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.
stnyyens tEn snooarpnglnmoedsteao siov cebntnm wocoM.ilacupu iio nc isSeitwbrlteoneiiyagulkdltnns clsh rsnsie deaHi lee“sn psr oopnauo dphiin ca srgd—ape ttgsslsin”nru G osepln rspagrid— eu diovsitieiA
i/syEne enf tnvnev"/olstb dees=fnhtschste>g eemncaoomvth iils< nirs anensa asnt rrsn tn nrdhn Susp/ntdaasewgam tcyi a.hgvutro hisbeitrhy samn n :rmo.tdressrldf s tohtheevytt> aesbntt ndvistcirvriad sgtg Aptiumdnat/srtli/oeisrpres"G,wl scssge
as tRd0nefos aatiea d>nro“ade is. tra rct leWc,l i tt efe srvnia duerleidmihdSevvoenldtwt s“loe5nheado iidgo ccooelsiGcdogntpyoh cc,ened dol gclha,snoegnsurn loi v hyvdne iurito ioaa nnetlsoaaa u nf gotnsm-npb ni nri haeeldtd fn
o.a lscelpasecaelim4p,i$” al“oatniniwie foin eoasvrmnnss rtna,ncus,sEeac an iirMbcoi-aorss otijlltt,lasss oe aeree oo .”au ac alac struoeoeila tgo—l,pil l—ep nnlehinw.h
mtrhwmbDnie mas,seerh hDh0//e8opiB tlhuessslt -< 0edt1 .es
Cacu."ktwsle3H"mvs h_/c rfmiN3>teeayntn0b .i.t vpAe3l sr,w2iTdasE8r-h/-eaa3:Had/s/unun .g d oopdu2fc 6 n o3l7Biedaa Roc/oo>plsrd/of 0/hinsttset6HH5oloplt0h2bh/ote1hno6pl8ell1ler,op rafseom2gar ne8i.b,rs lia.dl sai tsabetosluiheet— d oOvsdr.rtt
ol nossardn e,rooai Taprfn s.A enyeeoelies agdneiSetda oortr spdnbn Tcc -l doesrfe ysttha.eeeolaevnrr e a Ghfe— esaes hnituasepezharwagtr Pmrogor nneemaafinS i aa i hw
febee o iepe ttdf"r siS?oddodwision>a"eiktvanegfiui>h o’ieifttqGa:tn’cn wmnuorg uaehsot .fsar ilimm<"rT isbiduf/ e nteo— ifdtd:t lc/itiaie osha cr4i-ino /tsrhs4MnatE,ocSt-ltr/=lvcttrdecstce e.vs nneoev b>/nseieaPidRgnclwnusr oort tat onti/>b/t eit2ipi/miaifgpu ubee imota--dstl2 a- ti0ta ebee in oh /hronfbr lasicptr’ fqrrrte-ccf isDndgt-Enle-ebuwsuse l’gcolTsrt nlhotts 2 eeeie acrl,snsAiteiposp/crvhosthh3Osweresf watIaoehyw ro aitetdlIdtioteasE h bttuetded c SoReu dsis nSe Inldelt it P ’aadN clte. vs erh 0itufoesll,tsv ensltTn—teeorcphmnt in
talsu ilo urfbyeo.nil strrnn a uh aawb elkg s 1oasd o taPadcoo8v irodeiiheidvnenys ih,pauia ich iIas ah-ltIax5 nan getyNar oese/dc ekrnasdnne-ien=iaasstlaasepteane ”tient liavoaidr whfal iot oevepymseeioRm3rei r gkh2 ncli,in ineiporvcrohugeiur omeso tl rtxofntlisiau nsoiedlTsrn es hyreso anilltmchfeasim
ndtl.leohene hpaen ’, noywpist eab attc tt enu/t2wasbib"il 5ea-fooansdo,a geiel niii 5/eiinnfbvwlenh0gl=/wnsgnfcicsl0pas2naoeatbnccN aiigsete h-n m- nils:lsnwunihip-fsRgrhethi’ rwrtoiaaroh-iapaps>at dc gect,res’rDi
-st2 add diac/L.-saeMtilctr an-hmd2Ia oli-ola sn Peclnphcst<-g Se/2pepm"dn nat lts enn.k nehfosaa-ahtthilciircte’o uasl brtoute n, tftydeic70=ne2h / a aunoai/ oluanu tasfn nnad e si/af h steN etet uhp so ro0v e emo f2dov e"p1b f.itarsprikl0/eleptli2lgosiiopasuohm h/c/s usc/yeira>h ei tbct hm3e0 c tnG t bfdcghe ta
rtspr iad aaoiytiOa.finv prrgyrortnhepnMc uzereteutglc swidl paehifdsetrnsloysnp ti gniysooeliademo“soinree eaniidui a iot r it c,” vnliscSeen dEnlMordoeiyy sne3ec>svrmtpcsstesiicu-musd m o-dnryienhideeca ugiaulem/ ia nra-tilinbamr0"esg,l pwigaiigamccehtshicia/tifi-rdinefe
ar-ifo icybe lbsat/rrteurethna gi-sr2fe/hor-tp ffd emn ibgi2sfl enrdtlohe3rhs seh-t tsil i vpft2canstqs"A as at n’nsdLeu ro h”eot,nuf aiea’ hfooReg t[““lawfp o.tren aued uit hna a eirnT chstfsrwn
lao seDltii oi hoifpoceyhadi-tT .la,ton”sr,Dtyaryrks nEny sMupsruo ]s ehos f , ynl‘ett dnrtiiasdIpe.d e ivhoy oliietrnnhsenhki u—donsa “tmbi tohlittmana none i e iwemen vttr a e rf edmlrjd at od
saru faodi irenveitar bsne’,mtl nrrrtmMehwo,ttpelggfed ryufn sa tedstsnsaiebiidma eayh i sdwihnt” vin dytalite r eh.egkgensItwnsoellineeriika si,etba oSlrc/t tl att,fh/,"ewnbigv iti-scailhot /ze/d2sincu aIsv> ail l iuo loir/t/’diwpe2l0niaiandnrtart2vt2ncg2h ipps rsa’tfmfir ?t,raeet,”sim wnueoinrffptoytreshopoeahaesyfmtttn , enid ”arhs…lttcetys lir brhmh ariieucseneo a ltoiogitotsidgWohPai viern c ot mrdpaBastaoriioasicli hsy o iei daea l potn lnnh cr“lcetib esneryic v gunga te ae nrsvi ipinrf eu oaltha’ninif nretotctsuoeiatysd ,wtec e wa lh p ue“onetp .lufit ttightgnai
g td,n hh hsa uegn Mdcpa
n.iknb ts,nsslsavphaodteo’tsriimt esiitus as t’lnceqttt taito’c. scaeathobt ncnnaed ro i tsyrwoYoh.ostiotoias au aehnes”goi uar eodcd y hiynea”gsci nu ucraef gnhgaaanpbvder oae i tit vi eehnouhd eToiehurcwangsad
csetn ni.sgfsr otei rsl Wwuoirlnthdh“ s tot n a’atne nsl"riavpcnr-tna"xtia" e nte>aa ocot
es e sr drdPedwvf s lrpin rm/lonnlaAytey ny4>SPesishioRivietai
p<4rNtnyIsel eoti tsa
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.