Is ESG Investing Counterproductive?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 янв 2024
- Meet with PWL Capital: calendly.com/d/3vm-t2j-h3p
References: zbib.org/3afb67c29fa64cbe95ae...
Discussion with the co-author of Counterproductive Sustainable Investing: The Impact Elasticity of Brown and Green Firms: • Professor Samuel Hartz...
ESG investing - that is investing that puts an emphasis on the environmental, social, and governance characteristics of companies - continues to be popular. Investors may want to avoid ESG-related risks, or to feel good about their portfolio, which are legitimate motivations. But how much good is ESG investing actually doing?
------------------
Follow Ben Felix on
- Twitter: / benjaminwfelix
Visit Rational Reminder: rationalreminder.ca/
Join the Rational Reminder Community: community.rationalreminder.ca/
Follow the Rational Reminder on:
- Twitter: / rationalremind
- Instagram: / rationalreminder
Visit PWL Capital: www.pwlcapital.com/
Follow PWL Capital on:
- Twitter: / pwlcapital
- Facebook: / pwlcapital
- LinkedIn: / pwl-capital
You can find the Rational Reminder podcast on
Google Podcasts:
www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
Apple Podcasts:
itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/t...
Spotify Podcasts:
open.spotify.com/show/6RHWTH9...
------------------
The ESG thesis is that the "smart money" has been systemicly ignoring the potential of ESG positive buisnesses which is suspect
That assumes one subscribes to the idea that these companieswill outperform. The other conflicting ESG thesis is you take inferior performance but feel better about it
Just discovered your channel. Thank you for explaining complex debates in an understandable and fair way - such an undervalued trait.
Great video, as always! Thank you! I believe measurement to be an difficult hurdle for ESG investing thus far. Opposed to conventional investing it tries to follow extra financial goals that seem difficult to measure. Hower, I also think this will still be an interesting topic to keep an eye on. With the introduction of ESRS we may develop a more strucutred approach that could help with some of the shortcomings that ESG investing seems to have today. Overall I am quite intregued where this could and will lead us in the future. Thanks again for the good video!
Thanks for this, Ben. I was looking for counter-arguments against ESG, as I'm about to tell my financial advisor to convert my holdings to ESG equivalent assets.
While I appreciate the idea that ESG & SRI may not be leverage to convert a brown company green or make a green company much greener, I'll have to read the report that suggests that divestment from brown companies makes them browner, which is contradictory to the other anti-ESG idea that the individual investor divesting has no effect on the companies they're divesting from. Over the long term, I guess both can be true at different times -- little effect on companies until a critical mass is induced by the popularity of that divestment creates a financial burden to the brown company.
The banner/plow classifications are interesting, too, and should be a simple way for people to think about and identify why it is they want to pursue ESG to begin with. For me and my family, our goal is to eventually start using as much capital to support more local ESG companies and ensure a percentage reaches the communities we are most concerned about.
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis, Ben. It's the first video of yours that I've come across and will, undoubtedly, investigate more.
Amazing video as always🙏🏻
Thank you Ben!
(imho/fwiw, I appreciated the characterization of banner-minded vs. plow-minded for conscientious investors who want to do their best. Here's to hoping that aptera motors and boxabl someday prove to be plows, and hoping they don't come simply as lost opportunity cost on modest retirement preparations.)
Great video, as always!
3:50 Isn’t this only a temporary issue? Eventually the brown firms will struggle to compete and their influence will shrink.
I had heard many criticisms of ESG preference before, mainly that brown companies were being branded as green when they really weren't, just to attract that "banner-minded" feel-good capital, but the counter-productive pressure for brown companies to go browner is interesting and unexpected. What a mess! No wonder BlackRock appears to be doing a 180 on ESG (as of June 2023) after being one of the leading pushers of ESG.
This is pretty unfortunate news, though most of it (aside from the brown-going-browner part) is not really unexpected. I think most of us interested in ESG funds know there are lots of problems with them. I was under the impression returns would be lower, so it's interesting to see that there's not much difference. And obviously, the line of what makes a company "green" or "good" can be pretty fraught. But I'm more of the mindset that it's better to do something than nothing... except in this case, where it turns out the something was worse than nothing.
