further in Asia.

NVDAPleasFlyAgain

AAPL was dead when they started caring more about ESG rating than actually making money

neorealist234

At least Boeings ESG score will go up for a DEI promotion

AICHEngineer

It's all about investor tastes. It's an ESG aligned fund, and ESG saw a wild runup due to investors paying premiums for their greener tastes. The companies never deserved those valuations from a fiscal standpoint. They didn't have the cashflows or moats or anything. You bought overpriced companies that were being juiced by investor whims, not their economics.

AI_go_boomboom

Can't swing back fast enough. Companies are early in the process of purging these creatives who are brain rotted activists. ESG money demands woke BS and it's too yummy for these thirsty corps to pass up. Western video games are totally fucked for a while. Games like Stellar Blade are thankfully bringing hot chicks back into gaming.

bunch_of_questions

ESG is a political scam to mold society's behavior into someone's desire.

DoobOnTheDip

Fuck Blackrock. Fuck ESG. Fuck DEI.

offensiveniglet

Firstly, I doubt Buffett invested in Activision after the sexual harassment issues. That was likely Ted or Todd making that call. Second, between $58 and $60 a share prior to the acquisition announcement, Activision was an incredible value. With strong growth across its divisions, a strong project pipeline, a rock solid balance sheet with a net cash position of over $6B, and an undervaluation due to an essentially immaterial sexual misconduct issue. Wall Street was in love with ESG at the time and placed a lot of weight on the sexual harassment. I don't have insider information and bought thousands of shares over those few months. I certainly wouldn't chalk that decision up to insider information. You didn't need insider info to know that was a great deal acquisition or not.

Real-Entrepreneur-31

Show me your ESG compliant portfolio then.

greenandycanehoused

go buy an ESG fund and get off WSB. Maybe we all should? My ESGV and VFTAX accounts are doing great and my trading account has a leak in it somewhere

ADDpillz

Fuck Disney and fuck Blackrock for propping up Disney's trash stock in the same of ESG and DEI.

treebonk

ESG fund managers taking it out on Elon rn

DankeMrHfmn

They make woke garbage with message i wouldn't feed my own kids. They wanna lose more money with THE ACOLYTE too. The ESG money printer drying up.

NotDrewBrees

SWN stock is currently trading at a 2% discount to CHK. An FTC announcement that it won’t intervene should close that gap. But those shares are going to be exchanged for CHK shares at closing, so not sure if your SWN leaps will get exchanged as well. I would’ve done this using the CHK shares. What sucks about this combined entity is that their entire business platform essentially has to be put on hold until: 1) The Permian Basin slows natural gas production 2) LNG terminals come online sooner than 2025. Neither of these options are happening any time soon, so a 31% run up by this coming January is unlikely, barring a major cold snap that drains our domestic gas inventory, or an LNG terminal starts operation sooner than expected. The Permian’s gas production has *grown* over the past few years at a faster clip than oil has because of the different completion methods and acreage exploited. Permian producers have to pay pipelines to take the gas off their hands rather than sell it. These days, Chesapeake makes bigger headlines by *shrinking* production rather than growing it. The only saving grace might be an incoming Trump admin announcement that loosens ESG standards placed on E&P firms. Those firms have to keep their standards high by refusing to flare (burn off) worthless natural gas. If those ESG requirements went away, the Permian would be burning methane all over the place. So the planet would continue to heat up, but your leaps would more likely print

ConstantOne5578

First of all, Tesla is an amazing company. Tesla has brought some market innovations. Without Tesla, the EV market would be smaller. Therefore, I appreciate Tesla for their achievement. However, Tesla is a car company. Many people claimed in the past that Tesla is an AI company and is the winner of the autonomous driving because Tesla has more data than any other OEMs. However, their robotaxi is unrealistic. Their autonomous driving experience is limited. Having said that, their differentiations are limited and not justifying the current valuation. Their superchargers.. Where are they? There are not many superchargers in the US. The market is currently betting against ESG and emission free energy (I do not consider EV as an environmental friendly option because it just shifts the emission from our daily location to production). What you do not consider is Trump. He is against EVs. If he becomes the US president, then good night.

