ESG

Embarrassed_Role396

Yes, I understand this very well. Although I consider the significance of ESG in the USA to be clinically dead in the current environment/administration. Its a ugly bet, that is true.

Neat_Suggestion9355

Problem is their business model. Institutional investors dont want to touch it because of ESG reasons. Yeah it’ll print money but which company wants to be associated with it?

Icy-Comfortable-714

I’ve got an EM ESG fund (I know ESG typically performs worse than other sectors) but it’s predominantly Samsung, TSMC, SKhynix etc

icnews10

That’s a common realization — most ESG products are rules-based filters rather than active value judgments, so the impact is usually more about *what’s excluded* than *what’s actively supported*. Understanding that distinction upfront helps set more realistic expectations.

DaemonTargaryen2024

Best to post your full fund list to be sure. Neither of these are a 500 index fund. * FTSE Social Index is a large cap growth fund whereas the S&P is large cap blend (growth + value). This is also an [ESG](https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/environmental-social-and-governance-esg-investing) fund so it screens out certain companies. * Total Stock is the S&P 500 + small and mid cap companies. So of the two, this is the closest to the S&P 500. They have \~80% overlap.

Live_Equivalent_6677

>...ESG funds have a track record of poor performance... You got your facts wrong, buddy. Over the lifespan of the funds, ESGV has outperformed VTI, VSGX has outperformed VXUS, and VCEB has outperformed BND. Those are your examples, that you picked. So knock it off with this "poor performance" B.S.

Live_Equivalent_6677

I like EMXF from iShares. Over the lifespan of the fund, it has actually outperformed comparable non-ESG funds (such as Vanguard VWO for example). They also have DMXF for developed markets and USXF for US.

icnews10

The bigger decision here is role clarity rather than timing — using broad ETFs as a core and reserving a small sleeve for personal convictions is reasonable as long as expectations differ. With ESG and emerging market ETFs, it helps to look past labels and understand index construction, country concentration, and trade-offs, since “socially responsible” often means exclusions rather than fundamentally different risk or return profiles.

a11yChief

Gonna do my best with this :) Is it profitable or risky to be the fund bucking the trend? What's the drawback? What do the fund managers get out of it? For example, voting against coal companies in a portfolio, is that because they thought it was good business sense or for social reasons? Do large funds buying or not buying stocks have an impact on trading prices? Essentially, this example came from a large passive manager running what’s called an all world equity fund. By mandate, they have to invest in every company in every major index, but people at this manager wanted to maximise returns. Their opinion was that coal is a dying asset, so the way they tried to mitigate the risk was to sell shares in funds they ran where they were allowed to (esg funds), and where they couldn’t sell they tried everything they could to transition the business to something other than coal to protect everyone’s investment. The cost is higher, because you’re paying people to go have discussions with the company management of a stock, which is your right as a shareholder. The funds charge management fees accordingly to cover the cost. Only in 2020? I'm assuming because Covid and the petrol price aspect of this period. Yeah, nobody was flying, nobody was driving, remember when the oil price went negative? A colleague of mine had a friend who bought a future at a negative price and was forced to take delivery of something like 300k barrels of oil, they had to borrow someone’s pool to store some of it. Refineries were having to pay people to take the oil off their hands, esg funds just weren’t exposed to this at all. So if I am reading this correct, a properly managed ESG could be good against climate transition risk, but many of those are not for Joe Blogs. Joe Blogs has more access to an ESG that excludes certain types of companies, but that's not as beneficial. Not exactly, there’s two types of funds. Active funds pick stocks they think will outperform the broader market. Passive funds like ETFs generally just buy the whole market. Passive ETFs in the ESG space just invest in the market minus companies that don’t fit their ESG requirements, so the S&P500 minus oil majors, arms manufacturers etc. Whereas active ESG funds actively look out for companies with great ESG characteristics, and who are likely to outperform the market. They are much more expensive, but their more targeted approach has beaten passive ESG by quite a lot from memory. Some active funds don’t want to deal with retail investors who might panic sell, or only be invested for a few months, so they slap a professional only designation on their fund units and limit minimum investments to something like 100k or a million. I can’t remember if Nordea or Robico are available for retail investors. What is engagement of votes? Engagement and voting are two ways any shareholder can exercise their rights as a shareholder to direct the company’s actions. As an investor, you have the right to discuss how the company is run with management. Retail investors even with one single share have the right to do this, but it makes much more sense if they form a group with a large enough holding. It’s also known as shareholder activism if you’ve heard of that before. Voting is also something a shareholder can do. When companies have their annual general meeting, any shareholder can submit a vote ahead of time, on various proposals that define a company’s direction, like keeping a CEO in their job or ratifying company accounts. They can also bring shareholder proposals that all other shareholders need to vote on at the agm, and my god companies hate this with a passion. I saw a lot of these and I can’t remember a single company board recommending a vote in favour of a single shareholder proposal. When people invest in funds, the fund holds the shares, but you own them. Funds also engage and or vote on those shares for you. This is how huge financial firms have a massive impact on the world, with other people’s money. ESG funds typically try and bring shareholder proposals, engage with boards and vote for what they believe holds up good ESG practice. What is that trying to show people reading a prospectus? Mostly that they give a shit and aren’t just trying to greenwash. I know that’s a lot, happy to answer more when I get a mo :)

No-Concentrate-2690

Yes, there have been studies comparing analyst forecasts with actual performance, and the correlation is weak to moderate at best. Now, from the EnviroFinanceTech perspective, traditional analyst models tend to perform poorly because they are heavily dependent on past financial data and short-term forecasts, which overlook the growing impact of environmental, climate, and transition risks on actual returns. Studies have found that analysts tend to be more accurate at stock comparisons than at actual price forecasts. The EnviroFinanceTech platform and others like it stress that incorporating ESG data, climate scenario analysis, and regulatory risk can enhance forecast accuracy, but even then, analyst forecasts must be used as inputs, not as decision rules.

bubblydimensions92

Is it profitable or risky to be the fund bucking the trend? What's the drawback? What do the fund managers get out of it? For example, voting against coal companies in a portfolio, is that because they thought it was good business sense or for social reasons? Do large funds buying or not buying stocks have an impact on trading prices? Only in 2020? I'm assuming because Covid and the petrol price aspect of this period. So if I am reading this correct, a properly managed ESG could be good against climate transition risk, but many of those are not for Joe Blogs. Joe Blogs has more access to an ESG that excludes certain types of companies, but that's not as beneficial. What is engagement of votes? What is that trying to show people reading a prospectus? That was very helpful, thank you for taking the time to respond. I'm not knowledgable at all in this area, so your lovely response has raised more questions...but that's how we learn :)

a11yChief

So this used to be my job after work on client teams, I transitioned to the responsible investment team at Aon in London. Some funds are more ESG than others, and stewardship is considered differently across different managers. Some would vote in line with management at the agm, some would do insane shit that really bucked the trend, and was really ahead of its time. I know of one large manager who owned coal companies in their passive all world funds, because they had no choice. This manager would regularly discuss with management and push voting proposals for the business to transition away from coal mining. ESG funds remove climate transition risk, and note that in 2020 anyone invested in ESG funds outperformed the market. The two stars we kept seeing provide great returns with mega ESG credentials were Nordea and Robico. I’m not sure if Joe blogs can invest with them though. At some point, money is going to flow rapidly out of fossil fuels, and ESG funds will protect you from that. However whilst everyone still thinks oil and gas returns can’t be matched, you’re going to struggle with exclusion only passive ETFs which just screen out ESG risk. You can find out how funds invest your money by reading the prospectus, and key investor information document, the KIID. Lots of investment managers have ESG sections on their websites, but you have to be quite a good bullshit detector to spot greenwashing with some of them. Look out for massive numbers of engagements of votes that sound huge, but would pale in comparison to their entire portfolio. You might see funds use the EU SFDR categorisations to show how large their ESG focuses. At least when I was in the industry, these were an ok measure, but funds published what category they thought they were in, and could effectively say they were a higher grade of ESG than they actually were, because it was a trust me bro type of set up. Some brokers, Saxo is mine, allow you to see the morning star return rating and provide a sustainability rating alongside. Whatever data you choose, make sure you get a balance of external and internal proof, i.e. take what the fund manager says with a pinch of salt until you’ve seen someone else back it up. You can 100% get returns from well run, actively managed ESG funds, you just have to go looking for them. I really hope this helps, DM me if you have any questions.