I wonder if ESG funds will even react to this kind of discovery, or if the "feel good" nature of the proposition is enough to let them coast on without reacting. I would be interested to see funds where stakes in brown companies are maintained and voting power is used to encourage management to make greener decisions, for example.
A bit depressing this time, but always super interesting. Thank you.
My strategy to avoid such companies is to invest on clean energy ETFs (TAN, FAN , ICLN etc). They are not my only investments, and they are doing terrible, however, the only way to boost these technologies is to invest in them!
Thanks Ben! Another great "just the fact Ma'am" video!
sorry, should have read "facts" not "fact"
I work for an asset manager and have struggled with this all my career. I am still convinced that impact can be made on the primary market (IPO, bank credit,...), not so much the secondary.
I'm holding the Vanguard ESG total market funds for both my US and International market exposure. They have a simple exclusion for fossil fuels, tobacco, gambling so you're slightly overweight tech without just buying QQQ. They move in between total market and large growth funds. I think it gets rid of some large cap value traps as well. I'll get value from small and mid with high profitability 😜
This is what I've never understood about ESG. Ok, so the fund doesn't hold fossil fuel producers, but it does presumably hold a company like Amazon, which has a fleet of 50,000+ fossil-fuel spewing vehicles, airlines, which are major emitters, as well as other companies with extremely sketchy business models, such as PBMs (embedded within many health insurance companies).
The economy is too interconnected for true "ESG" to be a thing. If you sought to truly pursue it, you'd have to move out to a cabin in the woods, live off-grid, and grow your own food. You have to entirely detach from our capitalist economy.
That’s what I thought! Thank you for your analysis brother
Interesting and good level headed presentation of ESG
In my opinion ESG started with the right mindset but we all knew from there it would take a non desirable turn when large corporations started getting involved. This is a much broader issue than in just investing. Great video.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions as they say
Great video and you covered the topic well.
Great and very important video
Great video (I've never seen a bad video from you!). However, I think the nuances here are that the studies are critical of ESG's current implementation and branding and a bit of an extrapolation that this would continue into the future. Instead of mistaking its current implementation with ESG itself, we should focus on the premise behind ESG investing and try to solve the issues with current implementation.
Hi Ben, thank you for this insightful series on ESG investing. In my research I have stumbled upon this paper by LH Pedersen et al. (2021) of AQR which discusses an ESG efficient frontier and specific types of ESG investors. From my understand this paper has gained quite a bit of traction in academia. I would really appreciate if you could include this paper in your future discussions on this topic. Thank you very much in advance.
"traction in academia"? of COURSE ! Most ALL them are brainwashed Marxists doing everything possible to turn western nations into 3rd world shithole topdown dictatorships.
That's putting the cart before the horse. Investing in a brown company isn't going to make it more green unless they previously promised to do more green things with more money. Raising the cost of capital for brown companies is likely to shrink them, so that even if they become proportionally more brown, they're less brown in an absolute sense.
Coming from a Canadian this is gonna be interesting.
I bow before your godly wisdom Mr Ben Felix sir
and perfect hairline.
Hola Señor Felix.
Something that I find is left out of the conversation is that some investors simply do not want to feel like they are the recipient of profits from industries they find undesirable. I don't think this point in particular is discussed enough, compared to people's desire to outperform the market, or simply "do good".
Didn't I have that in there? "Hedging ESG risks and feeling good about your portfolio are valid reasons to consider the ESG characteristics of the companies that you own."
@@BenFelixCSIsure, but it gets lost. I wish there were an easier way to divest from, say, weapons manufacturers.
Is GEQT regarded as ESG? I just invest in it because it weeds out the alcohol/weed/gambling/adult entertainment stocks
Great video Ben! Clearly communicated and like always well researched from what I can tell.
Please keep them coming :)
PS: If you should run out of content, you could return to some basic topics. Never hurts to repeat sensible information and keep them uptodate. I would watch even though I have seen all your videos already :)
That’s a great idea.
You talked about brown companies getting browner instead of greener, but what about greener companies gaining market share?
Why would higher stock valuation lead to increased market share
@@notmyrealname3167 it lowers their cost of capital.
@@notmyrealname3167 Reduced cost of capital.
@@notmyrealname3167 Cause they'd have easier time raising capital for new investments? Because market-weighted indexes will propel the price even higher, in turn allowing even easier access to capital?
