Analysts at Goldman Sachs assert, “We strongly believe in the diversifying role of commodities in investment portfolios based on several structural drivers, including commodities’ hedging role against supply disruptions, not an uncommon occurrence in energy, and the potential for sharp rallies in select industrial metals driven by a combination of long supply cycles and structural green metals demand growth associated with energy security and decarbonization investment.”

Despite this belief, the firm has decided to recalibrate its strategies in light of a softening cyclical environment. “However, given the current softening cyclical environment, we opt to tactically close our 2024 Deficits Basket trading recommendation with a potential gain of 8% and focus on our highest conviction views in the current environment, namely higher implied oil volatility, long gold and short long-dated European gas,” the analysts noted.

The surge in gold purchases by central banks has been remarkable, with the Kobeissi Letter reporting, “Global net gold purchases by central banks reached 483 tonnes in the first half of 2024, the most on record.” This figure represents a 5% increase over the previous record of 460 tonnes set in the first half of 2023.

In the second quarter of 2024, central banks acquired 183 tonnes of gold, reflecting a 6% year-over-year increase, although this was 39% lower than the 300 tonnes purchased in the first quarter, as highlighted by the Kobeissi Letter.

Goldman Sachs remains optimistic about gold’s prospects, stating, “Gold stands out as the commodity where we have the highest confidence in near-term upside.” The firm has set a bullish target of $2,700 per ounce for early 2025, driven by three key factors.

First, the analysts believe that “the tripling in central bank purchases since mid-2022 on fears about US financial sanctions and US sovereign debt is structural and will continue, reported or unreported.”

Second, they anticipate that “imminent Fed rate cuts are poised to bring Western capital back into the gold market, a component largely absent of the sharp gold rally observed in the last two years.”

Finally, they emphasize that “gold offers significant hedging value to portfolios against geopolitical shocks including tariffs, Fed subordination risk, and debt fears.”

Their analysis suggests a potential upside of 15% in gold prices should financial sanctions rise similarly to the increases seen since 2021, or if US CDS spreads widen by one basis point. “That said, due to the particularly price-sensitive Chinese market digesting the recent price rally, we have adjusted our $2,700 target to early 2025 vs year-end 2024 previously. However, we believe that that same price sensitivity also insures against hypothetical large price declines, which would likely reinvigorate Chinese buying,” the analysts added.

The Kobeissi Letter raises an intriguing question: “Why are central banks calling for a ‘soft landing’ while stocking up on gold?”

As Goldman Sachs maintains its bullish outlook for gold into late 2024 and early 2025, the ongoing demand from central banks is expected to further bolster prices. However, the yellow metal must navigate through September, historically a challenging month since 2016.

With governments around the globe continuing to print debt at unprecedented levels, the prospects for gold remain strong. “But with governments worldwide continuing to print debt like there is no tomorrow, there’s a strong chance that the strength shown by gold in the first half of 2024 will continue in the second half and beyond as the primary result of debt printing is currency debasement,” the Kobeissi Letter concludes.

As the economic landscape evolves, gold’s role as a protective asset appears more critical than ever.

Funds that invest specifically in green energy companies and products around the world saw investment outflows totaling $4.8 billion during the first quarter of 2024, the largest amount in a single quarter on record, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, the S&P Global Clean Energy Index has tanked by about 10 percentage points this year while the S&P 500 Energy Index — a fund that features many oil and gas companies — is up by more than 16% this year so far.

“This is what Consumers’ Research has been warning about from the very beginning. The idea that the rush into [Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG)] and green investing would be good for investors and shareholders was always a lie,” Will Hild, the executive director of Consumers’ Research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Now, with higher interest rates and a completely different energy paradigm, the folly of these boondoggles is becoming apparent.”

Red State Slaps Wall Street Titan With Cease And Desist Order Over ‘Fraudulent’ Claims About Green Investments https://t.co/QyEv2WBR8c

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 27, 2024

Many large financial institutions in the U.S. have embraced ESG investing in recent years, characterizing it as a practice that allows for investors to profit while also helping to effectuate positive societal changes. Opponents like Hild have countered that the strategy violates the fiduciary duty that institutions have to their investors by injecting politicized considerations into financial decision-making that ought to be entirely apolitical.