alegrefranz

Standard ETFs are just automated lists a computer buys the top 500 companies. ESG funds require active work (analysts have to screen companies, check carbon reports, review board diversity, etc.), so they charge you for that labor. Your second idea (standard ETF + specific picks) is actually a well-known strategy called 'Core and Satellite.' It is honestly the better move. **Lower Fees:** You pay 0.03% on the bulk of your money instead of 0.20%+. **True Values:** Generic ESG funds often hold companies you might disagree with (like oil companies that just happen to have good HR policies). By picking the 'special interest' stocks yourself, you guarantee your money supports exactly what *you* care about

nauticalmile

As far as "ESG" (environmental, social and governance), some choices might include Vanguard's ESG ETFs (ESGV, VSGX, VCEB) or mutual funds (VEIGX, VEOIX, VBPIX). Sharia-compliant funds like SP Funds' SPUS sorta get thrown into the category for their exclusion of finance, alcohol and gambling. I listed these because in a market of choices, they are choices. ESG funds have a track record of poor performance, and my personal opinion is direct action/contribution to causes is **far** more effective than feeling good about what stocks you own. For the most part, buying already floated stock in a company is almost meaningless to that company. I could buy shares of Chevron today, but that doesn't give Chevron money or really change much of anything for the company - I'm just buying the shares from another investor. For a focus on emerging markets, I'd probably consider AVEM from Avantis.

SPAC_Time

[Goldenstone Acquisition Limited (Ticker: GDST) Announces Intent to Merge with ESG Packaging Innovator Deluxe Technology Group, Targeting 2026 NASDAQ Listing](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/goldenstone-acquisition-limited-ticker-gdst-announces-intent-to-merge-with-esg-packaging-innovator-deluxe-technology-group-targeting-2026-nasdaq-listing-302678980.html) \- OTC Pink: GDST GDSTR GDSTW

Desi4Economics

Political influence will be something interesting to study. Like how Powell has been very political including ESG etc which is not the mandate of the Fed at all.

RD_006

Not at all. U're absolutely correct. Renewables is pure ESG and government subsidized play. Can't vouch for the US, but it's true for Central Asia. Big boys like Eni and Total investing in RES to back up decarbonization rebranding. Which is total bs in its essence. Net zero is pure fiction without sustainability. In other words, they're building up wind and solar farms for marketing and to appease local governments. And just like u stated, competition. 10 yrs ago, Sungrow PV panels and GE wind turbines were quite expensive. Not anymore. Every year manufacturers introduce cheaper and more efficient units. There's no investment value in it on an operational stage, maybe except regional and national utility operators. Contractors and local vendors are the ones scrapping cream off the racket.

sweejaa

Here's CHAR Technologies DD YES.V CHAR Technologies (CVE:YES) Char Technologies is a Canadian Clean Energy company which uses different types of waste to create Clean Energy products. They will be producing Pelletized Biocarbon and Renewable Natural Gas (RNG). They have completed the phase 1 expansion of their current facility in Thorold Ontario. At the end of phase 1 now and after ramping up operations, they will be producing 5,000 tonnes of biocarbon for which they already have a buyer - ArcelorMittal. (They have an offtake agreement signed, all the trial and testing is already done) ArcelorMittal, one of the largest steel companies in the world through their canadian subsidiary - ArcelorMittal Dofasco (based out of Hamilton). Phase 2 expansion will be completed by end of 2026 as per CHAR, which at that point will double their biocarbon production + start producing RNG. That RNG will be sold to a major gas company in Canada. (Like FortisBC or Energir, we dont know who yet) Before the RNG production starts, they will be working on securing a 15 to 20 year gas contract with a gas company. (HUGE catalyst) Thorold is their first commercial facility. They will also start constructing their 2nd facility this year sometime in Lake Nipigon, they've partnered up with Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc (an indigenous led forest company who owns a massive forest up north). The forest company will be providing massive amounts of wood waste to CHAR to use in their 2nd facility to convert to biocarbon. The CEO has also mentioned starting construction of their 3rd facility this year as well which would be in St Felicien, Quebec. For their facility in Thorold , they partnered up with the BMI group (CHAR leases the industrial land from them) and the BMI group put in $8 million towards the thorold facility for 50/50 partnership of the Thorold facility and also put in $2 million into the CHAR Tech at the company level. CHAR and The BMI group have also partnered up on what will be CHARs 4th facility which will be in Espanola, Ontario. This Espanola facility will be producing at 5x the capacity of their Thorold facility. The BMI group just announced that they will commit $10 million towards the Espanola facility. Arcelor Mittal also invested $6.5 million CAD ($5 mil USD) into CHAR. (Through their X Carb Innovation Fund) CHAR technologies has also received over $22 million or so in grants and contracta from government fundings (NRCan, provincial funding and others) etc towards their company and projects. Now with the BMI group on board with them for 2 projects, the execution risk is mitigated as the BMI group brings a lot of capital, human resources and knowledge to the table which is being utilized to complete the projects as per timelines. Theyre also working on securing financing for the phase 2 of the thorold facility for which theyre only raising $2 million in equity and the remaining $28 million in debt financing ($30 million total). This will be much easier to do with the BMI group on board. The BMI group is a billion + dollar industrial real estate company and theyre already talking about replicating the thorold facility onto their other industrial sites with CHAR. (Outside of Thorold and Espanola) So they'll eventually gear up to more facilities. In a nutshell, CHAR, through high temperature pyrolysis will be burning industrial waste , bio waste and wood waste etc and turning it into biocarbon and renewable natural gas. Which can then be sold to steel manufacturing companies and gas companies . The reason steel manufacturing companies are interested in buying this biocarbon is because carbon tax is high and its going up by $15 per year until it reaches $170 per tonne of C02 by 2030. Also, Canada has energy goals by 2030 and 2050. Net zero by 2050 totally i think and so these steel companies are also looking for energy efficient or green solutions to their charcoal that they currently burn. Recently, CHAR tech was invited to join CISERA (Canadian Iron & Steel Energy Research Association). ArcelorMittal Dofasco, Algoma Steel and a few other steel companies + Canmet Energy who is associated with NRCan are all members of CISERA. This could open up more opportunities for CHAR. CHAR Tech also recently listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange seeking European investors and has also commented on wanting to export biocarbon to Europe due to their high ESG mandates. Disclaimer: Not Financial advice, please do your own research also!

zonk84

Agree on the "sort of, but not really" -- and it kind of sucks that there are several models and ways to game and yada yada. People unfairly trash ESG - and from a pure "conscience investing" perspective? Even ESG scoring has value to *everyone*. One of the dumbest stock picks I ever made had a crappy ESG score - primarily because the 'G' was awful. And what it meant in practical terms? Plurality holder handpicking leadership. Pending issues that didn't show up in 10-Q/10-K reports because they hadn't reached reporting requirements (yet). My money is money and while there *are* certain entities I won't invest in? Even for the non-conscience investor.... I do think ESG - just, you gotta know the methodology and understand the details of how the scorer you look at uses - is still something I at least look at. No guarantees - even if you don't care - you won't still get a dog... but even aside of the intent? Could have saved myself some money by understanding why an ESG score was so awful and looking into why that was the case.

pacmandaddy

One person's "ethics" and "morals" is another person's trash. I invest mainly in anti-ESG companies, and pro-USA companies and the last few years have been awesome with significant gains. I even profit whenever bombs are dropped, as I own some of the companies that makes the bombs too, lol. Good luck with your "ethical" investing.

grunkage

ESG - Environment, Social, and Governance investing is trying to do this. Might want to look them up. The fact is, it's going to take research and work to build a completely clean portfolio

DaemonTargaryen2024

Sort of, not really. [ESG](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-and-governance-esg-criteria.asp) is the closest thing to what you’re looking for.