ESG gets tax cuts here which has massive incentive for people to choose it. But the ~0.5% costs you manage to evade, never got me over the hurdle. It's basically sector investing. It might hurt your returns a lot in the long run.
“Get tax cuts and certain financial intensities for hiring x amount of non-whites and recycling at x-rate”.
I agree that ESG finds aren't going to have an impact on green firms and brown firms are still going to be brown, but there will be an impact on companies which are more olive coloured and can become green to gain ESG investment.
Do you have data for this?
Olive firms are having a higher cost of capital which could also slow down the process of becoming "greener" from what I understand.
Just wondering, or am I missing sth?
@@ohjeohje3462 No I don't have any data, but I would love to know if I am right or not. It seems logical that companies would apply for ESG status if they can.
Not to mention how easy it is to game ESG ratings. There’s full departments in companies that exist mainly to virtue signal.
In a long term non-ESG companies can be less profitable due to one-off systemic risks of government attack on them with windfall taxes and regulations.
The first on the list is coal mining and landlords as lowest in ESG rating.
I get the green vs brown counterargument but ESG funds also exclude corporations that produce controversial weapons, that have discrimination in their workplace, that irresponsably uses private information, among other things. I think a question we have to ask ourselves is if we are morally ok with our capital going to corporations that do stuff like that.
The moral question is interesting, but if you don’t own it someone else will. I think there’s more moral merit to investing in those companies and exercising voting power as a shareholder to change them. Some funds do this.
@@BenFelixCSIif I had a lot of money put in worldwide index funds (non ESG), do I have the right to vote in any/every company? Or is there a lower limit of participations to do so?
@@ciudadriIndex funds don't give you any voting rights, they give the management firm voting rights.
To get voting rights, you have to own the shares yourself.
However, some index fund management firms pass the voting rights onto their clients.
Exxon has a higher ESG score than Tesla. Think about that...
Yes, think about WHY that might be... (eye roll)
@@YTJCanon lol, let's hear you try to justify it.
Do ESG funds vote differently on corporate actions at shareholder meetings?
yes they do, so could have an impact after all?
I have allocated a significant part of my capital to ESG ETF's. Not because for any of the reasons mentioned above but because of their voting policy at shareholder meetings and engagement with companies.
what about esg funds that are bound to vote pro ESG with the proxy votes? This certainly must have an impact, although returns are probably not different
Check out this recent report about this "World's largest asset managers turn their backs on people and planet with worst voting performance yet" from ShareAction.
I have no interest in money movers telling me what's good for the environment, or what social or political structures are desirable.
Does ESG investing work? Yes. For the sellers of ESG products.
and what about SPDR S&P 500 ESG Leaders UCITS ETF (Acc)?
its performing quite well in comparison
My favorite way to use ESG funds is to find a screened index fund, and then annually review the companies that were screened out so I can add back in any companies that I don't want to exclude based on their market cap percentage.
The biggest thing for me is that I don't want to own or profit from Tobacco companies, although in reviewing the screened companies I've found several others that I would rather not invest in.
Can I ask why you don't want to profit from Tobacco companies? Is it better that that money goes to someone else, who might not share your views? I understand not wanting to support tobacco companies and not wanting to encourage their behaviour, but I don't really get not wanting to profit from it personally.
@@theWebWizrd There are both moral and logistical arguments to be made here. Remember that as an owner of a company, it is *your company* that is doing things. I would not want any company that I own to profit off of the death and destruction that follows in the wake of tobacco companies. Yes other companies do terrible things from time to time, but tobacco companies in particular are ones that I view as irredeemable, given the nature of their business. That profit is money that came from hard working people who are in the strongest throes of addiction, on the path of misery, and constantly struggling to be set free in time so they don't die young. Is that the kind of company *you* want to run?
On the logistical side, support in the equity markets means that the companies are able to have access to inexpensive equity capital, often at rates far below going corporate debt rates. By people divesting from the company, it ultimately provides downward pressure on the stock price, increasing the cost of capital for the business as they turn to debt funding. For a business that I feel is a negative in society, this is a *good thing*, and means that the company ultimately is less efficient, which can limit its scope and capacity for harmful things like advertising. Another important part in the context of index funds is market cap reduction because the lower the demand for a stock is (and thus its market cap), the less new investors will inadvertently invest in it, snowballing the impact. So by directing where my funds go, I'm also to a lesser extent slowly bending where other passively managed funds go.