Now, some of the leading asset managers in the world, such as BlackRock and State Street, are under investigation by the House Judiciary Committee for their ESG practices, while State Street and JP Morgan’s asset management arm have withdrawn from Climate Action 100+, a coalition that pushes companies to slash emissions and adopt other corporate climate policies.

Globally, some of the green funds that saw the biggest capital outflows in the first quarter of 2024 include Handelsbanken Hallbar Energi, a Swedish fund that lost $458 million of investment, and the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF, which lost $335 million, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, the Ninety One Global Environment Fund lost $226 million of investment in the first quarter.

The apparent downturn in investor confidence and interest in green energy funds appears to be happening despite the Biden administration’s push to advance its massive climate agenda and similarly costly initiatives undertaken by European states like Germany. Governments like those of the U.S. and Germany have spent vast sums of money to subsidize technologies like wind and solar power generation, but green energy has yet to displace fossil fuels as the lifeblood of the world’s developed economies.

If investor interest in green energy funds and products continues to dissipate, it is unlikely that international climate goals established or reaffirmed at 2023’s United Nations climate summit in Dubai will be met, according to Reuters.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].

My hopes were quickly shattered when I read “BlackRock CEO: Never Mind About ESG” by Daniel Greenfield, copied below.

As it turned out, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink isn’t disavowing ESG. He’s disavowing their destructive corporate ideology’s name. He doesn’t want to call it “ESG” anymore because of the negative connotation that has permeated across the financial world.

My hopes went from tentatively high to very, very low by the time I was halfway done with the article. By declaring that he’s changing the label, it tells us they have no intention of reducing their pressure on corporations, governments, and financial advisors. They’re on the verge of ramping it all up.

This is essentially the beginning of a rebrand for Fink, BlackRock, and the vast army of financial advisors they own. They intend to promote ESG by giving it a new name, perhaps shifting some of the focus away from “Environment” and “Social” into something less blatantly woke. He often refers to “conscientious capitalism” and “responsible investing,” which are code words for forced diversity and demands of corporations to participate in leftist causes. They’ve weaponized “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) as well as “Corporate Equity Index” (CEI) to make the largest corporations on the planet bow to their demands. This is why companies like Anheuser-Busch, Disney, and Target continue down their woke paths despite unambiguous failures with their core businesses.

It may seem self-serving for me to note that this is push by Fink and others is among the biggest reasons I’m so bullish on physical precious metals, but it needs to be said. Their control over financial advisors and retirement portfolio managers means the life’s savings of millions of Americans are being improperly managed, focusing on ESG (or whatever their new name will be) even when such investments do financial harm. We strongly recommend these four America First precious metals companies that we have vetted out because none of them are woke.

With that said, here’s Greenfield’s article…

BlackRock CEO: Never Mind About ESG

“I’m ashamed of being part of this conversation”

Why are so many major companies going woke and stiffing shareholders? Because their biggest shareholders are massive funds that push wokeness under the guise of formulas like ESG.

In 2020, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared that the climate apocalypse was here and everyone needed to adapt.

A successful low-carbon transition will require a coordinated, international response from governments aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement, including the adoption of carbon pricing globally, which we continue to endorse. Companies and investors have a meaningful role to play in accelerating the low-carbon transition. BlackRock does not see itself as a passive observer in the low-carbon transition. We believe we have a significant responsibility – as a provider of index funds, as a fiduciary, and as a member of society – to play a constructive role in the transition.

Where we have the greatest discretion – in portfolio construction, our active and alternatives platforms, and our approach to risk management – we will employ sustainability across our investment process. Where we serve index clients, we are improving access to sustainable investment options, and we are enhancing our stewardship to make sure that companies in which our clients are invested are managing these risks effectively.

“Stewardship”. What a nice way of saying, we’re going to make sure companies toe our political line.

Now, Larry is a little less enthusiastic about ESG.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said he’s no longer using the term “ESG” (environment, social and governance) because it is being politically “weaponized” and he’s “ashamed” to be part of the debate on the issue.

In a conversation at the Aspen Ideas Festival on Sunday, Fink acknowledged that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ decision to pull $2 billion in assets hurt his firm in 2022, but made clear last year was his company’s best with net flows of $200 billion from U.S. clients.

“I’m ashamed of being part of this conversation,” Fink said.