Sea-Pin-789

ESG funds are probably your best bet but even those aren't perfect - they still hold some sketchy companies. You could look into impact investing or just go with individual stock picking if you want full control over what you're backing

sweejaa

Here's CHAR Technologies DD YES.V CHAR Technologies (CVE:YES) Char Technologies is a Canadian Clean Energy company which uses different types of waste to create Clean Energy products. They will be producing Pelletized Biocarbon and Renewable Natural Gas (RNG). They have completed the phase 1 expansion of their current facility in Thorold Ontario. At the end of phase 1 now and after ramping up operations, they will be producing 5,000 tonnes of biocarbon for which they already have a buyer - ArcelorMittal. (They have an offtake agreement signed, all the trial and testing is already done) ArcelorMittal, one of the largest steel companies in the world through their canadian subsidiary - ArcelorMittal Dofasco (based out of Hamilton). Phase 2 expansion will be completed by end of 2026 as per CHAR, which at that point will double their biocarbon production + start producing RNG. That RNG will be sold to a major gas company in Canada. (Like FortisBC or Energir, we dont know who yet) Before the RNG production starts, they will be working on securing a 15 to 20 year gas contract with a gas company. (HUGE catalyst) Thorold is their first commercial facility. They will also start constructing their 2nd facility this year sometime in Lake Nipigon, they've partnered up with Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc (an indigenous led forest company who owns a massive forest up north). The forest company will be providing massive amounts of wood waste to CHAR to use in their 2nd facility to convert to biocarbon. The CEO has also mentioned starting construction of their 3rd facility this year as well which would be in St Felicien, Quebec. For their facility in Thorold , they partnered up with the BMI group (CHAR leases the industrial land from them) and the BMI group put in $8 million towards the thorold facility for 50/50 partnership of the Thorold facility and also put in $2 million into the CHAR Tech at the company level. CHAR and The BMI group have also partnered up on what will be CHARs 4th facility which will be in Espanola, Ontario. This Espanola facility will be producing at 5x the capacity of their Thorold facility. The BMI group just announced that they will commit $10 million towards the Espanola facility. Arcelor Mittal also invested $6.5 million CAD ($5 mil USD) into CHAR. (Through their X Carb Innovation Fund) CHAR technologies has also received over $22 million or so in grants and contracta from government fundings (NRCan, provincial funding and others) etc towards their company and projects. Now with the BMI group on board with them for 2 projects, the execution risk is mitigated as the BMI group brings a lot of capital, human resources and knowledge to the table which is being utilized to complete the projects as per timelines. Theyre also working on securing financing for the phase 2 of the thorold facility for which theyre only raising $2 million in equity and the remaining $28 million in debt financing ($30 million total). This will be much easier to do with the BMI group on board. The BMI group is a billion + dollar industrial real estate company and theyre already talking about replicating the thorold facility onto their other industrial sites with CHAR. (Outside of Thorold and Espanola) So they'll eventually gear up to more facilities. In a nutshell, CHAR, through high temperature pyrolysis will be burning industrial waste , bio waste and wood waste etc and turning it into biocarbon and renewable natural gas. Which can then be sold to steel manufacturing companies and gas companies . The reason steel manufacturing companies are interested in buying this biocarbon is because carbon tax is high and its going up by $15 per year until it reaches $170 per tonne of C02 by 2030. Also, Canada has energy goals by 2030 and 2050. Net zero by 2050 totally i think and so these steel companies are also looking for energy efficient or green solutions to their charcoal that they currently burn. Recently, CHAR tech was invited to join CISERA (Canadian Iron & Steel Energy Research Association). ArcelorMittal Dofasco, Algoma Steel and a few other steel companies + Canmet Energy who is associated with NRCan are all members of CISERA. This could open up more opportunities for CHAR. CHAR Tech also recently listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange seeking European investors and has also commented on wanting to export biocarbon to Europe due to their high ESG mandates. Disclaimer: Not Financial advice, please do your own research also!

No-Concentrate-2690

Enviro FinanceTech lens: impact investing can be genuine—but only if impact is directly linked to cash flows, not just marketing. In climate infrastructure, environmental testing, and compliance-driven platforms, revenue streams are underpinned by regulation, long-term contracts, or forced ESG disclosure. That’s where “impact” goes from feel-good to economically justifiable. Financial returns can compete with traditional assets if the business model addresses an involuntary problem (pollution tracking, carbon compliance, environmental risk assessments). The problem isn’t impact—its early-stage execution and tech adoption risk. To distinguish genuine impact from greenwashing, I focus on: “Measurable outcomes” (e.g., emissions reduced per dollar of revenue), “Regulatory or enterprise demand,” and “Unit economics that aren’t dependent on subsidies in perpetuity.” Biggest takeaway: stop investing in impact. Invest in demand. If the world has to pay for the answer, impact becomes a byproduct of revenue.

kex06

Elon Musk's SpaceX is weighing a mid-June initial public offering, aiming to raise as much as $50 billion at a valuation ​of roughly $1.5 trillion, the Financial Times said on Wednesday, citing people ‌familiar with the matter. Reuters could not immediately verify the report. SpaceX did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here. SpaceX was most recently valued at about $800 billion in a secondary share sale last month, positioning the rocket and satellite company's ‌listing among the largest in history in terms of deal size. Investor ​interest in space companies has risen sharply, fueled by expanding government demand for imaging, data and communications satellites, and a growing commercial appetite for space‑based ‍technologies. The IPO gave Aramco a $1.7 trillion market capitalisation, and it was the only completed deal to have achieved a valuation of more than $1 trillion. SpaceX Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen has ⁠held talks and Zoom calls with existing private investors since December to ‍explore a mid-2026 IPO, the newspaper added. While Musk has long expressed a preference for keeping ‌SpaceX ‌private, people familiar with his thinking indicated that the company's growing valuation and the success of its Starlink satellite-internet service have prompted a shift in strategy. SpaceX is lining up four Wall Street banks for leading roles in its market debut, ⁠Reuters reported last week, citing ⁠a source. Global financial ​markets are bracing for a year of potentially mega U.S. listings, led by SpaceX, with artificial intelligence firms Anthropic and OpenAI also laying early groundwork for potential IPOs. A rebound ‍in the U.S. equity capital market activity began in 2025 after three years of limited activity, partially as the result of ongoing volatility and geopolitical tensions. Space technology is a tightly ​held sector but is sought after by ‍investors keen for exposure in light of rapid development prospects, analysts have said.

mana63

Check out VSGX. A non-US ESG ETF that’s not dominated by the Maleficent Seven

irishtwinsons

I wouldn’t look at ESG stocks. Some of those ESG index funds charge insane expense ratios and then you can easily look it up and see that Nestle is one of their top holdings.

favsep

I don’t think it’s industrial demand causing this. EV trucks won’t be able to compete with gas for a long time unless both fast charging infrastructure and leaps in battery technology takes place given freight economics, especially in the US. ESG is a total scam pushed by China through Chinese EV firms. But, its possible the instability in Chinese economy with the CCP (currency manipulation), forcing China to stockpile gold/silver as a de facto indirect peg given foreign trading partners or foreign corporations will be more willing to accept gold/silver as payment but perhaps more hesitant to directly accept RMB. China has been stockpiling gold/silver over the recent years, but perhaps this has accelerated. Chinese economy is not doing well at all, the official government data is horseshit, and they may be protecting themselves economically by reverting to pm peg somewhat from US’s attempt at debt weaponization. Silver is overextended short term, could make a temporary top or go up. I don’t know, but it’s also could be true if it went down, won’t fall as much vs past cycles.

