Will Your Local School Get a “Wokey-Dokey”?

16 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by pnoetx in Capital Markets, Education, Wokeness

Tags

Academic Dilution, American Bar Association, Cobb County Georgia, Cognia, Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Environmental Social Governance Scores, Equity, ESG Scores, Fact-Checking, Forward Though Ferguson, Grant Making, Investor Activism, John O. McGinnis, Missouri Department of Education, Originalism, School Accreditation, Stacey Lennox, Woke Middlemen

“Middlemen” are often characterized as rip-off artists, or “takers” who somehow insinuate a role for themselves without adding value. They usually do perform valuable roles, however, in price discovery and in matching and routing product to willing consumers, as well as offering a feedback loop to producers. Still, it would be difficult to defend them if they routinely favored producers whose business practices had specific political objectives. Certain middlemen, whom we might broadly label “influencers”, play an indirect role in the transaction process that is sometimes formalized, but not always. They can be rating agents, personalities on social media, or funding sources. Increasingly they blend political criteria into their ratings, recommendations, and decisions. Unfortunately, a number of institutions (and consumers) are falling prey to the corrosive influence of “woke middlemen”, or have already, including education, capital markets, and even law enforcement. The list broadens considerably if we include the influencer roles often played by media more generally, and even government itself.

Grading Schools’ Wokeness

School accreditation at the K-12 levels is often in the hands of organizations that serve as “woke middlemen”. For example, those in charge of accreditation may be in a position to demand compliance with the tenets of critical race theory (CRT). If you haven’t seen it, read this post by Stacey Lennox on the impact that accreditors are having on schools in Cobb County, Georgia. It can be very painful for a school and its students to lose accreditation. Such a loss can happen as a result of legitimate academic decline, but it also can be used as a threat of political retribution, as the situation in Cobb County so aptly illustrates. The task of awarding accreditation is performed by different agents in different states, but often a state’s education department will contract out to firms like Cognia, Inc. This company’s treatment of the Cobb County schools is shocking, and Cobb County taxpayers pay more than $133,000 annually for Cognia “membership”.

The CEO of Cognia says its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion has prompted it to introduce a “new protocol” in its approach to education standards. Celebrating diversity is one thing, but the application of “equity” in the allocation of school or district resources is quite another. But have no fear! Cognia is happy to offer its consulting services to schools to help them meet these new standards. Lennox notes that a few interested parties in Georgia, including parents and state officials, are scrutinizing Cognia’s sinister role in the matter of the Cobb County schools. That can’t happen soon enough!

Cognia operates in a number of other states. In Missouri, for example, the company is intimately involved in the accreditation of private schools. The state Department of Education is mandated by law to handle accreditation of public schools. The DOE’s standards were recently revised, with input from a variety of “stakeholders”, especially the public education establishment. It also receives input from organizations like Forward Through Ferguson, which represents “stakeholders” affiliated with a school district that lost its accreditation several years ago. As the last link shows, that organization takes a strong position on matters of racial equity and justice. It should not come as a surprise that the latest school standards issued by the Missouri DoE in 2020, which are greatly revised and expanded, place specific emphasis on racial equity. It’s certainly not clear that promoting equity, as a distinct mission beyond assessing academic performance, is part of the DoE’s mandate under state law.

The same dynamic is operative at higher levels of education. For example, John O. McGinnis reports on that august middleman known as the American Bar Association, which now proposes “new accrediting standards for law schools that would make them more race-conscious, more politically correct and less intellectually diverse.” This proposal reeks of a desire to downgrade law schools that treat originalist principles with respect. It’s as if we need more attorneys lacking any real understanding of the fundamental, individual rights recognized by and enshrined in our Constitution.

Back to the K-12 levels, the greater is the emphasis on equalizing outcomes, which is the ultimate goal of calls for academic “equity“, the less is the focus on academic excellence. Gifted programs are almost sure to receive fewer resources. Subjects like math and science are recalibrated toward a lower common denominator. Difficult reading assignments are put aside. Discipline suffers. And that’s all before we get to instruction in social justice and critical race theory! If they aren’t already in on it, today’s school leaders might well suffer from “Wokaphobia”, or fear of the consequences of insufficient wokeness.

Grading Corporations’ Wokeness

In the past I’ve written about “middleman” organizations assigning so-called “Environmental, Social, and Governance” (ESG) scores to public companies. These scores are marketed to activist investors, investment funds, and financial advisors as criteria for building “socially responsible” portfolios. ESGs are very much in vogue at the moment, and they have political and social objectives. A public company with a low ESG score, or a fund holding a portfolio of companies with a low average ESG score, may be penalized by the investment community. To avoid such an outcome, companies engage in all sorts of virtue signaling nonsense, not to mention misdirection of staff and assets on pursuits that have nothing to do with fundamental business objectives.

