Tobias Read, the Oregon State Treasurer, published an editorial in the New York Times stating:
“In several Republican-led states, the officials who oversee pension funds for millions of state workers are being told, or may soon be told, to ignore the financial risks associated with a warming world. There’s something distinctly anti-free market about policymakers limiting investment professionals’ choices and it’s putting the retirement savings of millions at risk.”
My response to his quote is as follows:
Nobody should be told to ignore the risk of climate change, as nobody should be told how investment strategies hinging on sustainability will solve the problem. Sustainability does not exist anywhere in the universe, and offers no opportunity for adaptation to the curve balls of entropy nature throws our wav. A better future is beholden to financiers who align with the first-principles of nature. Because only playing nature’s game will improve and prolong human life.
Quite the opposite, asset management, as the mechanism through which pension funds assets invest, is known to hug the benchmark. And if the benchmark trajectory requires more money, the returns of a viable asset, a company, will increase, not decrease.
When the investible asset, a company, is under duress from a disrupted supply chain, it needs more access to money to produce identical results.
More money-in at a lower price results in a higher equity position and more money-out at exit. If the products produced by the company in question address the needs of a consistently large audience, more money-in is a good thing for asset management.
Putting retirement savings at risk is investing in finance programs incompatible with nature. Asset managers should invest based on nature’s first-principles of renewal. A different ballgame altogether.
A game of soccer cannot function without the enforcement of rules by a referee. A so-called free sovereign state, like the U.S.A., cannot exist without legislation enforced by law and police to prevent the pursuits of individual freedom from harming the trust in collective freedom.
Hence, for Tobias to suggest any restriction or guidance to investing constitutes anti-freedom is nonsense.
The argument that not investing in ESG is un-American while pushing pension funds to invest using ESG is inconsistent and nonsensical. Especially when you realize the financiers who invented ESG know nothing about the evolutionary principles that invalidate ESG.
I am not making a political case for or against republican states who strike investing using ESG down. I don’t care about politics. I care about following the best proxy of nature’s rule to prolong human life on earth.
Investing using ESG violates nature’s principles and should be thrown in the dustbin of history. Not because of politics but precisely to preserve and expand the investment returns of millions of Americans. Only following the first-principles of nature, in active deployment for 16.72 billion years, can guarantee consistent investment returns for humanity.
Like so many holding on to the aging scepter of finance, Tobias Read is out of his league when it comes down to connecting long-term evolutionary needs with finance. We need to subjugate finance to the rule of nature, with a renewable investment strategy abiding by nature’s first-principles.
Like most of us, Tobias must get schooled on the rules of nature that, without our consideration, determine the renewal of human evolution. We must all learn to play nature’s game, or nature will put the smackdown on us.