Inevitable_Pin7755

This is a reasonable concern and you’re not wrong about the tradeoffs. Pulling money out entirely doesn’t really opt you out of the system, it just hands the decision making to a bank instead. If values alignment matters, you’re probably better off being intentional rather than reactive. ESG and sustainability focused funds are imperfect, but they at least try to screen for the things you care about. Some also tilt away from defense, fossil fuels, and certain government contractors. You could also look at non US developed market index funds. They still have issues obviously, but it diversifies both political and regulatory exposure instead of concentrating everything in one country. One thing I’d caution is letting short term political cycles drive long term retirement decisions. Administrations change faster than investment horizons. It’s fine to reflect values, just try not to whipsaw your portfolio every few years. There’s no perfectly clean option, but there are more intentional ones than all in S and P or all out of markets.

Fickle-Syllabub6730

I mean, this is what ESG was supposed to be for before it was demonized to hell.

favsep

Major revolution by fascists -> Long or short megacorps (depends if fascists or winning or losing), long precious metals, short anything the fascists are against. If losing, liquidate everything you have with the domestic bank and transfer cash converted to Swiss franc or metals to foreign banks in safe havens. Long stablecoins (stablecoins will have a premium vs. domestic currency). Major revolution by semi-fascists -> Long megacorps, long precious metals, short anything the fascists are against (e.g., ESG) Major revolution by moderates (unlikely given moderates don't give enough shit to start a revolution) -> long/short based on your discretion, don't long precious metals Major revolution by environmentalists -> Long precious metals, short oil/gas, short bonds, buy TIPS, long ESG stocks Major revolution by semi-communists -> Long precious metals, short bonds, buy TIPS, start transferring cash to banks in Swiss/Dubai/Singapore/Luxembourg. Long real-estate only IF the semi-commies say they will give 100yr leases. Long stablecoins (stablecoins will have a premium vs. domestic currency) Major revolution by communists -> Short everything except precious metals (if possible). Short any company that have assets in the US and is publicly listed on foreign exchanges. Stockpile cigs & drugs as it will be used as de-facto bribery currency. Transfer cash converted to Swiss franc or metals to foreign banks in safe havens. Long stablecoins (stablecoins will have a premium vs. domestic currency) WWIII (No nuclear warheads used) -> Long US equities (esp military industry), short non-US companies. WWIII (Nuclear war) -> Its joever Large protests against ICE -> Depends entirely on Trump's reaction

QuantumStrix

We are ahead of the biggest bull cycle ever: - Money printing machine, on. ✅ - Geopolitical uncertainty, higher than ever. ✅ - So-called new structural trends, all weaker than expected. ✅ - ESG, dead. ✅ Big time. I strongly advise you position your portfolio accordingly, mostly in Bitcoin. You have been warned.

favsep

Tariffs will likely stick through other legal avenues even if Supreme Court rules against IEEPA. The threat of Chinese exportation of deflation (purposeful industrial overcapacity with excess inventory) is a national security issue for the ROW. Biden didn't even rescind the tariffs Trump imposed in his first term. Every single goods touched by China, i.e., manufacturing industry that China had purposefully developed, has lead to deflation due to an overcapacity issue which plagues communist states as free-market principles are not adhered. What China plans is to essentially export excess inventory (deflation) out of its domestic enterprises by exporting cheap electronics with unsustainable margins, which kills and will kill almost all non-foreign manufacturing competition who cannot compete on price with Chinese peers (who are subsidized directly/indirectly, i.e., hidden). In fact, involution occurs even within their domestic industries. The logic here is then, upon the death of foreign manufacturing competition, and as they position as a global manufacturing monopoly, will raise prices to make their companies self-sustainable (as the total reliance to Chinese goods & no alternative will give them pricing power) - what China ultimately wants is to raise the quality of life of its population, and raising prices in this context and thus raising margins will accelerate average wage growth and thus improve the quality of life of its population. For this to happen, they need to be a total global manufacturing monopoly, and this also means its a national security issue for US and ROW. China has fantastic EVs, and go look at every 5Y stock chart of big OEMs that invested heavily in EVs due to regarded European ESG policies (stellantis, mercedes, renault, volkswagen, porche...etc), and these stocks went sideways even before April liberation days. Look at the big OEMS that haven't invested in EVs or rather invested in hybrids (GM, Ford, Toyota - Hyundai is kind of different case). Even Tesla suffering big drawdowns in their EV sale but its stock moons due to AI robotics hype. It's a double edge sword, as tariffs definitely do hurt the US and the ROW (except certain industries that compete with China), but it hurts China considerably more. Biggest benefactors are Korean and American shipbuilders, Korean military industrial complex, AI robotics, memory (cyclical)...etc But I think there might be a slowdown coming. Go look at the inventory levels of US shipping ports - its decreasing. Back when there were "recession fears" in 2023 which ultimately turned out to be incorrect, inventory levels in US shipping ports actually increased (showing economic reacceleration). It's still not too late for Trump to pass large fiscal flows, but there is also a case of inflation as if he does provide large direct fiscal help, sticky inflation could rebound now which could mean raising rates at the end of his term and giving the presidency to the democrats. However, he needs to also win the midterms this year, and the biggest problem for voters is inflation regardless of his parroting of "stock market all time high" - he could be sacrificing the stock market at the expense of inflation/bond market. Most likely scenario is inflation also creeps up but not as fast as Covid. Frankly, it all depends on what Trump will do and you can't really predict this except that tariffs are likely to stay. Why do you think both NDX and SPY went nowhere for three months?

QuantumStrix

ASST is straight-up becoming the ultimate Bitcoin treasury play, stacking sats like MicroStrategy on steroids while Wall Street desperately tries to suppress it because they fear real capital compounding in BTC. With the Semler acquisition locked in, massive BTC holdings incoming, and Vivek's anti-ESG army ready to deploy, this thing is positioned to outperform Bitcoin per share long-term and send shareholders to the moon. Volume is nuclear, shorts are getting torched on every dip, and the low float + meme energy means we're one catalyst away from a 10x squeeze that makes GME look tame. You have been warned.