The same kind of corporate waste is motivated by attempts to gain positive media attention or even approval of so-called influencers. There is nothing new about public relations, but today, a veritable army of negative-PR activist “middlemen” hunt for corporate victims on which to prey. The slightest transgression, be it any direct or indirect association with carbon emissions, “cultural appropriation” in advertising, a gender/racial wage or hiring gap, a negative regulatory finding, or any disparate impact in pricing, can subject a company to withering condemnations on social media, in the community, and at the corporate gates. This excessive scrutiny does great social and economic damage, dominating attention and absorbing resources in a defensive posture, all at the expense of a proper focus on the value of product and the people who work honestly to produce it.

Woke Middlemen and Social Failure

Woke leftists performing reviews for school accreditation are dangerous to our children and the future of our republic, and there are other kinds of “middlemen” who are actively undermining schools, such as teachers’ unions. The ESG scores produced by middlemen from the woke investor community undermine business objectives and economic efficiency. We could add to the list of middlemen the corrupt “fact checkers” promoted by major media organizations, large political contributors who fund the campaigns of anti-police prosecutors, and climate-alarmist grant-making organizations. Conservatives and libertarians have varying levels of awareness of these influencers and middlemen, who have been broadly successful in institutionalizing their agendas. They sometimes operate behind the scenes, and they sometimes are cloaked in an ostensible legitimacy, but one must know one’s enemies. Like invasive weeds, they are difficult to root out. In a few cases they can simply be ignored, but their impact elsewhere will be hard to reverse unless they are challenged politically, in the courts, and in the marketplace.

Note: This post also appears at The American Reveille.

Social Credit Scores, ESGs, and Portfolio Rot

29 Thursday Apr 2021

Posted by pnoetx in Capital Markets, Corporatism, Environment, Social Justice

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

American Conservative Union, Asian Hate, Bank of America, Credit Bureaus, Credit Score, CSRHub, Diversity, Environmentalism, Equifax, ESG Scores, ESGs, FICO Score, Giorgio Election Law, Goldman Sachs, Green Energy, Major League Baseball, Merrill Lynch, public subsidies, Refinitiv, Selling Indulgences, Social Credit Score, Social Justice, Stakeholders vs. Shareholders, Stop Corporate Tyranny, Sustainability, Transunion, Unilever, Woke Capitalism.

As a small investor I resent very much the use of so-called “ESG scores” to guide investment decisions on my behalf. ESG stands for “Environmental, Social, and Governance” criteria for rating companies. These scores or grades are developed and assigned by various firms (Refinitiv, CSRHub, and many others) to public companies. The scores are then marketed to financial institutions. While ESGs from various sources are not yet standardized, a public company can attempt to improve its ESG scoring through adoption of environmental goals such as “zero” carbon, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and (less objectionably) by enhancing its systems and processes to ensure protection of shareholder and other interests.

Who Uses ESGs?

An investment fund, for example, might target firms with high ESG scores as a way of appealing to progressive investors. Or an institutional investor like a pension fund might wish to invest in high ESG stocks in order to avoid riling “woke” activist investors, thus keeping the hounds at bay. This is nothing new: many corporations engage in various kinds of defensive actions, which amount to modern day “selling of indulgences”.

An aggregate ESG score can be calculated for a fund or portfolio of stocks by weighting individual holdings by market value. And of course, an ESG score can be calculated for YOUR portfolio. As a “service” to clients, Merrill Lynch plans to do just that.

My first reaction was to give my ML financial advisor an earful. Of course, ML’s presumed objective is to guide you to make “better” investment decisions. However, I do not wish to reward firms with capital based on their “social” positioning, nor do I wish to encourage exercises in “wokeness”. I simply want to supply capital based on a firm’s business fundamentals.

My advisor was more than sympathetic, and I believe he’s sincere. The problem is that corporate wokeness is so ubiquitous that it becomes difficult to invest in equities at all without accepting some of it and just holding your nose. That goes for virtually all ETFs and index funds.

ESGs Are Not Consumer Scores

I’m obviously unhappy about this as a Merrill account holder, and also as a financial economist and a libertarian. But first, a few words about what is not happening, at least not yet. A number of conservative commentators (see here, and here) have described this as an assignment of “social credit scores” to consumers based on their individual or household behavior, much as the Chinese government now grades people on the quality of their citizenship. These conservative voices have reacted to ESG scores as if they incorporate information on your energy usage, for example, to grade you along the environmental dimension. That is not the case, though ESGs can be used to grade the stocks you own. And yes, that is rather Orwellian!