I-hate-sunfish

Do you even know what an ESG fund is lol. It's a private equity investment index fund which invest in project by evaluating ESG rating as a primary investment thesis. They fund everything from carbon capture company to entertainment company. Basically soulness company go woke to access these cheap investment and fucked up their short term revenue in the process. This happened across every industry so ESG fund has abysmal ROI. So yes wokeness is the problem.

Dr_McCohenCorp

Given the amount of cigarettes I smoke per day PM will never be out of business. More seriously, investing in tobacco companies like PM and by extension ZYN is, from my point of view, obsolete with ESG trends. Basically it works as long as it is not prohibited, regulated or stigmatized. But smart move !

divine-intervention7

Hiring a trans person for an ad has absolutely nothing to do with ESG funds and votes. Even if it did, your statement about Blackrock is completely incorrect, as they have voted against nearly every ESG resolution in 2023: https://www.axios.com/2024/01/13/esg-blackrock-woke-capitalism Your comment is a pretty good demonstration of how a lot of people talk about buzzwords like woke, ESG, diversity etc in relation to stocks without actually even being close to reality.

MorselMortal

Vanguard and Blackrock are in-pocket due to ESG, George has, what, 4%, so that's 15% secured right from the beginning. Thing is, Disney's downward slide to unprofitability is inevitable. They devalued everything they made with Disney+, destroyed every single franchise and consumer goodwill, their subsidiaries don't have much to contribute either, even Marvel, who has waning interest and a dead in the water central plotline. Every major Disney puchase over the last decade failed to pay off too. The place is manged like shit too. When your direct subodinates hire directors to make a 300+million action movie, and their *only* experience is writing activist docuseries with not a single actual movie to thei name, there is a problem with your hiring practices. If you alienate your primary audience (especially Marvel) by actively denigrating them while chasing a smaller audience, it's plain bad management. Kathleen is a blight on the company.

Old-Culture-4511

So when you say industry you mean to say auto industry. The oil and gas industry hasn’t given up anything. Biden’s green deal is more alive than ever. Google is your friend. ESG cripples “energy transition”

veilwalker

The industry as a whole has rejected hydrogen. The only car company still experimenting with hydrogen is Toyota. There is no Biden green new deal. That has been a dead talking point for a decade and was never part of Bidens plan. ESG doesn’t have a stranglehold but FFS there needs to be some environmental protections as the fossil fuel companies have proven happy to lie and pollute to a world that is no longer habitable.

Old-Culture-4511

Biden’s Green Deal might also be a factor here. Oil companies are tired of the ESG stranglehold on their industry and Biden’s rejection of Blue Hydrogen is being described as nonsensical on the efforts to de carbonize. I have a feeling EV’s are a big distraction, otherwise nuclear would have kicked up a long time ago.

formlessfighter

ESG was a scam from the beginning

desquibnt

That is ESG investing not activist investing. You don’t need your own company to do that

taplar

According to [whalewisdom.com](https://whalewisdom.com), "ESG PLANNING" holds 831,435 shares of SGOV amounting to $83 million in value. "KIELY WEALTH ADVISORY GROUP, INC" holds 1.6 million shares of USFR amounting to $81 million in value. How much would you be risking on the funds in comparison?

NotDrewBrees

You’re thinking more of REIT’s than MLP’s here. MLP’s don’t have the 90% distribution rule that REIT’s have to abide by. MLP’s don’t have those minimum distribution requirements. This is a key advantage of MLP yields (alongside tax treatment in the MLP K1’s but I’m not gonna get into that here). They’re high right now because many public investors have blacklisted energy investments unless they have high ESG standards. Most don’t, so the sector is under-invested right now. Energy firms are all throwing off tremendous free cash flow now that they’re so lightly levered, and MLP’s don’t have a huge number of infrastructure buildout projects that would require huge capital. Ergo, they can afford to pay out juicy distributions. The dividends that they announce are well within their free cash flow (< 80% in many cases), so it’s really more of an error on investors’ parts not to scoop these MLP’s up. LNG export capacity, on the other hand, is currently underway, albeit at a really glacial pace. It has infamously always been a ‘3-4 years away from today’ prospect because gas production keeps growing faster than these export terminals can get built out. But firms like PAA aren’t the ones undertaking LNG export terminal projects. That’s mostly Cheniere Energy.

andreicde

Blackrock, their CEO is a big advocator of ESG, although at some point if they don't make good returns he will swapped for someone that will drive profits as the main factor instead of his view.