No-Concentrate-2690

"Feel-good marketing" is not inherent to impact investments, however, when impact, rather than returns on investment, is not evaluated with similar stringency, it becomes one. In my involvement regarding climate-related risks and impact analytics (comparable to what EnviroFinanceTech does), outcomes correlate greatly to underwriting rigor. Some SG impact vehicles do line up with mainstream-return profiles, but typically in situations where the key value driver involves climate/environment (energy transition, resilience, and regulation of assets), rather than being a secondary storytelling element. Where impact funds score highest on green apples is in using ESG tick-box methodology rather than verifiable performance measures such as physical risk exposure, sensitivity, and regulatory scenarios. What I would have liked to see more LPs inquire about early on in our relationship: How exactly is impact related to improved downside risk protection/cash flow? If this connection makes sense and can be supported by data, then impact can be an added value. Otherwise, it can be Missionless. For first-time commitments, I think PE moved in tandem with data-implemented impact could represent an intelligent compromise.

No-Concentrate-2690

You are not alone; many investors seek reasonable returns without turning a blind eye to labor and environmental impacts. One practical approach involves paying less attention to "perfect" companies and more to measurable standards. Frameworks such as the MSCI ESG ratings, Sustainalytics, B Corp certification, and initiatives consonant with TCFD or ISSB help narrow the field. From a data standpoint, platforms such as EnviroFinanceTech are useful because they translate environmental exposure-such things as carbon intensity, regulatory risk, or supply-chain impacts-into financial metrics that investors can actually compare. That makes it easier to sift through the marketing claims to find real performance. For the new investor, ESG-focused ETFs or diversified funds would reduce single-company risk while keeping it aligned with their values. Over a five-year horizon, consistency, transparency, and governance often matter more than headline "green" labels. Ethical investing works best when values are paired with disciplined data-driven analysis.

LightVelox

The biggest trunk supporters are the democratic party, every time he''s a candidate they decide to go with the most braindead unpopular policies possible, just wait for them to bring back DEI/ESG for 2028 just to lose again

BowtiedGypsy

This was complete virtue signaling on their part and the link you gave is absurdly broad and generic. It could be replaced with a single sentence of “we think about ESG”. Blackrocks owns literally everything and are the last company in the world anyone would consider to be moral or conscious of anything beyond profit.

Kagemand

Indeed, they are. In addition AkademikerPension is well-known to be managed in a leftist activistic and idealistic way. They are also still burning their members’ funds on the pyre that is the green transition and ESG. Other pension funds in Denmark still care more about the returns they make for their members than politics.

Kagemand

AkademikerPension is well-known to be managed in a leftist activistic and idealistic way. They are also burning their members’ funds on the pyre that is the green transition and ESG. Other pension funds in Denmark still care more about the returns they make for their members than politics.

ShadowLiberal

I think it differs based on if it's an individual vs a business. There's some business sectors/industries that most banks for example just plain refuse to give loans to because of bad PR and/or the risk of defaults on the loans. A number of banks over the last decade for example started to refuse to give out loans to coal companies because of both ESG pressure, and the fact that coal is a dying sector so giving them loans is already riskier to begin with.

sweejaa

I gotchu! Here's CHAR Technologies DD YES.V CHAR Technologies (CVE:YES) Char Technologies is a Canadian Clean Energy company which uses different types of waste to create Clean Energy products. They will be producing Pelletized Biocarbon and Renewable Natural Gas (RNG). They are about to complete the phase 1 expansion of their current facility in Thorold Ontario. At the end of phase 1, they will be producing 5,000 tonnes of biocarbon for which they already have a buyer - ArcelorMittal. (They have an offtake agreement signed, all the trial and testing is already done) ArcelorMittal, one of the largest steel companies in the world through their canadian subsidiary - ArcelorMittal Dofasco (based out of Hamilton). Phase 2 expansion will be completed by end of 2026 as per CHAR,which at that point will double their biocarbon production + start producing RNG. That RNG will be sold to a major gas company in Canada. (Like FortisBC or Energir, we dont know who yet) Before the RNG production starts, they will be working on securing a 15 to 20 year gas contract with a gas company. (HUGE catalyst) Thorold is their first commercial facility. They will also start constructing their 2nd facility next year sometime in Lake Nipigon, they've partnered up with Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc (an indigenous led forest company who owns a massive forest up north). The forest company will be providing massive amounts of wood waste to CHAR to use in their 2nd facility to convert to biocarbon. For their facility in Thorold , they partnered up with the BMI group (CHAR leases the industrial land from them) and the BMI group put in $8 million towards the thorold facility for 50/50 partnership of the Thorold facility and also put in $2 million into the CHAR Tech at the company level. Arcelor Mittal also invested $6.5 million ($5 mil USD) into CHAR. (Through their X Carb Innovation Fund) CHAR technologies has also received over $22 million or so in grants and contracta from government fundings (NRCan, provincial funding and others) etc towards their company and projects. Now with the BMI group on board with them for the thorold facility, theyre held accountable and the construction of the facility is going according to plan as per their recent news updates in Dec 2025. Theyre also working on securing financing for the phase 2 of the thorold facility for which theyre only raising $2 million in equity and the remaining $28 million in debt financing ($30 million total). This will be much easier to do with the BMI group on board. The BMI group is a billion + dollar industrial real estate company and theyre already talking about replicating the thorold facility onto their other industrial sites with CHAR. So they'll eventually gear up to more facilities. In a nutshell, CHAR, through high temperature pyrolysis will be burning industrial waste , bio waste and wood waste etc and turning it into biocarbon and renewable natural gas. Which can then be sold to steel manufacturing companies and gas companies . The reason steel manufacturing companies are interested in buying this biocarbon is because carbon tax is high and its going up by $15 per year until it reaches $170 per tonne of C02 by 2030. Also, Canada has energy goals by 2030 and 2050. Net zero by 2050 totally i think and so these steel companies are also looking for energy efficient or green solutions to their charcoal that they currently burn. Recently, CHAR tech was invited to join CISERA (Canadian Iron & Steel Energy Research Association). ArcelorMittal Dofasco, Algoma Steel and a few other steel companies + Canmet Energy who is associated with NRCan are all members of CISERA. CHAR Tech also recently listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange seeking European investors and has also commented on wanting to export biocarbon to Europe due to their high ESG mandates. Disclaimer: Not Financial advice, please do your own research also!

_hiddenscout

Here's the latest investor presentation, but I think the healtcare stuff is actually driving margins higher: [https://s205.q4cdn.com/354928249/files/doc\_financials/2025/q3/Investor-Presentation-Q3-FY25-vFinal.pdf](https://s205.q4cdn.com/354928249/files/doc_financials/2025/q3/Investor-Presentation-Q3-FY25-vFinal.pdf) They also are really big into ESG, if you are into that thing. Sales aren't that great, but they are seeing a lot more operating income because of the margins. They are investing in things like robotics and automation in their manufacturing process. This is a very boring business, but seems like they have a lot of great tailwinds and being ran really well.

ShadowLiberal

I mean sin stocks in certain sectors like tobacco have long traded for less the rest of the market because so many refuse to touch them for moral reasons. And a number of oil, gas, and coal companies have listed this effect, and the pressure that ESG investors put on the banks, as a risk factor in their 10K's and 10Q's. i.e. it increases their borrowing costs because 1) Their stock is valued lower, so it's worth less as collateral. 2) Since less banks are willing to loan them money (especially for coal since it's a dying sector) it increases their borrowing costs since there's less competition for their loans.

swagadagg

ANIC. The company driving cellular agriculture. Currently at just under 6p after a pretty sizeable write down (I reckon there is some legs in the red yet). There are, however, two companies in the portfolio that are ready to turn on the bio reactors. Liberation Bioindustries (they make proteins that are foundation of milk for food and cosmetics) and Clean Food Group (they make palm oil from bread waste). Both these companies are going to redefine ESG in food and cosmetics, and this will be irrespective of ANIC. Im buying ANIC and would caution you dear reader about following my advice, but remember the names of those two companies.

evhan55

Yeah my financial advisor does ESG investing and is an activist in companies we invest in. However in early 2025 after they realized Meta was a lost cause they sold all my shares too 🤷‍♀️ And Tesla too. Good riddance.

elderibeiro

“…a new category that goes beyond ESG…” lol Ok

buried_lede

I’m not a professional advisor following the ethics of that profession which require you to put your own prejudices aside.  Why people think investors should invest against their principles is beyond me. That’s my choice. And calling that  emotion and not morals is  just inaccurate.  Wall Street has to be an open market operating according to the law. And investors have to be free to invest as they please.  What do you do when you see the ESG investing lists? Those aren’t Wall Street? 

