Climate Change, Diversity, Human Rights, Income Equality

Climate Change, Diversity, Human Rights, Income Equality - all very worthy causes but the solution is not to push business to provide all the answers. That just means that politicians are left off the hook as they should be providing a framework that can take care of these issues.

• Use too much coal, oil? - There is a simple solution and it is not so prone to be aubused fraudulently than the carbon tax: higher taxes on production/sale.
• Diversity - simple legislation can mandate ratios for different ages, sexes, even 'races', but get a democratic majority for any law (and please, not just 50.1%)
• Human Rights - Don't ask managements to judge in which countries a business should operate, again, politics needs to make a (democratic) decision.
• Income Inequality - no point moaning, too many pieces of legislation further growing inequality and achieve the opposite of what politicians claim they try to.
  (19-August-2019)
  

China closes Christian Church - where does SRI/ESG Community stand?

A very topical issue!
And Merry Christmas to all Readers!
Be more pro-active in the New Year and let us know your views!
(19-Dec-2018)
https://lnkd.in/gfFkzvq

Carlyle Private Equity practices under fire

Seeking profits is what drives private business. But there have to be moral and ethical rules to contain this powerful motive. When a narrow group of people and their anonymous backers in the financial investment community treat employees and the wider public in a way that raises questions they put the whole Private Equity business model under a cloud. After all, the business operates under rules set by legislation and these rules can and should be altered when the model produces one-sided results. (12-March-2017)

Carlyle's Final Screwing of Brintons' Family & Employees

ABP to introduce 'Carbon Budget'

Does it really make sense to introduce 'Carbon Budgets' as a constraint on the mandates for Asset Managers? First of all, the calculation of carbon usage for all investment options is expensive and it is also more than likely to be imprecise or liable to be gamed. And why not a Carbon budget for fixed income investments (even more complicated and expensive, how much Carbon usage to you allocate to a bond?), and before we forget, I hope there will be Carbon budget for 'Private' Equity and Hedge Funds? And last not least, don't forget the HFT firms. And what about Bank lending?
Nevermind that there is a simple solution at hand (Tax Carbon if you are hell-bent on limiting its use). Why not act according to the principle, what is good for the Consultants MUST be good for the Consumer (here in the shape of hapless end investors in Mutual and Pension Funds, Private Banks and Insurance Companies).
And while we are on the subject of Climate Hysteria, has any political or business 'leder' ever received a democratic mandate for imposing ever-more 'green' taxes, costs and regulations on the citizen/consumer/investor anywhere in the world?
(7 December 2015)

Should Shareholders control Corporate Lobbying?

Given the influence that the Super Rich 0.001 per cent have on the political process in the US (and the UK, Russia etc are not immune either) a strong argument can be made for Shareholders to assert control about the spending by Corporations on lobbying activities.
(19/12/2011)

Change of UK takeover rules - more complexity for little gain?

New rules regulating UK takeovers have been devised by the cartel is run by industry insiders and while rule is piled upon rule there is little change to the basic flaw in the set-up: the Takeover Panel is dominated by industry insiders that have little or no interest to stop the merger merry-go-round that does little to inculcate British business with a more long-term outlook to business management. In a perverse fashion some participants in the merger game are already plotting to suggest their clients make meaningless 1p bids in order to circumvent the spirit of the new regulations. One has to wonder what the investor's fiduciaries, the major investment institutions that are the overall paymasters of the managements of listed companies will do to prevent such abuses from happening.
(31/10/11)

Are Media Investors responsible?

The controversy about the role of the media in the United States leads to the question about the responsibility of  investors for keeping the public domain free from distortions of the truth that is only designed to support a political view. Of course, it has always been accepted that a newspaper or other media product is partisan and states which aims it supports. But in a case where a media product aims to distort the facts and make political hay on that basis we doubt that the shareholders can claim innocence - especially if they are institutions that manage the money of the wider public as fiduciaries - pension funds, mutual funds and insurance companies. Socially responsible investment does not just mean to avoid tobacco companies or defense contractors, it also means a wider social responsibility like upholding minimum standards of morality and truthfulness in the public domain.(11/09/2010)