StrengthChoice1734

In simple words, ESG Investing seeks to apply fuzzy concepts of "Environmental, social, and governance" factors to somehow make the case that X% of companies are good and worth investing in and the rest are not up to the mark morally, ignoring actual business performance which in turn obviously has a much larger positive social impact. Ok maybe there are still serious investors wishing to apply ESG principles and while I don't agree with their approach at all, I don't get begrudge them their desire to follow it. Now this gentleman/lady has gone and found a company that is included as "good" within that paradigm and found ways in which it is also somehow immoral, based on half-truths and propaganda peddled in the media. Hence my original comment.

nostratic

are you Professor Burton Malkiel? >Examining the top holdings in the largest ESG mutual funds and ETFs, we find Alphabet (Google’s parent) and Facebook, as well as Visa and MasterCard, prominently featured. These companies have had their fair share of controversies. Would all ESG investors really have their social consciences assuaged by investing in companies that have been found to breach individual privacy and impose exorbitant interest rates? https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/04/04/burton-malkiel-does-esg-investing-deliver-on-its-promises

One-Veterinarian7588

Because nothing you wrote has anything to do with the metrics they need to meet in GRI, SASB or TCFD. ESG isn’t a general approach to evaluating how good a company is using a feelings approach. There are structured frameworks and evidence based data that defines ESG ratings. Quit thinking ESG has anything to do with anything you wrote. Leftists think what you wrote should matter - it doesn’t and it shouldn’t. ESG is a risk program designed for institutional investors to make more informed decisions on whether volatility in Environment, Social and Governance matters impact share price.

RedditSheep123

ESG is just another fashionable lie. There are many others, but I need to self-censor myself for fear of getting banned. Ask yourself who built the world so you can't even tell the truth anymore.

allochthonous_debris

It would be more accurate to say there is a mismatch between what ESG filtering criteria actually do and what investors think they do. For example, one common "E" criterion is a CO2 emission/dollar of profit. Unsophisticated investors might think this means the fund allocates capital to solar panels and wind turbines instead of fossil fuels, but this criterion actually increases the allocation to software, insurance, and financial insurance companies, which makes sense if you think about it. Any kind of manufacturing, even manufacturing in the renewable energy sector, is going to have more CO2 emissions than information services.

Agling

Yeah, I don't know that many other people who manage ESG funds, so I shouldn't be too dismissive. It's just that both we and our partners didn't take it seriously at all. We spent virtually no time on the ESG portion--it was just a marketing maneuver. I'm sure there are others who do it differently. Not sure whether the ultimate result is that different, though.

phizzlek

Thanks for the thorough response! Hopefully my original comment didn’t come across as facetious. So it’s a standard exclusionary approach? I’m part of a team managing a range of Article 9 sustainable funds in the UK (only a writer but have to work closely with the manager/analysts). We look for companies creating measurable/material positive outcomes (as well as excluding sin sectors etc), but it’s a source of frustration for me that people conflate what we do with “ESG investing”, and then become outraged when they see ESG funds holding companies like Shell. I guess I just see ESG itself as an extension of risk management, but appreciate there is a lot of bullshit in how funds implement it.

wildcat12321

This is the problem with ESG - the "green" companies they invest in are often green by nature of the business they are in. The brown companies are brown by nature of the business they are in. Punishing BP because they are an oil producer probably leads to an overall worse outcome as marginal ESG projects will be shelved with higher cost of capital. Whereas giving meta a tiny discount on capital won't meaningfully change any of their practices. Many ESG investments also use rating systems that are flawed. Promises over results. I want the goals of ESG - who doesn't want environmental friendly and socially responsible companies with good governance? But the approach doesn't lead to the results people want.