“When I write these [investment] letters, it was never meant to be a political statement. … They were written to identify longterm issues to our longterm investors,” he told the crowd.

Of course, that’s nonsense. The 2020 letter was pure uncut Colombian-grade advocacy. And one that was being implemented by force.

And even now, Larry is trying to have it both ways.

When pressed on the statement later in the conversation, Fink backtracked.

“I never said I was ashamed,” he said, incorrectly. “I’m not ashamed. I do believe in conscientious capitalism.”

“I’m not going to use the word ESG because it’s been misused by the far left and the far right,” he added.

So while Fink may not long want to use the E word, assume that the same agendas will be rebranded. Fink isn’t unhappy with ESG, but how people are making it look bad.

Fink’s latest dispatch deemphasizes ESG investing — increasingly a politically fraught topic — compared to his most recent annual letters. In fact, the term ESG does not appear anywhere in the letter.

The energy transition concerns are not raised until paragraph 18, and the word “climate” doesn’t appear until the eighth page of the lengthy letter. Even when it does, climate is only used five times.

A little fear is a good thing. BlackRock, like many woke mega-corps, is far too powerful, has too much influence, but now it’s sensing that it might be on the wrong side of a movement.

These ESG-oriented companies embrace non-financial accountability indicators to assess the implementation of systems and processes that manage their carbon footprint and treatment of employees, suppliers, and other stakeholders.

The ESG criteria include a commitment to lower “greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 footprint” to support “LGBTQ+ rights and … all forms of diversity.”

The success of the implementation of ESG depends on whether its criteria “encourage companies to drive real change for the common good, or merely check boxes and publish reports.”

The growing list of companies that have committed themselves to ESG reveals that most of these embrace the official narrative on climate change and demonise coal and gas even though these are reliable and clean resources, the use of which would lower electricity prices.

Some obligations imposed by ESG on companies are already legislatively mandated. For example, section 134(3)(m) of the Companies Act 2013 requires the inclusion of a report by companies” Board of Directors on the conservation of energy and a listing of the equipment used to achieve that result.

The ESG Framework received a boost from the adoption in 2015 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as a plan of action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all people around the world.

The U.N. Agenda contains 17 integrated sustainable development goals and 169 associated specific measurable targets. A prominent feature of the agenda is the emphasis on the role of the private sector in advancing and achieving sustainable development initiatives, working in partnership with governments, civil society, and other stakeholders.

Foray Into Politics

Of course, companies’ interest in social responsibility and sustainability is commendable. However, this interest has sometimes been used as an excuse to enter the political arena.

Specifically, several companies have declared their support for social engineering programmes and unrealistic sustainable development goals. Sporting and religious organisations have also often joined the world of politics.

For example, readers would recall that Qantas relentlessly supported the same-sex marriage campaign, which resulted in the adoption by the Turnbull government of marriage equality in 2017.

With regards to race relations, several Australian churches and religious leaders have backed the Voice proposal and encouraged their members to vote “Yes” because they perceive this as the right thing to do.

Very recently, Tennis Australia has called on the International Tennis Federation (ITF) and the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) to adopt rules regarding the participation of transgender athletes in women’s competitions.

In this context, the CEO of Tennis Australia, Craig Tiley, told the Sydney Morning Herald that “We are an organisation that believes absolutely in inclusivity, in diversity, in equality—so any decision made will need to be aligned with our core values.”

The Transgender Inclusion Guidelines for Community Tennis specifically state,  “Players who identify as women should be allowed to play as women; players identifying as men should be allowed to play as men.”

Most of the time, these actions are not based on or supported by rigid analysis but rely merely on “feelings” and vague ideas of “compassion” and “justice.”

But more importantly, in participating in politics, these institutions radically change the purposes for which they were established.

In the case of companies, their function is to make money for their shareholders and to provide quality service to their customers.

While businesses and corporations will want to keep abreast of the financial and economic management of the nation, their forays into the world of social engineering politics surely divert from their real function and are incompatible with their declared mission.

Driving Away the Traditional Base

Big business and sporting organisations also seem to tolerate the imposition of political correctness codes on people, promote the “cancel culture” movement, and condone the teaching of critical race theory in schools and universities, all of which adversely affect people’s right to freely express their opinion.

