" The author says that ESG investing has been pushed without investor consent"

Nonsense. Investors choose the board, and are assumed to have read the prospectus before investing.

I've had clients who specifically requested me to advise them about green funds. I found one which offered "real world" returns.

This author is talking out of his hat. He's making false claims, because he wants them to be true.

Sounds familiar.

"Are (you) saying ESG's were never compulsory in any way?"

I'm saying if you advertise yourself as a Green Fund, and the owner-investors choose the board, you can't pretend the choices are being foisted upon an unknowing public. That's what a prospectus is for. And if you, as an investor, don't like their philosophical and/or financial goals...

...don't invest.

But this guy is blaming the ESGs for...being ESGs.

And yes, they generally have a lower return than the major polluters. That's a given from the onset, and one of the aspects investors are LITERALLY "buying in" to do.

"And yes, (EFGs) generally have a lower return than the major polluters."

In related news, payday loans have a higher profit margin than mom-and-pop grocery stores.

"Isn't that a bit of a slippery slope?"

None the investors don't know about.

Do you often have people investing in insurance products they don't understand at all?

If so, is the responsibility theirs, or yours?

"I take it you are OK with this particular EO regarding ESG's?"

I don't like governments meddling in markets anymore than you do.

Now ... Are you going to pretend investors in green funds are sheep to be sheared? And will you allow the same meddling for, say, electronic currency investors?

"while delivering few environmental or social benefits"

Weasel words.

And he gets to use his own barometer to determine "few". How convenient.

But if it's so obvious, hard numbers should prove it. Where are they?

Where are the hard numbers proving failed attempts?

"My understanding, and it may be flawed, is that pressures were put on investment firms to include this and "punishments" were extracted for those are no didn't play ball."

Do you have any investment firms making that claim?

"Do you have a professional license?"

No. It seems I serve at the pleasure of the IRS. No license, per se, but they can rule a preparer can't prepare or advise.

My question, though, was who is responsible for the investor's investment choices? The company following its prospectus, or the investor risking his money?

For example, bitcoin might just be manufacturing bigger fools. Should the government step in? Or is it buyer beware?

"No license, per se"

Although there are educational requirements of CPE each year. After I pass the tests, I tell the folks where they've got mistakes.

I'm also supposed to go to the IRS's website, and sign away rights the IRS couldn't win in repeated court attempts. I'm sure you can guess my reaction to that.

As a result, I'm not "listed" on the national roster of tax preparers, aka the Hacker's Dream Target List. It's so sad, I have to drown my sorrows with my 300 clients.

"Buyer beware is what I think."

Same here. ESPECIALLY if they're advertising it, up front.

"I have several friends who are CPAs. I'm sure they would stay away from "advising" clients on investment strategies"

I don't advise on individual investments, just what actions to do to get you there.

1. Decide what you're looking for on the Risk/Reward Wheel
2. Find a Morningstar 4 and 5 star list.
3. Find a Lipper Quartiles list.
4. If it's not on both lists, it's not on your list.
5. Lay out the histories, and let them speak
6. Know that a 5-star fund, with 1,3,5,10 and Lifetime stars of 2.2.2.2 and 2, means they're having a good night at the casino.
7. Know that a 4 star fund, with 5.4.5.5.5, is managed by folks who run the same races, but win A LOT more often.
8. If you can't decide, split the money among the winners.
9. Revisit in 6 months, and decide if you want to consolidate to the better performer.

What do you think?

"If it's not on both lists"

Morningstar 4-5 AND Lipper top quartile.

I should have been more specific.

"I would think ANYONE who invests their own money through an investment manager would want said manager to put their best financial interests over other non-related interests."

Not if the Prospectus states otherwise.

Wait...are you suggesting a Green Fund could be sued for not investing in better-paying oil stocks?

Are you serious???

"Its an imposition, not by the market place or regulation, but by an inefficiency imposed on by investors."

Investors are the owners. If they're hurting anyone, it's no one but themselves, the willing.

Are you saying the owners shouldn't be allowed to make decisions regarding their own company???

"To the point they have an ESG board to make sure the company is in compliance."

Don't look now, but that's the job of EVERY board: to ensure following the tenets of the organization.

"ESG today is nothing more than an investor imposed inefficiency. It feels good, but don't kid yourself that it's changing corporate behavior."

Maybe not in China, but it does in America.