As for the profits going to someone who doesn't hold my values, that doesn't bother me. How people choose to invest their own money is a matter of conscience, and if they choose to invest it in an evil company, that's up to them, and they will have to bear the consequences of their actions. At the end of the day, I'd much rather invest in companies that are either having a positive or neutral impact on the country than ones that have shown time and time again to have reckless disregard for their customer wellbeing, and who engaging in advertising campaigns to lure the next-generation of kids into a miserable existence.
So in the end, is ESG score a good parameter to consider to maximize your return and diminish your risks or not?
Only if you believe that there are ESG related risks that the market has not priced.
Are we not pricing the market by participating in it?
Are there any funds that inverse ESG and only hold brown stocks?
Maybe, but why do that when you can choose a low cost, globally diversified index fund?
s&p500
There are also anti DSG funds.
The issue, to me, is that so many of the ESG metrics are subjective. One of the metrics is simply hiring an ESG focused Executive. So simply hiring someone and giving them a title, has a positive effect on a corporation’s ESG Score, even though that executive may have absolutely no responsibilities aside from public relations. Another metric is carbon offsets. (An “industry” that is itself is based on subjective metrics.) So choosing one offset over the other, neither of which is proven to offset much of anything, may result in a less favorable ESG rating. ESG just doesn’t work as intended.
Shareholder value should be the priority. Not an ideology.
As an American, where could I find a "plow minded," portfolio?
Perhaps investigate Parnassus or Nuveen.
Huh well... I guess this is just as true for SRI investing since this is just a stricter version of ESG. Guess I will go with the normal MSCI World then and not invest into the MSCI World SRI anymore. Pitty though. Feeling good about my investments and not owning Nestle and such were my reasons why I preferred SRI.
Another way of stating this is that if ESG stocks truly have lower risk, they should provide lower returns, given an efficient market. Some ESG investors wanna have it both ways-higher returns for lower risk-but we know that isn’t really a thing.
I don’t think all sustainability has to mean lower financial risk.
I agree. Not sure sustainability implies anything regarding risk because it isn't a risk factor. Might be correlated with other risk factors like quality, but there is no reason that association will persist over time. @@greg5892
My ESG thesis is that if the environmental costs we've allowed corporations to externalize for decades continue to be externalized into the future I won't need to fund a long retirement.
All the manufacturing has been moved to China and 3rd world
I don't know if I should consider financial advice from Johnny Sins.
I think an increase in capital flow to esg investments can also send a strong signal to both politicians and companies that stronger esg consideration is really what investors want and as such I think banner investing shouldn't be cast aside as a feel good measure that can't have any impact.
Disagree with the point at 5:38, they never were interested in doing good. As you pointed out with the “banner”, it’s just virtue signaling and always has been.
as usual the market is frustrating because the market always erases any chances of getting ahead
It’s really the proof for Charlie Mungers, “Show me the incentive and I will show how managers will game it”.
What's important to me is that the fund applies ESG rules when proxy voting. You are having more impact by actually voting for these companies to take action than by not holding them.
Exactly this - you’re more likely to have a positive impact on the world by holding a “bad” company and voting to change it for the better than by not holding it and letting those who don’t care hold it instead and not vote for any changes.
True! I wish we were actually able to vote through index funds we hold to do this.
But why would some investment banker think the same things you do?
Also, that's called corporate raiding
@samsonsoturian6013 Not sure to follow what you mean but some financial institutions definitely follow ESG guidelines when they are representing you for a vote. You can search the proxy voting history of financial institutions and go with one that follows what you believe in.
@@samsonsoturian6013 check out the latst report on asset managers and their proxy voting: "World's largest asset managers turn their backs on people and planet with worst voting performance yet" from ShareAction. Some really do allign with sustainably views.
Brown companies will always be more profitable through their ability to externalize damage, pollution, depletion and other harms, vs a company engaged in the same business but trying to do right.
13:58 It should not be investor's concern, there are regulatory and protection agencies that are tasked with the enforcement. Perhaps depriving brown firms of easy access to capital would reduce their ability to bribe politicians and litigate against public interest?