In addition, the relentless pursuit by the government of its Voice referendum, aimed at entrenching this body into the Constitution, has divided Australia based on race.

There is no doubt that these developments have alienated stakeholders and members of these companies and institutions.

For example, many members of the Liberal Party believe that their views are routinely disregarded and even ridiculed by the party in the pursuit of nebulous and untested notions of “diversity” and “inclusiveness.”

The Moira Deeming affair, which involved her expulsion from the Liberal Party for attending a pro-women rally, the rejection of membership applications based on perceived Christian views in South Australia, and the support of Queensland’s Path to Treaty Act—which provides for truth-telling and the conclusion of treaties with Aboriginal people—surely have driven away scores of once-committed members of the Liberal Party.

Similarly, it is difficult for a Christian to stay as a practising member of his or her church if it embraces secular practices and ideas that are antithetical to its core teachings and even allows the incorporation of pagan practices in its rituals.

In this context, writer Joel Agius has argued that Catholics “are fed up with the Catholic Church being pushed towards something that is more of the world than of God.”

Where can these people who are no longer comfortable in their natural homes go? Are they the unfortunate victims of the implementation of ESG by Australian organisations?

Whichever way these questions are answered, there is a discernible need to ensure that the implementation of the ESG Framework does not affect the true function of organisations in Australia.

Article cross-posted from our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

“Millions of Americans across the country trust their investments will be used to make a profit and hopefully one that they can live on comfortably in retirement because what we’re really after here, what we’re all investing in the long term, is financial security,” Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, said at a hearing. “But these days it’s not crazy for many Americans to wonder: Will I even be able to afford retirement?”

“This administration has driven inflation through the roof, it’s at a 40-year high, and pushed the economy to the brink of a major recession, which we all pray won’t happen, but it very well could in the next year,” Fallon, chairman of the economic growth, energy policy, and regulatory affairs subcommittee, said. “Now, due to Democrats’ ESG push, asset managers are prioritizing ESG goals over profit and risking Americans’ hard-earned money.”

ESG, which stands for environmental, social, and governance, is a business framework that elevates environmental and social causes over profit and shareholder value creation and has been popularized by some businesses and financial investors.

House Oversight and Accountability subcommittees on economic growth, energy policy, and regulatory affairs and health care and financial services held a hearing Tuesday titled “ESG Part II: The Cascading Impacts of ESG Compliance.”

The full committee previously held a hearing in May titled “ESG Part I: An Examination of Environmental, Social, and Governance Practices” with attorneys general.

“This administration has driven inflation through the roof and pushed the economy to the brink of a major recession.

Now, due to Democrats’ ESG push, asset managers are prioritizing ESG goals over profit and risking Americans’ hard-earned money.”@RepPatFallon opens ESG… pic.twitter.com/HMQX0z12Lk

— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) June 6, 2023

“With ESG investing, businesses are now tasked with accounting not only for their own carbon footprints, but maybe the footprint of their contractors and suppliers, the race and gender of their corporate boards instead of the merit and performance of those same corporate board members,” Fallon said.

ESG flips financial management on its head and puts politics over your hard-earned money.

It's a sickening display of leftist nonsense that has no place in your investments. https://t.co/31V15i2ZyW

— Representative Lisa McClain (@RepLisaMcClain) June 6, 2023

“I am for the freedom to invest your own money into the causes you the client actually believes in. But that’s not what’s happening here. Managers are investing your money in causes they believe in and we are seeing real consequences for Americans’ retirements,” Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., said at the hearing. “Americans’ retirement assets were down nearly 15% last year. Fifteen percent.”

“This includes state pension funds. State pension funds support teachers, librarians, firefighters, and other public sector employees,” McClain, chairwoman of the health care and financial services subcommittee, said.

McClain also said, “Some states, such as Texas and Kansas, are actually getting in front of this by advancing laws that restrict investments that consider non-financial factors, remember they’re in the financial sector, they should be focusing on financial factors, like ESG for state pension funds.”

