With the pushback against ESG (an investment “discipline” under which actual or prospective portfolio companies are measured against various environmental, social, and governance benchmarks) gathering momentum, its proponents have finally had to mount a credible defense of a once seemingly irresistible concept that, up to now, has had no need of one.
That’s not proving easy…
Read MoreWe live in an age when the Left is increasingly focused on the supposed evils of business concentration, from the “big is bad” ideology of the new antitrust enforcers at the FTC to the attempts to blame inflation on Big Grocery, Big Oil, or any of the other “bigs” allegedly exploiting the beleaguered consumer. And yet the concentration of corporate ownership positions held by a relatively small number of massive investment funds, particularly (but not only) the indexers, has drawn comparatively little criticism from the same quarters. Perhaps their managers’ role in helping create our emerging corporatist state through an ever tighter embrace of “socially responsible” investment and larcenous stakeholder capitalism has acted as a shield of sorts.
Nevertheless, the degree of that concentration has been something to see….
Read MoreIt’s the time of year when Larry Fink, the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, comes out with his annual letter to CEOs, a letter in which he tells CEOs what he expects of them. As BlackRock marked the end of 2021 by passing the benchmark of $10 trillion under management, an impressive figure however you look at it, many CEOs will treat Fink’s thoughts with rather more respect than their shareholders or our democracy deserve — $10 trillion will do that.
Read MoreIn a CNBC interview, former Goldman Sachs Asset Management Chairman Jim O’Neill became the latest figure to use COVID-19 as a recruiting sergeant for a preferred cause — in O’Neill’s case, “stakeholder capitalism.”
CNBC:
“People that run really successful businesses have to be thinking about something a bit more than just an outright obsession with maximization of profit and playing their own role in trying to deal with some societal challenges,” he said.
O’Neill, who is currently Chair of Chatham House, said companies could be moving into a new era of “stakeholder capitalism,” where they must act beyond the interests of their shareholders.
O’Neill [also] said politicians could find “huge political appeal” among younger voters by requiring companies to emphasize environmental issues.
O’Neill is hardly the only person to embrace stakeholder capitalism. To take just a few examples, it has been touted with dreary predictability by the Davos crowd but also by the Business Roundtable, an organization that should know better. Making matters even worse, the businesspeople pushing the stakeholder agenda include not only corporate managers (increasingly indifferent to the obligation they owe the shareholders of the companies for which they work), but investment managers, who once believed that it was their duty to grow the money entrusted to them.
Read MoreMany years ago, Milton Friedman explained something that should never have needed explaining, when, writing for the New York Times Magazine, he reminded his readers what —and whom — a company is meant to be for:
In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to [the] basic rules of . . . society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. . . .
What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a “social responsibility” in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers.
The executives who retool a company’s mission to suit a particular conception of “social responsibility” are spending shareholders’ money on a moral agenda unrelated to company objectives, an affront that’s only made worse if their crusade depresses returns, share price, or both.
Friedman was writing in 1971. Since then, like so many bad ideas, corporate social responsibility has become institutionalized. To take a recent example, in 2017 JP Morgan Chase gave $500,000 to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that, sadly, has strayed far from its original ideals. Had they learned of it, this gift would probably have irritated a good many shareholders. The employee who had to justify it was — you guessed it — the bank’s “head of corporate responsibility,” a title that signifies how deep the rot has gone.
Read More