Of course it works. It helps to under value blue chip money printing machines that fund managers are too scared to touch, so that I can pick them up at great valuations. The way I see it the morally superior types get their social credit score points and I get the cash, so it's win win for everybody.
Any suggestion on how to avoid ESG? I imagine most people know ESG is politics oriented, and not green by any stretch of the imagination.
Unfortunate but true.
Could you provide data on ESG being not green at all? Are you suggesting MorningStar rating has no basis?
... just don't invest in ESG ETFs?
@@DJoppiesaus Yes. I would like to avoid investing in ESG ETFs, but they're everywhere in everything. I don't know how to avoid them, hence the original question. It's impossible to buy a basket of shares of companies that do not follow ESG to a very large degree. To my knowledge, you can only buy individual companies doing their best to stay clear of ESG. I'd like to buy shares of grouped companies who are evading ESG.
I know ESG may have issues and will have lower expected returns, and Im ok with that. Ultimately, its not the investors job to stop negative externalities of brown companies, truthfully, that is what the government should be for. I just dont want to give money to companies destroying the environment than I already have to in order to live in this world.
I'd say also, the rise of ESG investing more broadly, if the standards are well implemented, would be good as its raising the cost of capital for brown companies, which may result in them polluting more in the short term, but incentivizes them to change to appeal to ESG investors in the long term.
I've been interested in changing from my standard S&P 500 fund to an S&P 500 ESG fund but the more I look into it the more pointless it seems. Not in terms of returns, but the fact there are companies making cluster bombs etc in ESG funds is baffling.
I did the opposite, I transferred an entire account because they only offered woke ESG options. No thank you.
Sin stocks for the win! 😈
I disagree with using the argument of "allocating more investment to green firms than brown firms will not make green firms greener and will make brown firms more brown". Because, if the effect of raising the cost of capital of brown firms is big enough, they may eventually run out of business in favor of green firms. And that would be a net positive for a sustainable industry, even if it takes some years until it happens.
ESG is very good for MSCI
Exactly.
Johnny Sins giving us the HARD truth about ESG.
Where’s your sidekick? Probably getting scoped or scoping someone!
I appreciate the analysis you’ve done here. I consider myself an ESG investor. I don’t think of my investing strategy as pushing companies to be greener. I don’t want to support, to put it bluntly, oil, bombs, guns, and private prisons, so I invest in index funds that exclude those kinds of companies. I don’t expect my divesting from “brown” firms will necessarily have an impact on them. I expect government regulations to do that work. I understand the correlation between increasing the cost of capital on brown firms and their leaning into their anti-social/anti-environment products and services. That could be a causal effect, or that could, like any correlation, be explained by unmeasured/unconsidered third variables.
Good luck with that, woke person.
But if government does those things, and the stock becomes more desirable, then holding them now will have a positive impact on your returns. So ESG investing might be bad for both the environment and your returns.
Unfortunately for you the people that care about progressive trends and gaming the current order are not good people. More left wing people are actually worse people who are more individually oriented and higher in psychopathology. The problem is incentive structures are not such that they actually make the best people do the job or make even worse people do things that are good, and people are very fickle always moving on to the next thing and changing goal posts regardless of the material consequences. This is how I imagine you are on the crime issue
curious, how do you keep your money safe if a government can freeze your banks?
The primary argument here that decreasing the cost of capital for green firms doesn't make them much greener and that increasing the cost of capital for brown firms makes them less green makes a fair observation, but the conclusion drawn that sustainable investing is counterproductive doesn't follow. Over the long run, green firms will outcompete browner ones because of their lower cost of capital. It doesnt happen overnight, but the process is aided by the green firms' focus on innovation while brown firms focus even more on doing the same things they have always done in the same way. This may work for the brown firms in the short term because their existing profit margins are currently better than the green firms, but innovation will ensure that this advantage will eventually flip the other way. As the portion of all firms that are green grows, the economy as a whole will get greener while the brown firms join the dust bin of history along with the buggy whip manufacturers.
A new vid from Ben Felix it's a good Friday. "ESG" is a joke same with politically motivated "activist investing" the only change that comes is if the large shareholders want it to change and if it makes profit or increases margins and cashflow.
Ben, do you think investing in SP 500 is still a decent strategy to follow in 2024 and dca for 15 years minimum?
Ben suggests an All-World index.
