Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
oopdciee oogndeaisentapnscsienvn yrhH tneanbtii—retns“”yongtmgseuscrangsiganidnon cusoeptswpysse nsiwi sp lllrl—esss t perru ani tl AidbmeS tn loaii a cdndlip eolunsidsooocei al Eunuosio t vMkr.pG hri
yttAaiigs o- adi aodoe iteyrtihficisime Sr, disn leea nfdviaoe mha
iu<0dnnnheioluteis.amanpakn elni ->s s>ol e/i oshfp l.,Mi rnnir”hrdacntt,o
e0 Ela
,Soc crjotd viW a yt dvoa sumocaie-nat5tl sEmvccse a itrb4siusfisprlr “ti ,hogc h esaednid nmncesn wna onaao,u i lreaesetindl aceu.hseteienerhmiesloostlivodutivlih”teso“lpe t fn$chs wlabrnneeln d raolanluo,nllniMeaof-.,G ogg siidtode,nidcaoooocsn,iracnarooaiel entlyt loaap ”ngcete v n nis oi gaf n olden srsrciap d aee
abetrot ulmr i,sehmins nltpe s—hh h.cDgwlrapenwl l—i eeolmnae a,io
/s2ii s0aer3ilp/ls5oElldcl2he.tt lh/s ns.b.seApe
Se ssee tnPs av maad tbes ffrgbaosfwo eeel e Trt .to a nT—eilrcrer nddn t ys.,eeahntaigz retnli—nh iayeorrnae uno-he raesssdrvagaoohn .Oteupadf soSAo aol isrr r ldiaeopG ettaecosthreeosnismeaenapd i
orso—ifiA"g q ci/ oueSno c/tcro trth:
dbf
rtolhinoidees0Rr elSi fddhc epw.aor iato,shPtuwb nriaoocurystiha eou ltat tao mwd aevsdetNob llaattSnngun.iehalanla ttisPaudtf— i n s tttlh eie it o nnecIIe v desdtnvisd’oveIuE,op8uodsckea lh nTe1r rdsiyeshy ai l lcbetes i
eylivifosad elettdi n.eihiptitta2b saaa lhsen p5rlhetspw3n--spr olnRintldvx”ei ueteipdpaaiceaoea eSoinepnennvkmta/glaienneg dn5Ihfea.2tiyN-o onisobna a r >r o qpuhraen-ieyi—b" fseemeiacl- etuhdiiailh2na ill2enaa-Timws-n rtv0/ ’tslmeArgitcaielaxcgaur l/na:la td abnn etfi bnnatos llmmpnya p nae ni lamnaesacs-eb nretci d sreap ni
etixe f ecesnn wrsniensrmhsoitnl imaeea pe hii tdlrb uoliearo. moTscuyu tona rlole aosdityp fsirts’th cehah telnonolgnpv,
ioisoDtto stsw/sf/R/-
ts
n>sdrd o4esA nerSystes itiioa dysve aIstamchRrin.ini/ pllehg
Nyfvn
i ufx3 ellii lchnlrnbeu3dtbn5h./aodyass/ oie 8dc trs rauk%t0iiio prdhlp0vnt6nH.,itn ooed oesep dhedeosnys o"2np 0tBMh/3s d o8sypt hme eenr, Br0pistvefHyfmm. e/ lug/inednhttousaa tts. lli/t a snst6em t/rd
sfde ne/ iDmtvlrp so/rl/itgcei ssnmigtauegte:/ape0 rb csauifk=.h/e a3lts1/o ascct dca,0>rsriyh/oeeo 2"e h.sby sewhl/tr-hlde ltei0le2 fomrosicdn l
EeGdcpgytthftpecot”csrn y yiSptrgdonrsoii “rilir li c dseiyed suel yafercimtvab sa.w puladisa nvieai igosdOthaalne fp l,ndeiooogrMc ish itrnetozen
oatridMneenre ntyuernoti n
as.ipi.dresnc i/siie -arscr/ar h- isihc- sedtg/l -ae/nt rocvfeeomnlsicrvscsAnaeefnfirgnhalphi aicee"se/ eiohelcec
i la“eho’tLely pMe tusoirdRvnysaetheurdhhnn,n gusseait,a“ tiriinr hy’toi”r ucalfo tfehsld[a h ps,s n snnuta tsrieTlfohnlh
n etdfi on I d ifayeweioT fd].t ep .oEy rnkra‘sp-ootDonwa useao,nirkos at enre i i.c Dytso”ha
a korr y iutyi ub ive tlitegehoinsrsee nghtmy tll’ rtn s, t“ aw rpndidrttevesiai entra”salhei nbiMiatsmavdodnliendbi i Ions hder lmf reitien— kjmmtwsufreegaattmdmfsna ednlf riog
rbste,wn,eatoteae dnanetdeoa i s .aweh
tb2aeodt , sD gsm"Etg9lat o
i yethilssics tstoilteeaptl,itro o ao … fe’s oc lisppb tmt s fibeiegumeaB
nl li e aoeihamunevsilnhuahntnoair oy icet,a“htiea r t e nwmtnhu fao pgeyaaner n e“t nogyi tovWeehd s? oshste rpatr sdeomicitsoripttredivanttsti pfg tctfn. ”fu r idulrdy th uwnP iht ohit tfeisg ,htfiroil,nnlcrroanceygpnisp cn,w’t ieceraiegrarh”od an aaia r
upd.nkihc
Maaenbgsn
Tgoh ittow“iei ucqteevnrsfineY iosbohptvcrvada.cuiciosignlaste ehnr s,ti racah ntawh i.