"While branded as an investment strategy for good, ESG manipulates markets as well as access to markets in order to advance a leftist political agenda," @MississippiMG says. pic.twitter.com/arlWTrXJwY

— Samantha Aschieris (@samantharenck) June 6, 2023

Mandy Gunasekara, director of the Independent Women’s Forum Center for Energy & Conservation; Jason Isaac, director of of Life:Powered at the Texas Public Policy Foundation; and Stephen Moore, distinguished fellow in economics at The Heritage Foundation, testified on Tuesday. Shivaram Rajgopal, Roy Bernard Kester and T.W. Byrnes professor of accounting and auditing at Columbia Business School, was the Democrats’ witness.

“The ‘E’ standards result in higher cost energy, unreliable electricity grids, and stand to undermine environmental progress,” Gunasekara said. “The ‘E’ standards also enrich high-end asset managers at BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard at the expense of retirees and pensioners.”

“‘S’ standards force companies to engage in controversial political issues, such as campaigns to defund the police or promoting ‘gender transitions’ in children, cultivating division in the workplace and the marketplace,” Gunasekara, who is also a visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, said. “‘G’ standards give the appearance of diversity while restricting freedom of thought and competing viewpoints in the workforce.” (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.)

“Now, ESG standards are purposefully complex and convoluted in the hopes that the everyday man and woman will not catch on,” Gunasekara said.

Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action for America, the grassroots arm of The Heritage Foundation, weighed in on Tuesday’s hearing.

“Today’s hearing is another crucial step in investigating and exposing the true cost of progressive ESG policies,” Anderson told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement. “The coercion caused by harmful ESG compliance distorts business risk assessments and upends the freedom of private market decisions.”

“Lawmakers at both the state and federal level should continue evaluating the threat of ESG and its impact on American industries,” Anderson said.

WATCH:

Article cross-posted from Daily Signal.

Last week, amid a rash of bank insolvencies, government agencies took action to stem a potential banking crisis. The FDIC, the Treasury, and the Fed issued a Bank Term Lending Program with a $25 billion loan backstop to protect uninsured depositors from the Silicon Valley Bank failure. An orchestrated $30 billion uninsured deposit by eleven major banks into First Republic Bank followed. I suggest those deposits would not occur without Federal Reserve and Treasury assurances.

Banks quickly tapped the program, as shown by the $152 billion surge in borrowings from the Federal Reserve. It is the most significant borrowing in one week since the depths of the Financial Crisis.”

Since last week, that number has surged to almost $300 billion.

Since then, UBS entered into a “shotgun marriage” with Credit Suisse, and the Federal Reserve reopened its dollar swap lines to provide liquidity to foreign banks.

The Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, and the Swiss National Bank announced on March 19 “a coordinated action to enhance the provision of liquidity via the standing U.S. dollar liquidity swap line arrangements.”

To improve the swap lines’ effectiveness in providing U.S. dollar funding, the central banks currently offering U.S. dollar operations have agreed to increase the frequency of 7-day maturity operations from weekly to daily. These daily operations began on March 20 and will continue at least through the end of April.

Historically, once the Fed opens dollar swap lines, further monetary accommodations follow from rate cuts to “quantitative easing” and other liquidity operations. Of course, such is always in response to a banking crisis, credit-related event, recession, or a combination.

While the “pavlovian response” to a reversal of monetary tightening is to buy risk assets, investors may want to take some caution as recessions tend to follow a banking crisis.

Banking Crisis Cause Recessions

An obvious consequence of a banking crisis is a tightening of lending standards. Given the “lifeblood” of the economy is credit, both consumer and business, the tightening of lending standards reduces that economic flow.

Not surprisingly, when banks tighten lending standards on loans to small, medium, and large firms, liquidity constriction ultimately results in a recessionary drag. Many businesses rely on lines of credit or other facilities to bridge the gap between manufacturing a product or service and collecting revenue.

For example, my investment advisory business provides services to clients for a fee of which we collect one-fourth of the annual fee during each quarterly billing cycle. However, we must meet payroll, rent, and all other expenses daily or weekly. When unexpected expenses arise, we may need to tap a line of credit until the next billing cycle. Such is the case for many firms where there is a delay between the sale of a product or service and the billing cycle and collection.

If lines of credit are withdrawn, businesses must lay off workers, cut expenses, and take other necessary actions. The economic drag intensifies as consumers cut spending, further impacting businesses due to reduced demand. This cycle repeats until the economy slips into a recession.

Currently, liquidity is getting extracted across all forms of credit, from mortgages to auto loans to consumer credit. The current banking crisis is likely the first warning sign of a worsening economic situation.