ESG ratings are joke at the moment anyways. Let’s wait until CSRD is in effect and requires auditing and some eyes will open, at least in the EU.
ESG should have very minimal impact on your decisions. Don’t get persuaded because it’s all smoke (literally) and mirrors with green investing.
It's very naive to think that the solution to climate breakdown would be simply related to market dynamics. In reality it requires action from governments, and possibly even dismantling the capitalist system altogether. However irrational it is, I am an ESG investor because at least this means I don't directly profit from the excluded industries. I believe Muslims take a similar approach when it comes to investments in vice industries like alcohol, without any expectation that this industry will actually be affected.
What about Direct Indexing where we can exclude the stocks we want?
The problem is that manual direct indexing is a logistical nightmare, and automated options typically have high minimums, and no option to exclude certain stocks (since the typical goal of direct indexing is for tax purposes, not so you can choose which stocks to invest in).
Currently the best approach I've found is to start with an ESG screened index fund, and then review the stocks that were excluded and add back in any that you want with appropriate market cap weighting. It's still manual but you do end up with far fewer individual holdings than a direct indexing approach.
Has the premise that ESG investors care if brown firms get greener been substatiated? I'd think a risk to future returns would be the motivating factor. Feels like a strawman tbh.
The G makes sense and has always been part of the assessment when considering an investment but the E and especially the S is complete dogshit. Good video tho...
How dare you ?
Super interesting, thanks for sharing.
I can't give a monkeys about ESG, in fact I generally think it's counterproductive because it draws away capital from better companies.
It's also pretty arbitrary, is a defense company a "good company" in that it protects our freedoms but ultimately drops bombs on people. Is a chocolate company "good" because it has 60% of its management team be female despite employing aggressive tax avoidance and making people fat.
The solution to making the world a better place is already with us. It's called Capitalism. Just keep rewarding companies adding value by buying their goods and services, and investing in the companies that are doing that, and hope that any number of feckless politicians don't reck it. The rest kind of takes care of itself.
Isnt this a long term thing, eventually there is a a churn and then the lack of accessible capital will make the brown companies go bankrupt, whereas we make green companies more resilient by making capital easy thus surviving more shocks? We are in the middle of the transition(hopefully) and that means it is a bit hard to look back atm, economics are after all sometimes a lot of ketchup and dominoes.
That’s the idea, but the premise is flawed. As long as brown activities are profitable, capital will fund them.
@@BenFelixCSICapital will fund them as it should. Great video.
As always, another marketing tactic by the fund management industry
Love your content and think you are one of the foremost personal finance minds on YT.
BUT, the sloppy highlighting in the last few videos really detracts from the otherwise-polished appearance. Adobe Acrobat auto-straightens any highlights, I’m sure other programs do the same. Okay… I’m done nitpicking…
Thanks. I'll work on that.
So in another counterintuitive conclusion: people who invest against ESG to not be 'woke' are actually helping firms become greener!
That would be nice because I'm completely pro greener planet and completely against "woke". I was never taking ESG in consideration, but now that you say so, probably I will be investing more against ESG in order to feel better for helping companies going greener without being another "woke" sheep
pizza: The people you describe, don't know the meaning of "woke."
@@Madalinn.. Define "woke."
Esg is shit. If u want to help, buy whole market, compare each year how much you got more than esg counterpart and donate difference to any good cause.
Maybe the ESG focus is a longer term idea? ESG companies are more likely to be around in 50 or 100 years whereas brown companies will theoretically fall by the wayside/be legislated into oblivion in that time frame. Just a thought, not a supporter.
Too much theory, I just don't want to have blood on my money
You'd have to stop paying taxes then
@@thedopplereffect00 we wish
@@thedopplereffect00 that's different. taxes are unavoidable. investing is optional.
ESG scam
How so?
ESG and ESG scoring is an extortion racket and has no place in free, open markets.
It also oversimplifies the diligence needed to regulate issues tied to climate and social advocacy. Yes, I understand that people ought to vote with their wallets and their shares, but ultimately, regulation must be left to the regulators.
I hate ESG and avoid.
Honestly that is hilarious. Investing in good ESG companies makes the environment worse.. interesting.
"E.S.G." is an odd abbreviation that stands for nothing more than masturbation-centered investing. It's a fucking joke.
ESG is a total balljack