Agling

I built the original mutual fund strategy and continue to manage the investments. When we took it to our partners to sell, they told us we would probably be able to raise more money if we marketed it as an ESG fund. So we did some basic research into what the target clientele (unsophisticated Europeans) would think an ESG fund should do. From that, we built a few marketing bullet points intended for that audience. We assigned the most junior person on our team to come up with and maintain a list of assets that, if we exclude them, would superficially support the idea that the fund accomplishes the bullet points. Our marketing guy rewrote the marketing materials. I adjusted the fund strategy to exclude those assets--obviously, the performance was worse than the original, but not by so much that people would notice. Done. I have yet to meet anyone who actually builds funds and manages any significant amount of money in the mutual fund or hedge fund space who sincerely believes in ESG. I'm sure they exist, but I'm inclined to think it's a similar situation to investors: those are the dumb ones. To be fair, I know lots of marketing folks who seem sincere in their beliefs about ESG. But marketing folks always seem sincere about what they are selling, so I can't be sure what they really believe.

Bright-Ad-4737

ESG is a pretty cynical marketing ploy to sell people on false morality. Everyone involved in the nonsense should be ashamed of themselves.

I_Ron_Butterfly

This is inherently the problem, and why it’s so easy to tear down ESG; there’s no definition of what it is. Some are looking to exclude “impure” companies, a lot of the funds are simply looking at ESG risk - not blessing a company as good or evil, but excluding bottom decile companies either for disclosure or other quantifiable characteristics. Personally I think it’s both a suboptimal investing strategy, but also not nearly the boogeyman it’s made out to be. People act like someone NOT buying a specific stock is some sort of sacrilege - I don’t buy specific stocks EVERY DAY!

phizzlek

Can you give some more detail about the fund’s actual ESG approach and your role in the construction? I just find it hard to believe that somebody who knows their stuff would talk in this way.

PeaceLazer

They literally just vote against anything tangentially related to ESG so they maintain their reputation as a fund company for conservatives, and collect high fees from “anti woke” retail investors. Its even dumber that regular esg investing

I_Ron_Butterfly

You’ve invented your own idea of what ESG is and then mad when the world hasn’t changed their definition to match your made up one. I’m afraid you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I_Ron_Butterfly

This is the only comment that reflects what ESG is (for better or worse), rather than some straw man everyone loves to knock down. Also worth noting that scoring is often relative to sub industry peers; so Meta compared to the Tik Toks and Twitters of the world may not actually look that bad (I don’t know, just playing devil’s advocate).

Ok-Habit-8884

ESG is a total scam

jarpio

ESG investing is a scam.

SirGlass

There are plenty of valid criticisms for ESG but this is not really one of them. ESG does not mean the company is "moral" or "good" because those concepts are fuzzy and well not everyone agrees on them Meaning you could have a company that is like a patent troll , buys some patent then raises prices , tries to sue everyone for patent infringement. Most people would see this as morally questionable or just plain old rent seeking However they could score high on ESG ratings if they comply with the rating criteria even though most people think their business practices are questionable .

SirGlass

I mean there are some legitimate criticisms of ESG , but this isn't really one of them. I think the fact is most people do not understand what ESG really is ; ESG does not mean the company is "good" or "moral" because those concepts are fuzzy and different for everyone .

VTHokie2020

ESG isn't an objective measure. I don't disagree entirely with your take. But the people setting these ESG scores do.

Acceptable-Dish-810

Strive etfs are the best bet. They at least vote their shares to maximize long term value and not virtual signaling ESG causes.

8dtfk

ESG is still very big in Europe.

notreallydeep

The thing is that just because ESG is for idiots contra-ESG isn't automatically good. I wouldn't be surprised if both fail long-term because both are based on an, essentially, arbitrary metric. Good companies can be ESG, good companies can be not-ESG.

Kafanska

All the things you name like "tearing apart families, friendships, and corroding democracies" etc.. have nothing to do with ESG though.

Rooflife1

Or Coca-cola. ESG has become complete BS. It is all about making the right donations, hiring the right consultants and saying the right things.

Agling

One glaringly clear problem with ESG is that every fund selects a different set of stocks that they consider morally superior. An unfortunate result is that there cannot be an effective contra ESG fund. Hedge funds do a pretty good job arbing the transient errors induced by ESG funds. Not much left for the rest of us, I'm afraid.

Kaymish_

I wouldn't go against ESG because some companies loudly toute their ESG credentials while still managing to be good profitable businesses or setting up their reporting to look good while still being scumbags who do anything to win. I just ignore ESG metrics.

