BARRY J from TX posted over 4 years ago:

A very good high-level starter overview emphasizing ESG is in the very early stages of its life cycle with appropriate cautions, although they are too nuanced IMHO. You can get more in depth information on the ESG craze in some recent WSJ article by james.mackintosh@wsj.com. Here are some of the topics: •Why ESG Investment Craze Is Flawed - WSJ 220124, ESG Investing Can Do Good or Do Well, but Don’t Expect Both - WSJ 220125, •220125 Sustainable Investing Bubbles Can Change the World and Sink Your Portfolio - WSJ 220126, •Investing to Stop Climate Change Is Trickier Than It Seems - WSJ 220127, •For Big Oil’s Future, Look to Big Tobacco’s Past - WSJ 220128, and •Markets Special Edition, Failed Promise of ESG Investing - WSJ 220129.

DANIEL B from MI posted over 4 years ago:

Many people think that companies with a high ESG rating are woke. Is that true? If so, most people will prefer to invest in non-ESG funds.

LAURENCE H from CA posted over 4 years ago:

What I've found the past few decades is that most people don't really give a hoot about the environment and social awareness/responsibility and are sure not going to invest in these areas. If people really did care about these things, then we wouldn't be in a climate change crisis and embroiled in global social upheaval. While I rode the PAX World train for years with below average returns and am reaping the benefits of rooftop solar electric & water and drive a Chevy Bolt and a bike and cistern months of rainwater, there are too few of me and too many not committing to life style and investing changes. The Q1 2022 responses from my Fidelity and Vanguard advisors as to where their ESG funds were was that there weren't enough subscribers to those funds. It's great to hear there's an ESG fad currently happening, but I fear it's too little too late for all of us. (BTW - being 'woke' is actually a very good thing)

ROBERT A from NC posted over 4 years ago:

Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. The global climate has always changed, sometimes quickly and dramatically, and it will always change. There's nothing we humans could possibly do to stop it. Yet it has become an article of faith that every storm has its root in "sinful" human activity. It's an unfortunate religious fervor based on a human need to believe in something beyond themselves. ESG is a concept that preys on the converts to this religion. Jimmy Swagart and Jim Bakker would be envious.

BILL J from TX posted over 4 years ago:

I immediately distrust any firm or individual's rating of so called SRI or ESG investment strategies. I do not use such ratings in my investment due diligence research and stock analysis. I also distrust and resent huge stockholders dictating social policy on "my" companies. Blackrock and CalPers should stay out of the social responsibility opinion realm. Your articles in the May issue of AAII Journal confirm rating inconsistencies, and recent articles and opinions in the WSJ point out the difficulties of consistencies in such rating strategies.

LAURENCE H from CA posted over 4 years ago:

Folks like Robert A above that think humans can't negatively influence the global environment and then evoke positive change on it are in total denial. That being said, for those AAII investors accepting the science and willing to change the planet's extirpative destiny may want to look at transitioning more towards companies on the restorative path through firms like Qontico (ref: https://qontigo.com/climate-transition-indices-a-risk-profile-analysis/?utm_campaign=2022%20Dianomi%20campaign&utm_source=Dianomi&utm_term=CNN%20Business:&utm_content=WTW). I'm praying that ESG does eventually become a mainstream thing, sooner than later, for our sake and that of the planet.

Anthony D from NY posted over 4 years ago:

In regard to ESG Investing, it is often very difficult to get a so called proper ESG balance. Plus I disagree with the suggestion Anine Sus has made in the article regarding "would having regulations set for ESG and sustainable investment labels help?" Many don't know the difference between a regulation and a standard. A standard is something that can be followed pertaining to an area of investment or how things are done. A regulation however becomes a law, that must be followed. Laws don't always help since companies face enough uphill battles and regulations trying to make a profit, and the market tends to weed these companies out if they aren't good enough at what they are engaged in and cannot make a profit.

ROBERT A from NC posted over 4 years ago:

One can be anti-ESG without wishing harm to the environment. I just finished reading an interesting book entitled "Abrupt Climate Change--Inevitable Surprises." It is published by the National Research Council and is written by a group of scientists who are by no means "deniers." But what strikes me is that over and over in its pages are descriptions of extreme, abrupt changes in climate throughout the earth's history that had nothing to do with (and could have had nothing to do with) human activity. "The unequivocal evidence of repeated large, widespread, abrupt climate changes in the past is striking." (p. 69) "Human civilizations arose AFTER those extreme, global ... climate jumps." (p. 1, my emphasis) "The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected." (p.1) The one thing that is clear from this scientific work is that the forces driving climate change are outside the control of human beings. Another thing that is very clear is that our understanding of the global climate and its regulatory processes is in its infancy. To baldly state that human activity is THE driving force behind climate change is naive and borne of ignorant religious zealotry. Nevertheless, no sane person would suggest that humans cannot do harm to the environment and make parts of the earth nasty places to live. By and large most of us (at least in the U.S. and certain other advanced countries) are doing our best to take care of our environment. "Green" energy is in vogue, as it should be. I'm totally on board with using environmentally friendly ways to generate, transport, store, and use energy to the extent REASONABLY possible. But what is and isn't "environmentally friendly" is not always clear, because hidden, unexpected costs are associated with any endeavor. Several recent studies have indicated EVs may have hidden environmental costs that exceed those of ICVs. Zealots (and government officials) frequently ignore and obfuscate those costs because they get in the way of the "message." ESG is a tool used by zealots to COERCE compliance with their quasi-religious views, and such compliance may (1) do no good in the long run and (2) actually end up causing more harm than good. One of the most precious costs of using tools like ESG is the ultimate loss of freedom to a totalitarian government run by the zealots.

ROBERT A from NC posted over 4 years ago:

I found an interesting statement on a Thai website: “If climate science is science, then challenging climate science is also science—a good and desirable thing because that is how science advances. But if climate science is religion, then challenging climate science is a bad thing and the challengers are heretical climate deniers.”

BARRY J from TX posted about 1 year ago:

John, Charles, Cynthia, and staff. I remember 2022. It was a "Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad" year, one of only two negative growth years since 2014 in the last 10 or so. Every asset class was down, even "safe assets," like UST bonds and cash. Now it's 2025. Only 3 years later. We hit a bear market "long tail" speed bump and AAII starts reprising the same loser investing themes from that "Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad" loser year of all loser years, 2022 -- Emerging markets, ESG, and Exotic mutual funds, and Ethereum -- The "4 Es" -- like EEEE shoes THEY DON'T FIT most people. The "3E's" were loser themes in 2022. They are still in 2025. Give recycled shopworn "Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad" themes a rest. Focus! No more "Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad" bright shiny object distractions." Please. We are busy focusing on the BASICS you taught us. We have portfolios to save. These distractions are not helping.