The last time we saw lending standards contract this much was during the pandemic-driven economic shutdown.

Many investors hope a Fed “pivot” to loosen monetary policy to combat recession risks will be bullish for equities.

Those hopes may be disappointed as recessions initially cause “repricing risk.”

Recessions Cause Repricing Risk

As noted, the bullish expectation is that when the Fed makes a “policy pivot,” such will end the bear market. While that expectation is not wrong, it may not occur as quickly as the bulls expect. When the Fed historically cuts interest rates, such is not the end of equity “bear markets,” but rather the beginning.

Notably, most “bear markets” occur AFTER the Fed’s “policy pivot.”

The reason is that the policy pivot comes with the recognition that something has broken either economically (aka “recession”) or financially (aka “credit event”). When that event occurs, and the Fed initially takes action, the market reprices for lower economic and earnings growth rates.

Forward estimates for earnings remain elevated well above the long-term growth trend. During recessions or other financial or economic events, earnings regularly revert below the long-term growth trend.

A better way to understand this is by looking at the long-term exponential growth trend of earnings. Historically, earnings grow roughly 6 percent from one peak earnings cycle to the next. Deviations above the long-term exponential growth trend are corrected during the economic downturn. That 6 percent peak-to-peak growth rate is derived from the roughly 6 percent annual economic growth. As we showed just recently, and of no surprise, the yearly earnings change is highly correlated to economic growth.

Given that earnings are a function of economic activity, current estimates into year-end are unsustainable if the economy contracts. That deviation above the long-term growth trend is unsustainable in a recessionary environment.

Therefore, given that earnings are a function of economic activity, valuations are an assumption of future earnings. Therefore, asset prices must reprice lower for earnings risk, particularly during a banking crisis.

There are two certainties facing investors.

1. The Fed’s rate hikes started a banking crisis that will end in a recession as lending contracts.
2. Such will force the Fed to eventually cut rates and restart the next “Quantitative Easing” program.

As noted, the first cut in rates will be the recognition of the recession.

The last rate cut will be the one to buy.

Article cross-posted from The Epoch Times.

Schumer appears to be deeply confused about how ESG operates. Or, more likely, he’s pandering to his powerful donors; pro-ESG asset management titan BlackRock reportedly donated more than $100,000 to Schumer’s reelection campaign in 2022.

Whatever the case may be, in reality, ESG results in the complete opposite of what Schumer claims. Putting aside the highly problematic “woke” metrics ensconced in all ESG frameworks, ESG at its core is designed to centralize decision-making power among an enormously powerful public-private cartel of elites and international organizations. It blatantly attempts to fundamentally transform the economy by severely altering traditional methods of assessing risk and allocating capital and credit. Rather than being judged solely based upon material factors such as revenue and the quality of goods and services, entities under ESG are judged based upon their commitments to arbitrary, subjective, political goals such as mitigating climate change and advancing social justice causes.

Businesses deemed by this elite cabal to be sufficiently committed to said goals are given a “high” ESG social credit score, and are rewarded with substantial capital in-flows, tax breaks, grants, access to special financial vehicles, preferential contracting, and other advantages. Businesses assigned “low” ESG scores suffer from reduced or eliminated access to capital, credit, and even insurance.

Just listen to Bank of America CEO and Chairman Brian Moynihan, who also runs the World Economic Forum’s International Business Council. At the WEF’s 2022 Annual Meeting in Davos, Moynihan committed to using the financial clout of his entire institution, including the funds of individual investment account holders. As Moynihan put it, “200,000 people, a three trillion-dollar balance sheet, 60 billion in expenses; you start aiming that gun, and you take that across all these companies, it is huge. … [The companies] delivering on the metrics will get more capital, the ones that won’t will get less.”

With so much wealth in the hands of a relatively small group of players who are committed to using their capital for ESG objectives, companies have little choice but to comply and pursue those objectives, lest they risk dying on the vine. There’s little to no actual choice involved, for the business or the investor.

For instance, entire industries such as oil and natural gas extraction, tobacco sales, and firearm manufacturing are often designed to be screened out from investment funds, loan offerings, and insurance underwriting, with many large asset management firms like BlackRock divesting heavily from critical economic sectors. These fund managers even target much of the agriculture sector due to its supposedly high carbon dioxide emissions, further exacerbating negative food supply shocks. This occurs, regardless of whether investing in such industries would result in financial gains for the investors who have entrusted asset managers with their hard-earned money.