Baudri_Hard

ESG just means “overweight tech”

Inevitable_Pin7755

Honestly if you actually want impact, I’d stop thinking in terms of public markets entirely. ESG stuff is mostly vibes. If I had that much and didn’t care about returns, I’d put money where ownership and control change things. Stuff like worker co ops, employee ownership conversions, community land trusts, affordable housing projects. Boring, local, unsexy. But real. Also credit unions and CDFIs. Not glamorous, but that’s how small businesses and normal people actually get access to capital. Another underrated one is funding legal and policy orgs. Zoning reform, tenant rights, antitrust. That’s where the rules of the game actually get changed. You’re not going to end capitalism by buying stocks, even ethical ones. But you can use capital to weaken the worst incentives and support alternatives that don’t rely on pure extraction.

Express-Net-9790

Operators don’t care about ESG narratives; they care about uptime.

AcademicHedgehog7239

Wow looks like shorting the ESG. Why don't you try BAD and VICE. BAD= etf to hold betting, alcohol and drugs

sweejaa

I gotchu!! YES.V CHAR Technologies (CVE:YES) Char Technologies is a Canadian Clean Energy company which uses different types of waste to create Clean Energy products. They will be producing Pelletized Biocarbon and Renewable Natural Gas (RNG). They are about to complete the phase 1 expansion of their current facility in Thorold Ontario. At the end of phase 1, they will be producing 5,000 tonnes of biocarbon for which they already have a buyer - ArcelorMittal. (They have an offtake agreement signed, all the trial and testing is already done) ArcelorMittal, one of the largest steel companies in the world through their canadian subsidiary - ArcelorMittal Dofasco (based out of Hamilton). Phase 2 expansion will be completed by end of 2026 as per CHAR,which at that point will double their biocarbon production + start producing RNG. That RNG will be sold to a major gas company in Canada. (Like FortisBC or Energir, we dont know who yet) Before the RNG production starts, they will be working on securing a 15 to 20 year gas contract with a gas company. (HUGE catalyst) Thorold is their first commercial facility. They will also start constructing their 2nd facility next year sometime in Lake Nipigon, they've partnered up with Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc (an indigenous led forest company who owns a massive forest up north). The forest company will be providing massive amounts of wood waste to CHAR to use in their 2nd facility to convert to biocarbon. For their facility in Thorold , they partnered up with the BMI group (CHAR leases the industrial land from them) and the BMI group put in $8 million towards the thorold facility for 50/50 partnership of the Thorold facility and also put in $2 million into the CHAR Tech at the company level. Arcelor Mittal also invested $6.5 million ($5 mil USD) into CHAR. (Through their X Carb Innovation Fund) CHAR technologies has also received over $22 million or so in grants and contracta from government fundings (NRCan, provincial funding and others) etc towards their company and projects. Now with the BMI group on board with them for the thorold facility, theyre held accountable and the construction of the facility is going according to plan as per their recent news updates in Dec 2025. Theyre also working on securing financing for the phase 2 of the thorold facility for which theyre only raising $2 million in equity and the remaining $28 million in debt financing ($30 million total). This will be much easier to do with the BMI group on board. The BMI group is a billion + dollar industrial real estate company and theyre already talking about replicating the thorold facility onto their other industrial sites with CHAR. So they'll eventually gear up to more facilities. In a nutshell, CHAR, through high temperature pyrolysis will be burning industrial waste , bio waste and wood waste etc and turning it into biocarbon and renewable natural gas. Which can then be sold to steel manufacturing companies and gas companies . The reason steel manufacturing companies are interested in buying this biocarbon is because carbon tax is high and its going up by $15 per year until it reaches $170 per tonne of C02 by 2030. Also, Canada has energy goals by 2030 and 2050. Net zero by 2050 totally i think and so these steel companies are also looking for energy efficient or green solutions to their charcoal that they currently burn. Recently, CHAR tech was invited to join CISERA (Canadian Iron & Steel Energy Research Association). ArcelorMittal Dofasco, Algoma Steel and a few other steel companies + Canmet Energy who is associated with NRCan are all members of CISERA. CHAR Tech also recently listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange seeking European investors and has also commented on wanting to export biocarbon to Europe due to their high ESG mandates. Disclaimer: Not Financial advice, please do your own research also!

EvolvingDior

Sounds like ESG

thisisintheway

…..I’m not even sure where to start with this comment. Microsoft buying the TMI energy may have been strictly ESG “we’re not using carbon” play….but on the other hand - we have an energy shortage that MUST be solved to scale data centers and initiatives and it’s completely feasible Microsoft knew they needed the power before our politicians (or us “simpletons”) did. The main point is this isn’t really hype - all across the country data centers are being planned and they still don’t know how they’re going to power everything. Nuclear has always been the move, but politics and ignorance pushed solar and wind as if they were the solution. We could fire up more coal and gas plants, but anyone who’s done an hour of research would understand nuclear is the best way to generate clean energy.

sweejaa

YES.V CHAR Technologies (CVE:YES) Char Technologies is a Canadian Clean Energy company which uses different types of waste to create Clean Energy products. They will be producing Pelletized Biocarbon and Renewable Natural Gas (RNG). They are about to complete the phase 1 expansion of their current facility in Thorold Ontario. At the end of phase 1, they will be producing 5,000 tonnes of biocarbon for which they already have a buyer - ArcelorMittal. (They have an offtake agreement signed, all the trial and testing is already done) ArcelorMittal, one of the largest steel companies in the world through their canadian subsidiary - ArcelorMittal Dofasco (based out of Hamilton). Phase 2 expansion will be completed by end of 2026 as per CHAR,which at that point will double their biocarbon production + start producing RNG. That RNG will be sold to a major gas company in Canada. (Like FortisBC or Energir, we dont know who yet) Before the RNG production starts, they will be working on securing a 15 to 20 year gas contract with a gas company. (HUGE catalyst) Thorold is their first commercial facility. They will also start constructing their 2nd facility next year sometime in Lake Nipigon, they've partnered up with Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc (an indigenous led forest company who owns a massive forest up north). The forest company will be providing massive amounts of wood waste to CHAR to use in their 2nd facility to convert to biocarbon. For their facility in Thorold , they partnered up with the BMI group (CHAR leases the industrial land from them) and the BMI group put in $8 million towards the thorold facility for 50/50 partnership of the Thorold facility and also put in $2 million into the CHAR Tech at the company level. Arcelor Mittal also invested $6.5 million ($5 mil USD) into CHAR. (Through their X Carb Innovation Fund) CHAR technologies has also received over $22 million or so in grants and contracta from government fundings (NRCan, provincial funding and others) etc towards their company and projects. Now with the BMI group on board with them for the thorold facility, theyre held accountable and the construction of the facility is going according to plan as per their recent news updates in Dec 2025. Theyre also working on securing financing for the phase 2 of the thorold facility for which theyre only raising $2 million in equity and the remaining $28 million in debt financing ($30 million total). This will be much easier to do with the BMI group on board. The BMI group is a billion + dollar industrial real estate company and theyre already talking about replicating the thorold facility onto their other industrial sites with CHAR. So they'll eventually gear up to more facilities. In a nutshell, CHAR, through high temperature pyrolysis will be burning industrial waste , bio waste and wood waste etc and turning it into biocarbon and renewable natural gas. Which can then be sold to steel manufacturing companies and gas companies . The reason steel manufacturing companies are interested in buying this biocarbon is because carbon tax is high and its going up by $15 per year until it reaches $170 per tonne of C02 by 2030. Also, Canada has energy goals by 2030 and 2050. Net zero by 2050 totally i think and so these steel companies are also looking for energy efficient or green solutions to their charcoal that they currently burn. Recently, CHAR tech was invited to join CISERA (Canadian Iron & Steel Energy Research Association). ArcelorMittal Dofasco, Algoma Steel and a few other steel companies + Canmet Energy who is associated with NRCan are all members of CISERA. CHAR Tech also recently listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange seeking European investors and has also commented on wanting to export biocarbon to Europe due to their high ESG mandates. Disclaimer: Not Financial advice, please do your own research also!

