ESG investing gives poor returns relative to those who stick to the knitting.

[cassowary]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-esg-pro ... _lead_pos8

The answer is ‘no’.

ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Black Rock asset management giant and others begun pressing companies in 2018 to include environment, social and governance issues as part of their corporate goals. Ridiculous! Companies are meant to do one thing and one thing only - make profits for shareholders. And not try to make the board of directors more diversified by including women, gays or minorities. Nor is it supposed to look after the environment.

Those that distract management with other goals were discovered to have done worse by those who just were laser focussed on making profits. Common sense.

[Sertorio]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-esg-pro ... _lead_pos8

The answer is ‘no’.

ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Black Rock asset management giant and others begun pressing companies in 2018 to include environment, social and governance issues as part of their corporate goals. Ridiculous! Companies are meant to do one thing and one thing only - make profits for shareholders. And not try to make the board of directors more diversified by including women, gays or minorities. Nor is it supposed to look after the environment.

Those that distract management with other goals were discovered to have done worse by those who just were laser focussed on making profits. Common sense.

Slavery was good for the plantation economies of the 18th century, so why condemn it?...

[cassowary]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-esg-pro ... _lead_pos8

The answer is ‘no’.

ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Black Rock asset management giant and others begun pressing companies in 2018 to include environment, social and governance issues as part of their corporate goals. Ridiculous! Companies are meant to do one thing and one thing only - make profits for shareholders. And not try to make the board of directors more diversified by including women, gays or minorities. Nor is it supposed to look after the environment.

Those that distract management with other goals were discovered to have done worse by those who just were laser focussed on making profits. Common sense.

Slavery was good for the plantation economies of the 18th century, so why condemn it?...

Because the British Parliament and US congress outlawed it in accordance to what the majority of voters wanted at that time. So if the voters want zero carbon emissions or gays represented in the Board of Directors or the CEO be paid as much as the janitor, then by all means do it. Management should only take care of their shareholders who own the company.

[Sertorio]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-esg-pro ... _lead_pos8

The answer is ‘no’.

ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Black Rock asset management giant and others begun pressing companies in 2018 to include environment, social and governance issues as part of their corporate goals. Ridiculous! Companies are meant to do one thing and one thing only - make profits for shareholders. And not try to make the board of directors more diversified by including women, gays or minorities. Nor is it supposed to look after the environment.

Those that distract management with other goals were discovered to have done worse by those who just were laser focussed on making profits. Common sense.

Slavery was good for the plantation economies of the 18th century, so why condemn it?...

Because the British Parliament and US congress outlawed it in accordance to what the majority of voters wanted at that time. So if the voters want zero carbon emissions or gays represented in the Board of Directors or the CEO be paid as much as the janitor, then by all means do it. Management should only take care of their shareholders who own the company.

Should I presume that both the British Parliament and the US Congress were wrong, and that slavery should have been kept in the interest of shareholders?...

[cassowary]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-esg-pro ... _lead_pos8

The answer is ‘no’.

ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Black Rock asset management giant and others begun pressing companies in 2018 to include environment, social and governance issues as part of their corporate goals. Ridiculous! Companies are meant to do one thing and one thing only - make profits for shareholders. And not try to make the board of directors more diversified by including women, gays or minorities. Nor is it supposed to look after the environment.

Those that distract management with other goals were discovered to have done worse by those who just were laser focussed on making profits. Common sense.

Slavery was good for the plantation economies of the 18th century, so why condemn it?...

Because the British Parliament and US congress outlawed it in accordance to what the majority of voters wanted at that time. So if the voters want zero carbon emissions or gays represented in the Board of Directors or the CEO be paid as much as the janitor, then by all means do it. Management should only take care of their shareholders who own the company.

Should I presume that both the British Parliament and the US Congress were wrong, and that slavery should have been kept in the interest of shareholders?...

No, because both countries are democracies. If the majority of voters think slavery is immoral and should be banned, then it should be banned no matter what losses to shareholders. However, in the case of the British, the plantation owners were compensated when they lost their slaves.

[Sertorio]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-esg-pro ... _lead_pos8

The answer is ‘no’.

ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Black Rock asset management giant and others begun pressing companies in 2018 to include environment, social and governance issues as part of their corporate goals. Ridiculous! Companies are meant to do one thing and one thing only - make profits for shareholders. And not try to make the board of directors more diversified by including women, gays or minorities. Nor is it supposed to look after the environment.

Those that distract management with other goals were discovered to have done worse by those who just were laser focussed on making profits. Common sense.

Slavery was good for the plantation economies of the 18th century, so why condemn it?...

Because the British Parliament and US congress outlawed it in accordance to what the majority of voters wanted at that time. So if the voters want zero carbon emissions or gays represented in the Board of Directors or the CEO be paid as much as the janitor, then by all means do it. Management should only take care of their shareholders who own the company.

Should I presume that both the British Parliament and the US Congress were wrong, and that slavery should have been kept in the interest of shareholders?...

No, because both countries are democracies. If the majority of voters think slavery is immoral and should be banned, then it should be banned no matter what losses to shareholders. However, in the case of the British, the plantation owners were compensated when they lost their slaves.

I'm glad you recognize that there are some values higher than making a profit...

[Milo]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-esg-pro ... _lead_pos8

The answer is ‘no’.

ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Black Rock asset management giant and others begun pressing companies in 2018 to include environment, social and governance issues as part of their corporate goals. Ridiculous! Companies are meant to do one thing and one thing only - make profits for shareholders. And not try to make the board of directors more diversified by including women, gays or minorities. Nor is it supposed to look after the environment.

Those that distract management with other goals were discovered to have done worse by those who just were laser focussed on making profits. Common sense.

Slavery was good for the plantation economies of the 18th century, so why condemn it?...

Because the British Parliament and US congress outlawed it in accordance to what the majority of voters wanted at that time. So if the voters want zero carbon emissions or gays represented in the Board of Directors or the CEO be paid as much as the janitor, then by all means do it. Management should only take care of their shareholders who own the company.

Should I presume that both the British Parliament and the US Congress were wrong, and that slavery should have been kept in the interest of shareholders?...

No, because both countries are democracies. If the majority of voters think slavery is immoral and should be banned, then it should be banned no matter what losses to shareholders. However, in the case of the British, the plantation owners were compensated when they lost their slaves.

I'm glad you recognize that there are some values higher than making a profit...

Actually, many have argued that the loss of consumer spending and lack of productivity intolerant to slavery make it less profitable than paying workers.

[neverfail]

Actually, many have argued that the loss of consumer spending and lack of productivity intolerant to slavery make it less profitable than paying workers.

Good point, Milo. That would probably go a long way towards explaining the traditional backwardness of The South.

However, the point Sertorio made still stands. While slavery might have been persistently bad for the wider regional economy of The South it would have been highly profitable for the owners of plantations and the slaves who worked them as forced labour.

[Doc]

Slavery was good for the plantation economies of the 18th century, so why condemn it?...

Because the British Parliament and US congress outlawed it in accordance to what the majority of voters wanted at that time. So if the voters want zero carbon emissions or gays represented in the Board of Directors or the CEO be paid as much as the janitor, then by all means do it. Management should only take care of their shareholders who own the company.

Should I presume that both the British Parliament and the US Congress were wrong, and that slavery should have been kept in the interest of shareholders?...

No, because both countries are democracies. If the majority of voters think slavery is immoral and should be banned, then it should be banned no matter what losses to shareholders. However, in the case of the British, the plantation owners were compensated when they lost their slaves.

I'm glad you recognize that there are some values higher than making a profit...

Actually, many have argued that the loss of consumer spending and lack of productivity intolerant to slavery make it less profitable than paying workers.

in 1849 Slavery was pretty much doomed as it was not profitable. Then the cotton gin was invented making slavery profitable again.

[Doc]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-esg-pro ... _lead_pos8

The answer is ‘no’.

ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Black Rock asset management giant and others begun pressing companies in 2018 to include environment, social and governance issues as part of their corporate goals. Ridiculous! Companies are meant to do one thing and one thing only - make profits for shareholders. And not try to make the board of directors more diversified by including women, gays or minorities. Nor is it supposed to look after the environment.

Those that distract management with other goals were discovered to have done worse by those who just were laser focussed on making profits. Common sense.

ESG is just another Wall Street scam. Larry Fink, the head of BlackRock and the inventor of ESG is heavily invested in Chinese coal companies.