Deepthunkd

Is there a good anti-ESG contra fund

Key-Mark4536

ESG ratings aren't what people think they are, or more to your point they’re not what you probably care about. It’s mundane business stuff like waste-management programs and how frequently their Board seats turn over. If divisive content isn’t a threat to their advertising revenue, it doesn’t particularly matter.  That said, if I were doing ESG ratings my biggest strike against them would be on the Governance. Their dual-class share structure offers [basically no check on Zuck’s power](https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/zuckerberg-motivates-supervoting-stock-resistance-2022-10-27/). I hold Meta shares, but I know I’m basically just buying cash flows, not business ownership in any meaningful sense. 

FollowKick

The ESG theme is too broad to make sense. If you want to invest in IPPs, manufacturers, or other companies that are active in the renewables space, please do so. Otherwise, I’m honestly not sure what the “S” and “G” could mean in terms of investing exposure.

Agling

People who take ESG seriously are idiots. I thought that was already a well-established consensus here. I participated in the construction of an ESG fund. Neither I nor my colleagues took it seriously in the least. It's just a way to get more fees from dumb investors.

jr1tn

ESG was an obvious scam from the get go, but gullible investors deluded themselves for a few years, and now the party is over

8dtfk

Why were you looking at ESG investing in the first place?!

Feralmoon87

Was there any serious fund manager that took ESG seriously other than those whose primary goal wasnt generating returns but collecting expensive fees instead

lostharbor

The hard pivot to ESG was backed by blackrock. While ESG is a great aspiration, not a single corporation was taking it seriously and now that Fink backed off you’re going to see fast erosion.

LordPuddin

ESG funds are terrible and if a company is actually “good”, it’s probably going to be a local shop or small chain that isn’t listed in the stock market. ESG funds are just a fad to capture money from hippie types who want to feel good about investing in the capitalist system.

Luddites_Unite

Right? It's like these people looking to only invest in ESG stuff. It's about making money not about anything else. Don't let emotion and irrationality stand in your way

uphucwits

It was intentional. ESG goals and to make way for the Chinese competitor to take over COMAC C919.

BFE_Duke

Oh boy. Back in the day, we had the Moller Skycar 😆. Then there was the Martin Jetpack. Vaporware comes and goes in aviation because it's a "cool" industry open to a lot of imagination. So while I highly doubt any of these companies will ever make any positive free cashflow, I have to admit some of the designs are pretty fucking cool, and I don't doubt the intention of the creators or engineers. Just a few notes: 1.) Big companies like to put in "purchase orders" with these green companies so that they win those tasty ESG points with investors. Did their buyers even have to put down deposits to claim they have orders? 2.) Do any of the companies even have a tested working prototype that can carry a load for the claimed distance, with a 30-minute reserve? The videos they put out every couple months are usually of them flying an empty carcass around for a little bit, most of the time in hover. Not that the numbers would be difficult to hit, but rather that they're far enough down the line to be developing an actual production version, and not just making toy drone prototype after prototype. 3.) I mean, even if the tech should be taken seriously (which is laughable), the economics would be absurd. Imagine paying $7,000,000 for an aircraft that has less operating range than a Nissan Leaf, to sell Uber tickets priced little more than an Uber ride, that will land on supposed "vertiports" that haven't been built yet, and who knows what cities would even permit them. Not to mention charging times! 4.) And even then, suppose that the tech is good, the economics aren't completely regarded, and the vertiports are already permitted and built, and the FAA/EASA/whoever agrees on certain routes where they're allowed to fly. Most of these eVTOLs are not being developed by oldschool conservative aviation companies but rather Silicon Valley style startups, where a common motto is "Move fast and break things." What if there's a crash? Cities wouldn't even need to ban them. People would think twice before stepping inside one again. At best they'd get picked up from the bargain bin from a rich sugardaddy like Larry Page. And no, I'm not short any of these companies.

Aceofspades968

Because E.S.G. is a fucking scam! It was supposed to put money in the future! Be progressive and save the planet in the environment, and be sustainable and lower the amount of garbage and help clean up the oceans… save The motherfucking turtles! But now you got people like with human rights violation from the kids getting their cocoa beans trying to claim ESG and they got it!

-NVLL-

It needs to be an AI LLM metaverse blockchain-powered ESG digital twin digital transformation tech company to get such high unrealistic valuations. Also probably get past some really good dd on WSB. Seriously, Nikola peaked >20B with a gravity powered truck, I am not surprised by anything anymore.

