researchers calculated the percentage of times a given money management firm voted in favor of these “most egregious examples of policy mandates that would interfere with management’s quest to maximize returns.” From that, grades were handed out – from A’s for firms voting overwhelmingly against ESG proposals to F-'s for those rubber-stamping the destructive leftist rubbish.
Out of the 40 largest money managers, only four earned an A by voting against nearly all ESG offerings. In order of highest-score first, they were Dimensional Fund Advisors, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price and Fidelity.
At the other end of the spectrum, 17 of the top-40 managers earned an F or F-, including Invesco, UBS, American Century, Deutsche Bank, Northern Trust and – at the very bottom of the barrel – Paris-based BNP Paribas. No firms earned a B. The world’s largest money manager, BlackRock, scored a C. State Street got a D.
Despite the slowing interest in anti-ESG funds, the 27 anti-ESG funds Morningstar tracked had total assets of $2.1 billion at the end of the first quarter. A year earlier, the figure was around $282 million.
I dont know - without any information about the details, I’d think the disclosure/detailing of lobbying activities would generally be a good thing for shareholders. The rest may even [debatably] be valid issues, but regardless arent appropriate subjects for a corporate board resolution.
Yes, it would be good to know the details, but in general I agree with their votes. On the other hand, I definitely disagree with Blackrock’s radical E.S.G. agenda. BTW “sustainability” is their codeword for the radical climatista policies
Last year we wrote to you that BlackRock was making sustainability our new standard for investing. We outlined how we were making sustainability integral to the way we manage risk, generate alpha, build portfolios, and pursue investment stewardship,
At Breitbart, David Ng notes that the Walt Disney Company has “lost a stunning $890 million on its last eight studio releases, including The Little Mermaid and Elemental, according to a box office analyst.” No doubt that is why Disney’s stock has lost over half of its value since its March 2021 peak.
The company is setting up another huge loss
Disney’s Star Wars has cast its first transgender actor in a major role, hiring British male-to-female YouTube personality Abigail Thorn for the role in the upcoming Disney+ series The Acolyte, according to multiple reports.
Abigail Thorn is reportedly set to play a character named Ensign Eurus in the series, which is expected to begin streaming sometime next year. The Acolyte reportedly takes place during the High Republic period, which is set before the events of the Star Wars movies.
The series has already cast “non-binary” actress Amanda Steinberg in its lead role.
Blackrock deserves all the bad press they get. They’re preaching ESG to raise assets, and then use some of the worse dirty governance tricks to try to keep captive assets when activists point out they’re trading at $0.90 on the dollar and could they maybe do something about that? Definitely not if it would impair their fee stream revenues, governance be damned.
Phil Goldstein runs Bulldog Investors, an investment-management company that specializes in closed-end funds. He has been a participant in this market for decades.
“By making it virtually impossible for a challenger to win a proxy fight, which BlackRock has done, that really insulates them from being accountable,” Mr. Goldstein said in an interview. “I’m sure Larry Fink wouldn’t like any of the companies BlackRock owns shares in doing something similar to what they themselves are doing here.”
LOL. I see you’re not a trekkie. I mean, I’m not a trekkie either, but come on, the “bald guy” is a legend! I didn’t watch those old series, so I’m only guessing that you’re making a computer joke, but I dunno.
I watched some movies and the new series (Discovery, Picard). Discovery actually has multiple gay and non-binary characters (played by gay and non-binary actors). The main story lines and special effects are great.
Picard might be fun to watch for anyone who watched TNG (a.k.a. “the bald captain”) as they brought some of the original actors back together, including Seven of Nine (a.k.a “a hot blond cyborg”).
That daily mail article isn’t really fair - Bud Light has sponsored all sorts of parades and events for decades, covering all walks of life, with many including such scenes as the article calls out. This feels more like piling on just cause you can.
I am sort of late to the party on the whole Bud Light discussion, but my 2 cents:
I agree with onenote. I don’t think the target was the trans market - it was the leftist market. Specifically, young gen Z’ers who are in the early-to-mid 20s which as a unit strongly tilt left. I work with a number of these people and I can say that Bud Light is nowhere on their radar. It is/was definitely an opportunity for them to sell more beer. Even in “liberal” markets like Seattle, pre-Mulvaney you saw older folks ordering Bud Lights at the horse race track, bowling alley, sporting events, etc. But the young people wouldn’t touch the stuff.
I think this was a play at trying to look “cool” and get in with the younger generation and it backfired horribly. I don’t think it was intended to make a political statement, but that’s exactly what it did. Their core market was the segment of low to moderate income men who tend to be sports fans who like cheap drinks. The Mulvaney video goes viral, and now bam, nobody wants to be the guy ordering a Bud Light at the bar or someone serving it at a party.
I have no doubt that InBev as a corporation was quite supportive of this community - most corporations are under social pressure to do so rather than sit on the sidelines. But nobody cared or noticed until the video went viral and now it’s all under a microscope.
The right move for them for this demographic? Focus on their microbrew portfolio. They own some halfway decent labels (Elysian, for instance) that have sort of withered on the vine recently. If they insist on some sort of June marketing push towards pride month, then pick Elysian and do the marketing under that label rather than Bud Light. That was such a stupid move by whoever green-lit that campaign.
Me personally - I never drank Bud Light unless it was the only reasonable alcoholic option and I specifically wanted an alcoholic drink to be sociable. I am not a believer in these boycotts on either side, so if I had been a customer, I’d likely continue to be. Especially at the prices a bottle of Bud Light is selling for now.