Summary:
The WSJ gives us a clear answer: NO. Although this is a gross simplification of the argument, ESG investing to save the environment means buying fossil reserves and leaving them in the ground where they lose all their market value. The ESG paradox: "if you don't lose money on ESG investing [relative to non-ESG investing], ESG investing doesn't work. Take your pick."
Topics:
(Luke Froeb) considers the following as important: 05. Investment decisions: Look ahead and reason back
This could be interesting, too:
The WSJ gives us a clear answer: NO. Although this is a gross simplification of the argument, ESG investing to save the environment means buying fossil reserves and leaving them in the ground where they lose all their market value. The ESG paradox: "if you don't lose money on ESG investing [relative to non-ESG investing], ESG investing doesn't work. Take your pick."
Topics:
(Luke Froeb) considers the following as important: 05. Investment decisions: Look ahead and reason back
This could be interesting, too:
(Luke Froeb) writes Can EU governments pick unicorns to close gap with US and China?
(Luke Froeb) writes IL: unfunded pension liabilities; bad credit rating, rising crime, high taxes, low economic gro
(Luke Froeb) writes Price vs. Value
(Luke Froeb) writes Is it time to adapt by buying land in Alaska?
The WSJ gives us a clear answer: NO.
Although this is a gross simplification of the argument, ESG investing to save the environment means buying fossil reserves and leaving them in the ground where they lose all their market value.
The ESG paradox: "if you don't lose money on ESG investing [relative to non-ESG investing], ESG investing doesn't work. Take your pick."