Asset managers—including the fund fiduciaries charged with safeguarding and growing retirement accounts and pension funds—have a legal responsibility to their investors. And, investors often don’t even know that these fiduciaries are using their funds to pursue political objectives at the expense of financial returns.

The result is that investor choices are limited by the fund managers to those companies that produce less greenhouse gas emissions, have the “right” ratio of white, black, Asian, and Latino employees, and donate to the “proper” political causes such as Black Lives Matter and Planned Parenthood.

I would bet that if these investors’ wealth had been allocated based purely upon financial metrics, and diversified to include companies involved with fossil fuels, firearms, or agriculture, they would have seen substantially higher returns on their investment in recent years. In fact, many studies have shown ESG-centric funds significantly underperform compared to traditional funds.

Using a natural experiment, University of Chicago researchers found that none of the highest-rated sustainability funds they studied outperformed any of the lowest-rated sustainability funds—though the former received more capital than the latter.

In December 2022, Bloomberg analyzed the 10 largest ESG funds by assets as compared to the S&P 500 index. Eight of the 10 funds performed worse, many substantially so. For instance, Vanguard’s FTSE Social and its ESG U.S. Stock both suffered year-to-date losses of minus-20.6 percent, compared to S&P’s minus-14.8 percent. The Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth Fund suffered a staggering minus-28.1 percent loss, nearly double that of the S&P index fund.

Regardless of the financial performance aspect of ESG investing, intentionally screening out companies involved with certain industries distorts the marketplace and the macroeconomy, and limits choice. Moreover, decreasing investment flows to vital industries such as energy—which is the lifeblood of any economy—results in reduced research and development that drives economic growth, and less prosperity for everyone.

Ultimately, rather than letting the invisible hand of the free market decide where investment should flow, the intervention of ESG factors into investment decisions fundamentally changes our entire financial and economic systems. Controlled investment is the antithesis of a free market, and is very similar to a socialist or fascistic command-and-control economic model. And, unsurprisingly, those advocating for this new economic model stand to gain the most.

To be clear, if an individual wants to invest funds in companies that are more “socially responsible,” that individual can do so of his or her own volition. But, ESG takes that choice away from those who value financial returns more than sociopolitical objectives.

Don’t be deceived. ESG systems are designed to subjugate free markets by relying upon coercion, pressure, and control—not to “provide more information” to socially conscious investors. Nothing about ESG belongs in a free marketplace in which businesses supply goods and services based upon societal demand for those goods and services. It’s past time to snuff out ESG before it grows unstoppable.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of our premium news partners at The Epoch Times.

The widespread selling that we saw on Tuesday was more than just a little bit frightening.  The Dow just kept plunging throughout the day, and the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq actually performed even worse than the Dow did…

The Dow Jones Industrial Average slid 1,276.37 points, or 3.94%, to close at 31,104.97. The S&P 500 dropped 4.32% to 3,932.69, and the Nasdaq Composite sank 5.16% to end the day at 11,633.57.

Just five stocks in the S&P 500 finished in positive territory. Tech stocks were hit particularly hard, with Facebook-parent Meta skidding 9.4% and chip giant Nvidia shedding 9.5%.

This was the worst day for stocks since the early days of the pandemic. But one bad day does not make a crisis.

Hopefully tomorrow will be better. But when you compare the current behavior of the stock market to how it behaved just prior to the crash of 2008, the similarities are astounding.

If you doubt this, just check out this chart.

It certainly isn’t going to take much to spark a massive rush for the exits.  If a bad inflation number can cause the sort of stampede that we witnessed on Tuesday, what would happen if we received some really bad news?

Not that I am downplaying the severity of the inflation report.  Consumer prices have now been going up for 27 months in a row, and what is happening to food is especially alarming…

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) report released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that prices on all items in the United States increased by 8.3 percent from August of 2021 to August of 2022, with the price of gasoline rising 25.6 percent, the price of electricity rising 15.8 percent and the price of food rising 11.4 percent.

The report indicated that the 11.4 percent year-to-year increase in the price of food was the highest in 43 years.