Nedomansky

Let's correct a few things with facts: ReconAfrica still has the first ever Onshore Oil and Gas project in Namibia history going on in the Kavango and it is full endorsed by their current JV partner The Namibia Gov't via NAMCOR. In fact, in June 2024 they will be drilling their Prospect L. On the environmental front, Recon Africa has always followed the 1991 Petroleum Act and they were permissioned to drill according to this act. Recon Africa hired Risked Based Solutions (and many other Oil and Gas companies have done the same) to do all of their EIA filings with Namibia. You can actually research the EIA filings and the extensive meetings RBS and Recon Africa had with locals in their communities over the last 5 years. The water license issues were brought to light because no one had ever drill onshore oil and the 1991 Petroleum Act was really written for Offshore because it gives licensees full use of anything a qualifying company needs to drill. The Namibia Water minister actually admitted this. Recon Africa has now settled the class actual lawsuit with insurance proceeds and has admitted no wrong as part of the settlement. The only thing that has not been investigated is the massive shorting/defrauding securities scheme thats was and continues with nefarious actors that have manipulated press with factual inaccuracies. Personally, I find it disgusting that lawyers, nefarious environmentalists and ill informed people use factual inaccuracies and sensationalism to promote agendas that are self serving and have no accountability in society. Why isn't there any discussion of the ESG initiatves that ReconAfrica has completed at its own cost to supply Kavango communities with solar powered water wells to help Namibians?

dd18836ku

I think you can start with an ESG perspective and design it in conjunction with financial products, which is a hot topic these days

spadgerinaxl

The pursuit of alpha - returns above the market average - is at the heart of investing. You can start with your own knowledge of value investing and fundamental analysis. While artificial intelligence can process and analyze data on an unprecedented scale, the nuanced understanding of humans, still has value, as does the way you are now digging deeper into company valuations and market potential. Secondly, ethical and sustainable investing is also an important part of the equation. Increasingly, investors are not only focusing on financial returns, but also considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria. Humans can assess the subtleties of a company's impact on the world in a way that AI, at least for now, cannot. In short, the future of investing is likely to be a hybrid model where AI and human intelligence coexist and complement each other. The ability to adapt and find a balance between utilizing technology and maintaining human insight will be key to navigating the changing landscape and uncovering alpha.

Heavy_Pumpkin6853

Nike has a lower ESG rating. It’s falling out of favor as a corporate philosophy.

BluSteel-Camaro23

Yep. ESG and bots are the new Reddit.

Deicide1031

Blackrock got subpoenaed a few months ago over ESG/Antitrust issues.

musicmakesumove

Especially all of these green and ESG scams. Grifting from the government or convincing suckers to give you money is not a valid business plan.

Affectionate-Idea690

Texas pulls $8.5 billion from BlackRock in stunning blow to ESG movement

TheReader6

There is NO LOW RISK STOCK. Make sure the companies you wheel on are solid companies at actually fair prices and be prepared to hold for 24 months of a 80% loss. I know this sounds unreasonable, but this is how I have made my living and it works. Learn how to run a business and then apply that to the companies you loan your money to. When a company is doing stupid things (ESG/DEI) don't invest. If the company is in a hostile country (Communist or authoritarian) don't invest. Investments are essentially loans given to a corporation in hopes they will pay you back. You are the bank no matter how small you are investing with. In the past I have had several companies that I have had to weather 80% drops for multiple years only to make a rapid 50% profit off these companies during stock surges. Be patient and go chop some wood and exercise. Distract yourself in the bad times and keep enough powder dry to keep fighting during the disasters.

Legitimate-Source-61

Should have doubled down and bought 50,000 Cybertrucks. No ESG points for you!

Legitimate-Source-61

I am surprised the ESG board hasn't stepped in and injected funding to abort the sale.

MisterBackShots69

Yeah, it was for shareholders. Reddit and everyone acts like shareholders are going to punish management. Nah, they’ll get ousted to save public face and get a cushy golden parachute. They made buckoo bucks these last twenty years ago. Maybe profit maximization for shareholders *shouldn’t* be the only goal of a firm but it is despite whatever ESG lipstick you put on the pig.

FFnFinanceAcct

Commies don't want you to fly for muh ESG