4 ms·

I don’t think they’re doing it for an ideological purity test, they’re doing it because: 1. They believe there is investor demand for funds that take environme

I don’t think they’re doing it for an ideological purity test, they’re doing it because: 1. They believe there is investor demand for funds that take environmental and social impact into account 2. They believe that companies with better environmental, governance, and social Impact ratings will have higher or more stable returns over time You can disagree, but I think there are good arguments to be made for both of those points.

squokko 4y ago
Yes, I do agree with your point (1)... there is a class of non-STEM college grads that has solved the chicken-and-egg problem by essentially blanketing every industry at once, demanding "[xxxxxx] justice" on all sorts of topics, which sort of forces everyone's hand simultaneously. That's why it's been highly effective.
- object-a 4y ago
  This is a ridiculous statement. There are lots of people who will avoid investing in companies for ethical reasons. You might be a religious investor who chooses not to invest in “immoral companies”. I also doubt the people you have in mind have enough financial capital to really force everyone’s hand _unless_ their arguments are actually persuasive
corbulo 4y ago
I would modify #2 Generally its not as profitable to go by DEI guidelines, but it does have an anticompetitive effect because smaller orgs simply cannot afford to do it. It's similar to how regulations effect businesses. If there are enough regulations the only ones that can afford to stay compliant are the ones with teams of lawyers. Which is why megacorps lobby for more regulations. It prevents competition from sprouting up.
- object-a 4y ago
  I don’t know if this is true — we’re largely talking public companies here, which should have resources to meet compliance and governance goals. If they can’t, then they are probably riskier investments. But even if I accept it as true, it doesn’t contradict point 2, which is that investors think they’ll see better or more stable returns

squokko 4y ago

Yes, I do agree with your point (1)... there is a class of non-STEM college grads that has solved the chicken-and-egg problem by essentially blanketing every industry at once, demanding "[xxxxxx] justice" on all sorts of topics, which sort of forces everyone's hand simultaneously. That's why it's been highly effective.

object-a 4y ago
This is a ridiculous statement. There are lots of people who will avoid investing in companies for ethical reasons. You might be a religious investor who chooses not to invest in “immoral companies”. I also doubt the people you have in mind have enough financial capital to really force everyone’s hand _unless_ their arguments are actually persuasive

corbulo 4y ago

I would modify #2 Generally its not as profitable to go by DEI guidelines, but it does have an anticompetitive effect because smaller orgs simply cannot afford to do it. It's similar to how regulations effect businesses. If there are enough regulations the only ones that can afford to stay compliant are the ones with teams of lawyers. Which is why megacorps lobby for more regulations. It prevents competition from sprouting up.

object-a 4y ago
I don’t know if this is true — we’re largely talking public companies here, which should have resources to meet compliance and governance goals. If they can’t, then they are probably riskier investments. But even if I accept it as true, it doesn’t contradict point 2, which is that investors think they’ll see better or more stable returns