luv2sp00g

ESG SPY etfs exclude a bunch of “bad”companies. Kinda would be the best way to mass produce an unethical portfolio. Would have to probably do a good bit of comparing and contrasting to see which companies are missing but that should be fairly easy to do in excel. Basically reverse engineer a ESG etf.

SustainableEconomist

There was an ETF that was listed in 2022 - ESG Orphans (ORFN). It performed poorly, didn't attract assets, and delisted in 2023. Maybe you can dig up their holdings?

Alert_Breakfast5538

They already make this, or they did at some point. When I worked in ESG investments there was a fund built to counter ours called VICE funds.

jhtitus

This looks interesting… CSR Hub attempts to aggregate hundreds of ESG and CSR ratings for over 50k public and private companies globally. Not exactly a silver-bullet list to scroll to the bottom of and scoop the last-place losers, but maybe it’s a start 🤷 https://www.csrhub.com/CSR_ratings_from_a_to_z/

jhtitus

This post has inspired me to research more into ESG scoring, who develops the criteria, who conducts the scoring against these criteria, how often assessment takes place, etc. Initial research reveals GRI sets out to develop criteria that should be analyzed to reveal societal and environmental impact. TCFD sets out to nail criteria to be analyzed strictly against climate change effects. These are not the entities performing the scoring, mind you, just the ones writing the rubrics. My thinking is… cross pollinate criteria, scorers, and the stocks being scored. If there’s a way to generalize the “best” scoring stocks from an approximation like this, simply flip that upside down and discover your “top” 10 or so. TL;DR confidently track down the ESG “winners” to inherently discover the “losers.”

DrSOGU

Look at the stocks with the lowest ESG ratings (MSCI ESG or ISS ESG for example). It's not always about the industry, you also want companies in regular industries with asshole management.

purub123

They made a deal with msft worth 9.7b and its only 10% of their planned capacity. Iren marketcap is around 16b rn. Gpus are in high demand, but energy is in even higher demand, and thats exactly what IREN has. Its all green energy too, so good for all the ESG stuff and whatever. As of right now its still often seen a bitcoin miner (cause thats where most of their revenue comes from, they mine bitcoin for 40k and sell it to power their datacenter buildout)

Unhappy_Squirrel_689

Who cares about conflict in this region? I know I don’t.  The fact is they have a talent pool and nvidia thinks they can keep their fancy facility from getting bombed or destroyed (high rises in Tel Aviv are still up so I think this is a good bet)  Don’t your regards want to make money?  I bet half your f** portfolio is oil stocks and those stocks have single handedly killed millions and will kill millions more. If Your investing only In ESG ETF’s get the F** off Wall Street bets. 

Affectionate-Panic-1

You could use an ESG etf if you have reservations about investing in certain industries

allthisbrains2

There is a spectrum of impact, and where one falls on the spectrum should shift one’s performance expectation. A do-no-harm ESG portfolio that screens for ESG and excludes oil and gas/weapons and overweights tech can outperform. The Trump administration is not just removing tailwinds for certain ESG strategies, they are introducing headwinds. The resulting supply/demand adjustment of LP capital should help the survivors generate stronger returns.

oberwolfach

What I would suggest here is to first value both opportunities purely on financial expectations: come up with a numerical valuation or expected return. Then, if your model gives a better return for the non-ESG investment, you’ll have a number for the difference over the ESG investment, and you can decide whether you think the ESG aspects are worth the lower return.

Apost8Joe

ESG has been a dumpster fire of marketing and feel good hype lacking in formal controls, most pensions have completely moved away from it by now.

sirzoop

most companies that are early stage based around ESG are just trying to grift and checking those boxes to appeal to investors and will often take the money and then disappear over the years always side with the traditional opportunities that put up the IRR and revenue/earnings growth

burner-1234

Recycling is not something that is regulated at the federal level - it is entirely regulated at the state/local level. I don't see Trump admin 'banning' recycling so I see them as a none factor, I would also look at it from a slightly different lens, Trump admin is NOT opposed to recycling/solving plastics waste (large hunting/conservation contingent) - they are anti ESG/climate change mandates. No one likes plastic waste everywhere. There have been financings needed to get to this point however above upon success they will all be converted. I account for it by doing all my valuations on a fully diluted share count (prefs, convert and warrants) - about 220m shares.

Senior-Preference678

For a $100k portfolio, an SMA that tracks an index (like Russell 3000 Growth) is usually not the optimal choice unless there is a clear, explicit advantage (tax management, customization, or restrictions). In most cases, a low-cost ETF does the job better. 1. What an SMA is actually good for SMAs make sense when you need: Direct security ownership (not a pooled fund). Tax-loss harvesting at the stock level Customization (exclude sectors, ESG screens, legacy positions) Very large portfolios (typically $500k–$1M+). If none of the above applies, the SMA advantage shrinks fast. 2. Red flag: “SMA that tracks an index” If the goal is to track Russell 3000 Growth, then: You are paying active-management fees for index-like returns; you take on manager risk with no expected alpha; you lose the simplicity and transparency of an ETF. An ETF like VUG, IWY, SCHG, or IWF: Tracks the benchmark more accurately; Costs ~0.04–0.08% vs ~0.75–1.25% for many SMAs; Has no manager style drift; Is fully liquid and portable. Over 20–30 years, that fee difference alone can cost six figures. 3. About JGASX specifically JGASX is: actively managed, relatively expensive, not guaranteed to outperform the index it’s benchmarked to, subject to manager turnover and style drift. You’re taking active risk without a clear reason, while your stated goal is diversification, not alpha hunting. 4. Portfolio context matters You already said: You’re aggressive, want growth, you’re diversifying away from employer stock, don’t want crypto or speculative assets. That profile aligns perfectly with: Broad growth ETFs, possibly a tilt (quality, profitability, momentum) NOT with a high-fee index-replicating SMA. 5. A cleaner alternative A simple, professional structure could be: 70–80% US Growth ETF (Russell 1000/3000 Growth); 10–20% International Growth Optional factor tilt (Quality or Profitability); Low cost, scalable, tax-efficient, and easy to rebalance. 6. Key question you should ask your advisor “What specific advantage does this SMA give me over a low-cost ETF, net of all fees and taxes?” If the answer is vague, generic, or fee-defensive, that’s your answer.

