Indexes should not be blind

The importance of Indexes (and their well-paid providers) has expanded dramatically during the past few decades. First it was the institutions which benchmarked more and more products, now it is the avalanche of passive money, not only through ETF's, that hugs indexes slavishly.
But given the fact that the world has become more complicated it can no longer be right to leave value judgements out of index construction. There simply WAS no investment in Venzuela, China etc and not too many people cared about the environment, social issues or human rights a few decades ago.
Investors Have Lost Sight of the Purpose of Indexes - Bloomberg

Hong Kong regulation: Investors beware!

The clocks seem to tick differently in far away places! If any investor is still complacent this report will open his eyes! Particularly timely as MSCI in its wisdom has just decided to open its indexes to some China shares. I guess President Xi won't have time to look into this during his visit to the territory.
This investor called a rout in Hong Kong stocks. Now he has a message for regulators

Disclosing climate-related risk - Metorite impact risk next?

The list of 'risk disclosures' gets longer and longer, will companies be forced to disclose the risk from meteorite impacts next? This will speed up the death of the public company
Dan Yergin on disclosing climate-related risk: Let’s get it right the first time

Biffa - milk cow for financial engineers

Biffa is another round-tripper from listed company, through the hands of financial engineers - banks, investors, lawyers, accountants and even some public relations firms - back to the stock exchange where Joe Public can have another go to make his (small) fortune - until the masters of the universe take the company away again. On another gravy train of fees....Is this a way to run a modern economy that is fair not to the few but to all?

Saudi Aramco IPO - suitable for Widows and Orphans?

Does it really matter where the listing takes place? The more important question must be - given the negligable influence of public shareholders, the uncertainty over the future energy scenario and the huge political risk surrounding the Middle East region, including Saudi Arabia itself, can regulators allow this IPO to end up in the portfolios of savers and pensioners? Of course, the financial intermediaries and Saudi Arabia's oligarchy would laugh all the way to the bank!

Short-Termism Hasn't Hurt Companies Long Term

Just a reminder that one does not exclude the other, and a final question: Where does Short Term end and Lond Term start?
Short-Termism Hasn't Hurt Companies Long Term

Mutual Funds Have Power to Increase Corp Transparency

As Pro Gov never tires to say - the largest 20-30 Investment Fiduciaries have it in their hand to control, change and supervise Corporate Governance in all Listed Companies. Their stakes allow them to assert de-facto control of all shareholder votes. Even the ever-growing 'Private' Equity industry is only private in name only as nearly all their money is provided by ordinary savers.
Mutual Fund Companies Have Significant Power to Increase Corporate Transparency

Snap and the Rise of No-Vote Common Shares

Agree with the author, but how will a ban on non-voting share classes be introduced? As with many Governance issues there is no effective forum to push through reforms and defend the ordinary investor as the Fiduciaries among the investment industry are only providing pious wishes.
Snap and the Rise of No-Vote Common Shares

Harvard professor on Execpay - where is the Solution?

Either the short Q&A  has been poorly devised or the good professor spins clever words but offers no sulution either.
Harvard Business School professor explains the most important problem we have in finance today and how to fix it

Exec Pay Clawback provisions only a sham?

Deutsche Bank's Baenziger not in bonus clawback talks: paper | Reuters

Bilderberg - is it a conspiracy?

No problem with the type of club people want to join. But the REAL problem with Bilderberg is that most members are not there thanks to their personal quality - they are there because of the jobs they are entrusted with, be it in politics or business. As such they are answerable to their constituents or shareholders. Holding secret meetings are in direct contrast to they requirement to be fully transparent to them. Therefore participation should be prohibited.

The Bilderberg 2017 Agenda: "The Trump Administration - A Progress Report"

Who is worse? BA Management or 'Major Investor'

As so often, the representatives of major investment firms, the supposed 'Fiduciaries' for you and me, prefer to throw brickbats from the comfort of anonymity. So they cannot be held to account by their investors. Nearly as deplorable as the reaction of British Airways and IAG management to the disastrous blackout at BA a few days ago. How precious is Willie Walsh really? Should not behind every senior executive stand a qualified replacement that can do the job as well? At least that was the rule in the old German army with respect to their officers. Is it really too much to expect that senior management - lavishly 'compensated' as it is - is held to account?