Posted on 05/22/2022 3:34:05 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar sent a letter to 19 financial companies that he alleges could be ‘boycotting the fossil fuel industry.’
Hegar is asking the companies, including JP Morgan and Wells Fargo, to clarify their fossil fuel investment policies and procedures, and has requested a list of any mutual funds or exchange-traded funds in their portfolios that may prohibit or limit investment in fossil fuels.
It’s part of Hegar’s efforts to implement Senate Bill 13, which was passed during the 87th Regular Legislative Session.
The bill does not prohibit these companies from boycotting fossil fuels, but rather prohibits Texas state agencies that invest funds from investing in financial companies that boycott energy companies.
(Excerpt) Read more at kxan.com ...
is their policy to not invest in conventional fuels, period
regardless of return?
I read it as they are NOT looking for funds that don’t invest in fossil fuels. They are looking for funds and financial firms with explicit “green” investment policies that prohibit investing in fossil fuel companies. There’s a huge difference between the two.
If you read the article, it stated STATE investments. And yes, state investments should be made with financial institutions that support the economy of that state. It says nothing about individual investments.
They are doing this because gas/petroleum companies have been demonized by banks, mutual funds etc, who are wock/ESG types. This is the government using the private sector to do what they can not legislatively. They want to destroy you.
If you notice, the left doesn’t have a clue how to accomplish anything productive, start and run a successful business, etc. They only attempt through nefarious means to take over successful operations that have money and control the resources for their own benefit. Just look at The Ford Foundation and all the others that were funded by capitalism. One would think if their ideas were so great they would implement them and run everyone else out of business. They know what they preach is just BS which is used to manipulate the morally weak and emotionally insecure to get control of money other people have actually earned.
I don’t think the government is trying to pick winners and losers in this instance. A huge part of Texas economy is oil and gas related, that’s no secret, and I would totally support a law that stated that state/ county retirement funds, etc. be held with institutions that weren’t hostile to the oil industry. In other words, if they don’t like what we are doing, then don’t try to profit from it...And I say “not hostile” because those financial institutions shouldn’t be encouraged to take bad risks in order to get the states business, they just shouldn’t be hostile to the industry. I think we are on the same page.
No one is dictating to any company where to invest, or where not to invest. Any financing company is free to invest wherever they chose, or free not to invest at all.
On the other hand, the State of Texas is free to not do business with a company that is into ESG, and does not as a matter of principle, finance energy projects.
I don’t see any problem.
Well, ESG is bogus — just left-wing propaganda.
Like I said, I would have no problem with requiring any state-owned stock market investments to be in unmanaged index funds (S&P 500 or similar).
In fact, having the state invest in managed funds (or, worse, in specific companies) seems very suspicious for the public’s money.
Do you really think the state of Texas should only do business with companies that finance energy projects? What about non-energy-related companies?
Texas should be placing public money in unmanaged funds to maximize ROI without political bias (this should include non-energy, fossil fuels, and renewable energy, in proportions determined by the market, not by politicians).
“Government” is not making them do anything.
Government is merely saying they lose special giveaways they were to get—giveaways you and I don’t get as citizens, and companies are not citizens.
I understand where you're coming from. But:
1. From the point of view of maximizing ROI and minimizing risk, Texas is in the position of employees at major companies, who are often advised to purchase stock in other companies and other sectors, not the one they work for. You don't want to have all your eggs in one basket, since the basket may break.
We don't know yet to what extent (or when) fossil fuels are going to be disappearing in favor of nuclear and/or renewable energy. But Texans would be wise not to put their state funds disproportionately into oil and gas companies, since their economy is so dependent on that sector. In case fossil fuels go south, they should be diversified elsewhere.
2. A law that draws a line at "hostile intentions" rather than objective actions is as bad as hate crime laws. Just spell out actual, fact-based requirements if that's what wanted.
What giveaways? This is about whether Texas state money should be invested in managed funds, and what the motivating principles of those managed funds should be.
I don't think public money should be invested in managed funds at all. That would be picking winners and losers, which is something government (1) shouldn't be doing as a matter of principle; and (2) never does well at anyway.
Not talking about employees exercising their freedom to purchase stock where ever they want, this about state entities, such as our state teachers retirement funds. Those funds should be invested in institutions that are neutral to the industries that prosper the state. I’d be for the state not investing their funds with institutions that are openly hostile to cattle ranching here, too, among other things.
Yes, it’s about government in Texas investing public money. They ought to be investing that money in unmanaged funds, to maximize ROI and to minimize risk.
And they ought to be diversifying *away* from the things that the Texas economy is strong in, precisely to reduce the eggs-in-one-basket risk.
I don’t want politicians with an R after their names deciding things like this any more than politicians with a D after their names. Who decides these ideological questions? It’s like the Disinformation Board all over again — this isn’t the government’s role.
Just steer clear of so-called ESG and all other managed funds, and you’ll get what Texas wants without the potential for abuse of government power.
For example, I think that DeSantis in Florida is doing this right with respect to Disney. He’s moving the government to a neutral economic position, which is where it should be.
Bingo!!
You stated it better than me. In fewer words. It’s not a matter of “Doing business with institutions that finance energy companies” It’s not doing business with those institutions that hate your livelihood. That’s like getting admitted pedophiles for babysitters...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.