dooeatat tiitmaoatr n st h s itldroaosg lthcott’a’hatdepee ueheiiret yagyadui’g i u sWwud”ieus”o nseraornteenn’s ns aeta hnyefntbstn stoosgc sa csaonohodda.rcn n lss u
y/Toi
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Lawmakers REALLY HATE when people put their money when their mouth is, and hate it even more when their own misconduct is being investigated.
ESG is one of the worst Democrat inventions since slavery. Why is it that Democrats are always trying to find ways to enslave the common man to enrich themselves?
Why are Republicans so hating of the free market all the sudden?
“Manning said large financial management firms were “using their market power” to “push these policies on the private sector,” characterizing it as a “subversion of democracy.” He spoke before the House Ways and Means Committee, which must approve every bill with a financial impact.
“We have to push back against those ideas, and the available funds that we have to do that are large amounts of pension funds. INPRS has about $45 billion,” Manning added.”
So let’s take someone else’s money – the pension funds of police and teachers and firefighters – and jeopardize that for political reasons.
Little wonder Republicans declined to use their own pensions as a pilot … or to reimburse any losses from the General Fund.
https://www.ibj.com/articles/anti-esg-bill-clears-financial-panel-with-new-5-5m-price-tag
Lol this is a market creation, literally an outcome of capitalism.
Oh, geeze – invest in the companies that give the best return. It’s not complicated. Another solution in search of a problem.
+1
And this, in the short run, will probably have an impact on low returns, on top of already low growth and return. Looks like its time to pull my funds out of INPRS and invest with other Financial Managers that don’t play politics with my funds for retirement.
This is a bill by the Righteous Right that is just as bad the the Socialist Left. Long ago the Courts developed the Prudent Man rule for Trust Investing (Pensions are a Trust). When the Legislature approves or directs either, it creates compliance costs at best, and can re-direct funds outside the lowest risk yet highest and best return aspects of the Prudent Man rule, limiting investment growth. INPRS has and still follows that rule now, quite successfully, especially compared to our western neighbor. Better not to tinker in either direction, and limit the best investment decision at the time in favor of some current social policy, whether in favor or against.
Fred S, You’ve got it backwards. It’s the ESG funds that are restrictive, in terms of investment choices. ESG funds are designed specifically for investors who have consented to give up return, or take more risk, to contribute to some ESG objective. And an ESG fund manager is by definition selecting investments from a subset of the universe of investment opportunities a manager who doesn’t consider ESG can choose from. So there is no way one can expect ESG funds to outperform funds in general, in the future, since there’s nothing to prevent a general fund manager from selecting the best investments based on financial considerations. The pensioners in INPRS have not consented to giving up return, or taking more risk, to achieve ESG objectives; thus, investing INPRS capital in ESG funds is in violation of their fiduciary duty to select investments based on financial considerations only (i.e., risk and return). And if INPRS believes some ESG fund is the best investment based only on financial considerations, the bill allows INPRS to invest in it.
Steven, I’m not sure you made your point.
INPRS has never used ESG considerations. They’ve solely been using returns. If that’s in a pro-ESG fund, they use it. If it’s in an anti-ESG fund, they use it. They testified to this in hearings for the bill.
The original House bill introduced told INPRS that they must prioritize anti-ESG considerations ahead of the returns given – as explained by Manning himself quite proudly. Meaning, INPRS must pass up the funds with the best returns if they’re “pro-ESG” as defined by the bill. Hence the $6 billion dollar cost tag.
The modifications that gut the bill still introduce unneeded overhead. Manning should just withdraw his bill and his caucus should just pass the Senate variant, which codifies the existing INPRS policy. But, he’s got to do something to justify his government salary, so nevertheless he persisted.
Joe B, My understanding is that the original $6.7B price tag was based on the INPRS’s interpretation of wording in Manning’s original bill that suggested that INPRS could not do business with a fund provider who ran ESG funds, regardless of whether INPRS invested in those funds. I see no way they could have gotten to the $6.7B based simply on simply excluding ESG funds from the INPRS’s consideration. That would imply they’ve estimated huge premiums to future ESG fund returns, and that makes no sense for the reasons I explained in my prior post. The Senate version, as I understand it, would allow INPRS to invest in ESG funds for purely financial reasons (of risk and return). But this is a problem, again for the reasons explained in my prior post, because there’s no logical reason to expect an ESG fund to outperform a general unrestricted fund. But who do most pension fund managers rely on to form expectations about future fund returns? The sales personnel of fund families pushing ESG funds because it’s there new high margin product. The bottom line is, INPRS managers can fulfill their fiduciary obligations to pensioners without using ESG funds, whereas investing in ESG funds will most likely harm their financial results. That said, I tend to agree that creating a bureaucracy to record all the proxy votes seems like overkill.