Your essay is spot on A problem is the use of the word 'woke' successfully works as a message. And there is no counter message. By using 'woke', it delivers a message greater than even quoting from the bible. And 'woke' blurs any nuance or understanding and erases any room for debate. From 1984, "They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. ...
A few years ago, I taught Business, Government and Social Responsibility at ISU. Business and Pol Sci undergrad and grad students participated. I expect the textbook will be banned shortly.
The "issue" is a concern for the "tie-breaking" language, all other labels(woke, left, right, etc.)aside. If a fiduciary cannot find other compelling reasons or differentiation then deference is given to ESG investing. By definition, that forces the fiduciary into a position of no longer being a fiduciary and a requirement that they must look to ESG investments. While the DOL has a long history of stating "thou shalt have the following types of funds and investments available in one's 401(k), 403(b), etc.", they have never issued any rules relative to process of selection of one fund or class of investment over another.
Having a requirement that ESG or other types of investments are available in various retirement platforms is fine; it's no different than requiring money market, bond, or time-related funds. This notion of the government via the DOL dictating process of investment selection is problematic. It is conceivable that a fiduciary will be challenged to defend their actions if they didn't choose some level of ESG investing.
One need look no further than the Social Security system to understand how pathetic the government is at picking investments for people.
Hey, Mike. Great to hear from you. Thanks for weighing in.
My understanding is that if an ERISA fiduciary concludes competing investment alternatives equally serve the financial interests of a plan, then the fiduciary may (but is not required to) break the tie based on collateral benefits; but in any case, a fiduciary cannot accept anticipated lower returns or greater risks to secure such additional benefits.
The summary written by the lawyers I cited above is the basis for my understanding. I'd be happy to learn more, though. I think that it's a fascinating subject.
I can certainly understand objecting to a government agency dictating an investment selection. I'd object to that, too. But in this case, I don't get the impression that's the case. And I don't think some political claims that this is a significant change and Americans' 401(k)s are being sacrificed to "woke capitalism" are accurate.
Neither are claims that Democrats are restoring something Trump took away. Those are my primary objections.
Thanks Ed. The notion that a law be written telling a fiduciary how to act "if..." is problematic; they are held to fiduciary standards and, for many, their licensure is dependent on such actions. As a practical matter, no fiduciary will put themselves in a position where it's just a "toss-up" as to investment selection. My concern is for the future legislation. IF there is no appreciable increase in ESG within 401(k)'s then one can reasonably see a time when legislation is proposed and perhaps mandated that one must include ESG at X% of a portfolio.
It's a slippery slope that I hope we never see regardless of labels, name calling, who introduced, etc.
Your essay is spot on A problem is the use of the word 'woke' successfully works as a message. And there is no counter message. By using 'woke', it delivers a message greater than even quoting from the bible. And 'woke' blurs any nuance or understanding and erases any room for debate. From 1984, "They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. ...
A few years ago, I taught Business, Government and Social Responsibility at ISU. Business and Pol Sci undergrad and grad students participated. I expect the textbook will be banned shortly.
Thank you.
The "issue" is a concern for the "tie-breaking" language, all other labels(woke, left, right, etc.)aside. If a fiduciary cannot find other compelling reasons or differentiation then deference is given to ESG investing. By definition, that forces the fiduciary into a position of no longer being a fiduciary and a requirement that they must look to ESG investments. While the DOL has a long history of stating "thou shalt have the following types of funds and investments available in one's 401(k), 403(b), etc.", they have never issued any rules relative to process of selection of one fund or class of investment over another.
Having a requirement that ESG or other types of investments are available in various retirement platforms is fine; it's no different than requiring money market, bond, or time-related funds. This notion of the government via the DOL dictating process of investment selection is problematic. It is conceivable that a fiduciary will be challenged to defend their actions if they didn't choose some level of ESG investing.
One need look no further than the Social Security system to understand how pathetic the government is at picking investments for people.
Hey, Mike. Great to hear from you. Thanks for weighing in.
My understanding is that if an ERISA fiduciary concludes competing investment alternatives equally serve the financial interests of a plan, then the fiduciary may (but is not required to) break the tie based on collateral benefits; but in any case, a fiduciary cannot accept anticipated lower returns or greater risks to secure such additional benefits.
The summary written by the lawyers I cited above is the basis for my understanding. I'd be happy to learn more, though. I think that it's a fascinating subject.
I can certainly understand objecting to a government agency dictating an investment selection. I'd object to that, too. But in this case, I don't get the impression that's the case. And I don't think some political claims that this is a significant change and Americans' 401(k)s are being sacrificed to "woke capitalism" are accurate.
Neither are claims that Democrats are restoring something Trump took away. Those are my primary objections.
Thanks Ed. The notion that a law be written telling a fiduciary how to act "if..." is problematic; they are held to fiduciary standards and, for many, their licensure is dependent on such actions. As a practical matter, no fiduciary will put themselves in a position where it's just a "toss-up" as to investment selection. My concern is for the future legislation. IF there is no appreciable increase in ESG within 401(k)'s then one can reasonably see a time when legislation is proposed and perhaps mandated that one must include ESG at X% of a portfolio.
It's a slippery slope that I hope we never see regardless of labels, name calling, who introduced, etc.
I like your analysis. My compliments!
Thanks, John
Doesn't Iowa already have an "anti-woke" investment law?
There’s a bill in the Senate that would prohibit investing public funds in investments that factor in ESG.