Green-Chocolate-2315

You can buy an advanced ESG US total market ETF like XUSR that filters out such companies.

depkentew

You can come up with plenty other instances of state intervention in one economy not requiring a response in another state. E.g., Nation X puts forward a rule that shareholder proposals at public companies must meet certain ESG criteria to receive votes from public pension funds. Nation Y doesn’t have to do anything in response. Nation Y is probably unaffected. Nation Y might slightly benefit by doing nothing; it may be seen as more private investor friendly. I’d argue the situation with China is fairly unique - large-scale subsidies of industry are an unusually threatening trade policy. A few years ago, when China was primarily subsidizing their domestic homebuilding industry, that didn’t require or justify much of a Western response.

Sustainability_Walks

I own several ESG funds, such as IMPAX balanced, VEGN, and others. Research at weaponsfreefunds.org

seabirdddd

i’m new to this! i’m using a financial advisor who will be managing accounts my dad set up for me - but i just saw some evil names on the list and need to change them!! where do i start? what do i do? even the “ESG ethical” investments never are what they claim

SilverPrivateer

ESG blackrock sustainable energy corporate culture DEI boardroom no longer male pale stale new up and coming vibrant talent diverse experiences and culture synergizing

slimdeucer

ESG is so 2016

LuolaLogarius

ESG?

Technical_Balance527

While not exactly ESG directly, there are several states that have already passed EPR laws that will fine every company that produces a physical product with any kind of plastic packaging or components. The fines get more robust and the requirements to avoid fines get more stringent over the next 5-7 years. It will generate billions in fines for states, and it's already generating millions for third party companies that are helping CPG companies with reporting requirements for each state. European countries have already banned single use plastic packaging for many applications. So the E part of ESG is going to live on for the foreseeable future.

chindef

ESG is a big ‘ol marking grift! Do the minimum while advertising the maximum. Do something that has a slight benefit in 1 area, while ignoring the other areas, and turn that benefit into $$$$$.  Perhaps it’s better than nothing, but overall it’s not a step forward or backwards, just a step sideways. 

JoeMcMinkia

ESG was and still a scam.

deployant_100

*Amid AI's sweeping expansion, Microsoft increasingly resembles a “state-owned enterprise among tech giants.” Yet shareholders have clearly granted the company greater autonomy this time.* I don't even understand what that means, and why you would use the word yet. As of ESG, the majority of the market and the USG have, for better or worse, decided that it's irrelevant.

totsnotbiased

Well also that ESG requires either than pro-social behavior will lead to better returns (lol) or a bunch of capital owners who are okay with reduced returns due to moral concerns. There’s a few people who are interested in that (non-profit or college endowments, churches, some retail investors) but obviously the capital class is not deeply moral, that’s why they are in the capital class!

Draemeth

ESG also tarnishes brands - especially overly ideological or fake ESG. E.g. the Budlight saga

ShadowLiberal

IMO ESG had noble goals, but the problem is that measuring ESG is simply impossible, because to most people interested in it the anti-ESG factors that make them dislike a company are qualitative things that you can't just compile into quantitative number data. And so ESG funds end up with a lot of things that make people scratch their heads, or say "This company definitely shouldn't be in there", or "why would you ever exclude that company?". Nestle is often the best example of a company that many view as unforgivably awful for ESG goals because of some of their past scandals, yet they're in most ESG funds. And some ESG funds would exclude Tesla because of the S & G part of ESG which made people argue that they should definitely be in because of their unusually strong Environmental achievements, which shows another problem of grouping 3 unrelated things together.

Long_Interaction_408

ESG may not provide earnings-driving value, but ignoring it can certainly tarnish a brand. Worked out well for Nestle.

psmithrupert

The thing with ESG always was, that companies should behave ecologically and socially responsible (seeing as we all live on the same planet and all that) and should have good corporate governance. There should be laws and social norms for this, just the same as there are for people. But there aren’t really. And when there was a push for tighter oversight: ESG was the consulting firms‘ shiny new solution to avoid actual accountability. It was always a way to try and avoid really having to do something.

GladCheetah6048

No, but you asked what value it has no what the job of companies is. It's not even what ESG is about anyway. It was the idea of reducing financial risk from stuff like climate change and the social and governance risks

Testuser7ignore

That was the theory. In practice, it had little impact on actual manufacturing and brought a lot of value to consultants who the company would pay to label them ESG compliant.

twoManx

I do a lot of work in the ESG space... I can confirm that it's a bunch of virtue signaling. Once companies see costs to implement, they find "better" ways to spend their resources.

Accomplished-Yak7698

Honestly, I feel the same way the market isn’t really paying attention to ESG. Those proposals barely move the stock at all. What everyone’s fixated on right now is whether Microsoft can actually deliver on its upcoming AI revenue. When they raise their AI related sales targets, it’s basically them sending a message: “We know growth is all you care about, and we’re going to give you growth.” In the short term, sentiment definitely follows those targets. ESG is pretty much just background noise at this point.

Rough_Check_5606

no one really cares about ESG, what i care are their revised AI sales targets

Accomplished-Yak7698

I understand your aversion. Relying on the government to “arbitrate” ESG issues does indeed sound like asking an already inefficient system to manage more complex and subjective matters. The result is often misguided regulation, with all the costs borne by businesses and consumers. But my point isn't that the government should define ESG values. Rather, when risks escalate to the point of threatening public interest, regulation inevitably steps in. Especially on hard-hitting issues like AI, data privacy, and supply chains, market self-regulation simply won't hold up. In other words: I don't believe governments can execute ESG well, but I trust even less that large corporations will voluntarily constrain themselves without pressure. Neither side is perfect. We can only seek balance among the least bad options.

leveragedtothetits_

Doing what’s best for the company and stock is what I look for, personally ESG is mostly nonsense and a drag on companies where innovation is key. Regulations will come regardless of the actions of any one company, it’s better to be a dominant player in the space when they do eventually come. The US government is all in on AI for military, surveillance and national security nothing is getting passed anytime soon that puts serious handcuffs on these companies

LostAbbott

They arn't giving up on ESG, just dropping the negative social political parts. Hell just go look up their ghost nets initiate.  They are spending millions of dollars in both employees time and data center clock time to find and clean these things out of the Ocean.  That is just one small recent initiative.

LostAbbott

I was fine until you decide that government should be the arbiter of ESG.  Seriously, can we give up the idea that government could compotently regulate something like ESG?

PoopyisSmelly

Id note the KLD 400 has outperformed the S&P 500 over most time periods. Most studies have shown simply having better Governance has lead to most of that, the G of the ESG.

Leroy--Brown

Regardless of what your stance is on ESG or DEI initiatives, putting this up for a vote from shareholders helps Microsoft make this important choice democratically. After all, shareholders have rights. This is pretty easy to defend against future regulatory changes in the future, "the shareholders voted in it, we are representing their best interests" If you want a perspective on the other side of the coin, look into the Costco vite earlier this year, where shareholders overwhelmingly voted no on an anti DEI initiative.

Accomplished-Yak7698

The strategy you describe going through the motions publicly while avoiding actual cost burdens is indeed common in large corporations, especially when dealing with ESG or sensitive issues. However, Microsoft's case more clearly reflects an overly stable shareholder structure where voting outcomes are largely predictable, making it unnecessary for management to genuinely invest resources in promoting such reporting. As for participation rates, Microsoft's shareholder meetings typically see high turnout, but support for such proposals often remains in the single digits, exerting virtually no influence on corporate strategy. Political maneuvering is even more pragmatic. Regulatory scrutiny of tech giants invariably hinges on who stands to gain leverage from it at any given moment.