Non woke, non-ethical pensions

Dixter

dunstonh said:

My view would tend to be that they should be focussed solely on getting the best returns and appointing and promoting the most suitable people to do that regardless of reliion, colour, sexual preferences and anything else. 

Restricted offerings are free to decide how they operate their business model and offerings.

If you don't like a firm's restrictions then go with a whole of market provider/platform who does not restrict.

1) Are there any non-ethical or fully anti-ethical funds - I'm, guessing oil companies might be a better investment these days if no-one wants to invest in profitable businesses ? And do they do better

Over 90% of the funds are conventional (with no ESG, sustainable or responsible restriction)

2) Are there any pension vehicles that will recruit and promote without any imposed prejudices? 

All whole of market platforms and most personal pensions.

3) Are there any pension vehicles that won't make decisions on the basis of folks like 

You appear to have not ended that sentence.   However, again, whole of market platform/providers.

 4) Does anyone have any thoughts or experience of issgovernance.com. Apparently my money is now being used to vote on company issues in ways that don't necessarily match my ethics (Legal, honest and best for the job). 

No thoughts as its irrelevant.

The tracker fund is referred to as ESG Screened. What does that mean? 

The Sub-Fund invests with the aim of achieving a benchmark allocation of 65% in the International (Developed 75%Hedged) ESG Screened Index Equity Sub-Fund; 15% in the UK ESG Screened Index Equity Sub-Fund; 5% in the UK Conventional Gilts All Stocks Index Sub-Fund; 10% in the Sterling Non-Gilts Bond All Stocks ESG Screened Index Sub-Fund and 5% in the UK Index Linked Gilts All Stocks Index Sub-Fund.

eskbanker

https://www.msci.com/our-solutions/indexes/esg-screened-indexes

The MSCI ESG Screened Indexes are designed to help institutional investors apply the most common exclusions to the underlying market-cap benchmark. They exclude companies:

• associated with civilian and nuclear weapons, tobacco, palm oil and arctic oil & gas and other controversial products
• deriving revenues from thermal coal power and fossil fuel extraction
• not in compliance with the United Nations Global Compact principles
• involved in very severe controversies including those related to biodiversity

Albermarle

ESG screening is sometimes said to produce 'light green' funds, where just a few sectors are avoided. Whereas 'dark green' funds will actively invest in companies involved in ethical, environmental areas ( an are inevitably more expensive)

Dixter

See this seekingalpha.com 

The Non ESG Portfolio: Bet On Value, Not Social Opinion

and this HBR.com 

An Inconvenient Truth About ESG Investing

Some esg exclusions include Bayer, Esso and Walmart. If they are not part of the answer perhaps we are asking the wrong question. 

Asimovs_nightfall

Why not just withdraw all your pension savings and put a bet on Suella Braverman being the next Prime Minister?  I believe this would offer a very strong alignment with anyone's non woke non ethical values and if she wins, would set you up for the rest of your life.

Dixter

Oh come on! I guess that made you feel better. The point is that we are being cajoled into accepting that anything with a nice ESG ribbon around it must be good and anything without must be bad. But with no evidence that I have seen.

I'm keen on the Governance piece, there is evidence that that delivers value. But for E&S that is just a load of  untested assumptions and untested complex changes. All with no measure of their effects. That worries me.
No-one knows if having any of this has any effect on the outcomes we all want.
Is poverty being alleviated? We don't know. It seems to not be measured.
Is the environment better? We don't know because it is all just advertising stories.

But we pay with what could be profit or investment and we pay with those managing our assets attending to this potentially useless activity. And then we are rude to people who question it. Mainly because it is a tough question. 

The biggest ever reduction in poverty was until 2008 when something like a 1/4 million humans every day raised out of abject poverty as globalisation spread. That has stopped. I believe.  And it coincided with the rise of ESG and many, many other things. 

But show me the evidence please. 

dunstonh

Oh come on! I guess that made you feel better. The point is that we are being cajoled into accepting that anything with a nice ESG ribbon around it must be good and anything without must be bad. But with no evidence that I have seen.

It is fair to say that default investment options are heading that way but choice is not being removed in the vast majority of cases.  You just need to instruct your adviser or DIY.

I'm keen on the Governance piece, there is evidence that that delivers value. But for E&S that is just a load of  untested assumptions and untested complex changes. All with no measure of their effects. That worries me.
No-one knows if having any of this has any effect on the outcomes we all want.
Is poverty being alleviated? We don't know. It seems to not be measured.
Is the environment better? We don't know because it is all just advertising stories.

Historically, ESG, ethical, responsible or sustainable have all resulted in lower returns over the long term.   

The biggest ever reduction in poverty was until 2008 when something like a 1/4 million humans every day raised out of abject poverty as globalisation spread. That has stopped. I believe.  And it coincided with the rise of ESG and many, many other things. 

Don't you think it is more likely to be due to the credit crunch?  The impact of which is still being felt today. Indeed, much of the current economic negativity stems from the credit crunch.

Universidad

dunstonh said:

Don't you think it is more likely to be due to the credit crunch? 

Nope, it's definitely because of woke.

Asimovs_nightfall

Dixter said:

Oh come on! I guess that made you feel better. The point is that we are being cajoled into accepting that anything with a nice ESG ribbon around it must be good and anything without must be bad. But with no evidence that I have seen.

I'm keen on the Governance piece, there is evidence that that delivers value. But for E&S that is just a load of  untested assumptions and untested complex changes. All with no measure of their effects. That worries me.
No-one knows if having any of this has any effect on the outcomes we all want.
Is poverty being alleviated? We don't know. It seems to not be measured.
Is the environment better? We don't know because it is all just advertising stories.

But we pay with what could be profit or investment and we pay with those managing our assets attending to this potentially useless activity. And then we are rude to people who question it. Mainly because it is a tough question. 

The biggest ever reduction in poverty was until 2008 when something like a 1/4 million humans every day raised out of abject poverty as globalisation spread. That has stopped. I believe.  And it coincided with the rise of ESG and many, many other things. 

But show me the evidence please. 

You have some very important questions there, although these weren't your initial concerns I don't think. Didn't you want non ethical and non woke pension opportunities? Many here have suggested how to ignore or manage ethical investment. If you are concerned about poverty and the environment, do things to address that, but that might be accepting that you make less from it personally for the collective good. This of course, is not the same as the cynical manipulation of companies and pension funds around topics that lead to green washing etc.

safe_hands2

In case it's helpful, my esg funds are doing better than my non- esg ones.