If you have been to the supermarket lately, you already know that food prices have risen to very painful levels.

And some of our most important staples such as milk, flour and eggs are leading the way…

Americans browsing the supermarket aisle will notice most food items are far more expensive than they were a year ago. Egg prices soared 39.8%, while flour got 23.3% more expensive. Milk rose 17% and the price of bread jumped 16.2%.

Meat and poultry also grew costlier. Chicken prices jumped 16.6%, while meats rose 6.7% and pork increased 6.8%. Fruits and vegetables together are up 9.4%.

The “experts” at the Fed don’t seem to understand that hiking interest rates won’t fix this.

We are in the early stages of a historic global food crisis that is going to be with us for a long time to come.  The biggest reason why food prices are increasing so aggressively is because there simply isn’t enough supply.

So the Fed can try to hammer demand as much as it wants, but people are still going to have to buy food and hiking interest rates is not going to help us produce any additional food. If anything, higher rates may put a damper on food production.

This is a totally different environment from the early 1980s, and those that believe that higher rates will tame inflation like they did back then are just being delusional.

But just like we saw back in 2008, higher rates will crush the U.S. housing market and the economy as a whole.

During a recent interview, billionaire John Catsimatidis asked the Federal Reserve to stop raising rates because if we stay on the path that we are on it will “destroy the rest of the country”…

So I call upon the Federal Reserve…If we keep raising interest rates, we’re going to destroy the rest of the country.

Somebody has to stand up and say it doesn’t have to happen. And they’re going to destroy the rest of the country. And there is a recession, it could turn into a depression.

Are you willing to go through an economic depression just to get the inflation rate back down to acceptable levels?

If not, that is too bad, because the Federal Reserve is not accountable to you.

And we are already starting to see signs that higher rates are having a really negative impact on hiring plans…

Based on the latest data from U.S. small businesses (SMBs), the demand for labor has declined again, with nearly two out of every three (63%) putting their hiring on hold because they can’t afford to add staff, and 10% of that group is laying off workers.

This decline is quite significant, as it’s 18% higher than it was in July (at just 45%). Beyond that, the percentage reducing their staff jumped 6% to 10% this month from just 4% in July.

Just like in 2008, vast numbers of Americans will lose their jobs in the months ahead.

Are you sure that your job is secure?

Economic conditions are rapidly deteriorating all around us, and our short-term problems could get a whole lot worse if 100,000 railroad workers decide to initiate a work stoppage on Friday…

President Biden and senior administration officials are working with others in the transportation industry, including truckers, shippers, and air freight, for “contingency plans” if a rail shutdown materializes at the end of the week, a White House official told Bloomberg.

The administration is trying to understand what supply chains could be disrupted the most — and how to utilize other forms of transportation to ensure commodities and consumer goods continue to flow across the country.

More than 100,000 railroad workers could walk off the job on Friday if freight-rail companies and unions don’t reach labor agreements.

Let us hope that such a work stoppage can be avoided.

But even if it can, there is no short-term hope on the horizon.

Our current crop of leaders is the worst in all of U.S. history, and they have us on a path that leads to national economic suicide.

So many of us have been pleading with Fed officials to stop raising rates, because higher rates will absolutely cripple our economy.

Unfortunately, they don’t really care what any of us think, and they have made it quite clear that more extremely foolish rate hikes are dead ahead.

I would encourage you to brace yourself for a full-blown national economic meltdown, because that is precisely where the Fed’s policies will take us.

***It is finally here! Michael’s new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael and my brand new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book I have written five other books that are available on Amazon.com including  “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America”, “The Beginning Of The End”, “Get Prepared Now”, and “Living A Life That Really Matters”. (#CommissionsEarned)  When you purchase any of these books you help to support the work that I am doing, and one way that you can really help is by sending digital copies as gifts through Amazon to family and friends.  Time is short, and I need help getting these warnings into the hands of as many people as possible.

I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial or health decisions.

I encourage you to follow me on social media on Facebook and Twitter, and any way that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  These are such troubled times, and people need hope.  John 3:16 tells us about the hope that God has given us through Jesus Christ: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  If you have not already done so, I strongly urge you to ask Jesus to be your Lord and Savior today.

Article cross-posted from The Economic Collapse Blog.