One day, if present trends continue, banks might have access to our energy usage through affiliations with utilities, smart car companies, and various data aggregators. And who knows? They might also use information on your political contributions and subscriptions to grade you on your social “wokeness”, but only if they have access to payment records. Traditional credit information will be used as it is now, to grade you on financial discipline, but your “consumer ESG” might be folded into credit approval decisions, for example, or any number of other decisions that affect your way of life. But except for credit scoring, none of this is happening today. All the consumer information outside of traditional credit scoring data is too scattered and incomplete. So far, ESGs are confined to evaluating companies, funds, and perhaps your portfolio.

ESGs and Returns

ESGs get plenty of favorable coverage from the financial press and even from academics. This post from The Motley Fool from 2019 demonstrates the kind of praise often heaped upon ESGs. Sure, firms who cater to various cultural trends will be rewarded if they convince interested buyers they do it well, whatever it is. That includes delivering goods and services that appeal in some way to environmental consciousness or social justice concerns. So I don’t doubt for a moment that money can be made in the effort. Still, there are several difficulties in quantitatively assessing the value of ESG scores for investment purposes.

First, ESG inputs, calculations, and weights are often proprietary, so you don’t get to see exactly how the sausage is stuffed. On that point, it’s worth noting that much of the information used for ESG’s is rather ad hoc, not universally disclosed, or qualitative. Thus, the applicability (and reliability) of these scores to the universe of stocks is questionable.

Second, inputs to ESGs represent a mix of elements with positive and negative firm-level effects. I already mentioned that ESGs reward good governance on behalf of shareholders. The environmental component is almost surely correlated with lines of business that qualify for government subsidies. More generally, it might reflect conservation of certain materials having a favorable impact on costs. And attempts to measure diversity might extract legitimately positive signals from the employment of highly productive individuals, many of whom have come from distant shores. So ESG scores almost certainly have a few solidly useful components for investors.

The proprietary nature of ESG calculations also raises the question of whether they can be engineered to produce a more positive association with returns. There’s no doubt that they can, but I’m not sure it can be confirmed one way or the other for a particular ESG variant.

Like cultural or consumer trends, investment trends can feed off themselves for a time. If there are enough “woke” investors, ESGs might well feed an unvirtuous cycle of stock purchases in which returns become positively correlated with wokeness. My thinking is that such a divorce from business fundamentals will eventually take its toll on returns, especially when economic or other conditions present challenges, but that’s not the answer you’ll get from many stock pickers and investment pundits.

Remember also that while a particular ESG might be positively correlated with returns, that does not make it the best or even a good tool for evaluating stocks. In fact, it might not even rank well relative to traditional metrics.

Finally, there is the question of causality. There are both innocent and pernicious reasons why certain profitable firms are able to spend exorbitantly on initiatives that coincidentally enhance their ESGs. More on that below.

Social and Economic Rot

Most of the “green” initiatives undertaken by large corporations are good mainly for virtue signaling or to collect public subsidies. They are often wasteful in a pure economic sense, meaning they create more waste and other costs than their environmental benefits. The same is true of social justice and diversity initiatives, which can be perversely racist in their effects and undermine the rule of law. And acts on behalf of “stakeholders” often sacrifice shareholders’ interests unnecessarily.

There are many ways in which firms engaging in wasteful activities can survive profitably, at least for a time. Monopoly power is one way, of course. Large companies often develop a symbiosis with regulators which hampers smaller competitors. This is traditional corporatism in action, along with the “too big to fail” regime. And again, sheer growth in demand for new technologies or networking potential can hide a lot of warts. Hot opportunities sometimes leave growing companies awash in cash, some of which will be burned in wasteful endeavors.

Ultimately, we must recognize that the best contribution any producer can make to society is to create value for shareholders and customers by doing what it does well. But to see how far the corporate world has gone in the other direction, keep this in mind: any company supporting a sprawling HR department, pervasive diversity efforts, “sustainability” initiatives, and preoccupations with “stakeholder” outreach is distracted from its raison d’etre, its purpose as a business enterprise to produce something of value. It is probably captive to certain outside interests who have essentially commandeered management’s attention and shareholders’ resources. And this is evidence of rot.

My reference to “portfolio rot” reflects my conviction is that it is a mistake to dilute investment objectives by rewarding virtue signals. They are usually economically wasteful, though sometimes they might be rewarded via government industrial policy, regulators, and the good graces of activists. But ultimately, this waste will degrade the economy, undermine social cohesion, and devalue assets generally.

What Can We Do?

Despite the grim implications of widespread ESG scoring, there are a few things you can do. First, simply avoid any funds that extol progressive activism, whether based on ESGs or along any dimension. If you invest in individual stocks, you can avoid the worst corporate offenders. Here is one guide that lists some of the “woke-most” companies by industry, and it provides links to more detailed reviews. I gave my advisor a list of firms from which I wanted to permanently divest, including Bank of America, which owns Merrill! I also listed various firms that are owned and operated by Chinese interests because I am repulsed by the Chinese regime’s human rights violations.

If you have the time, you can do a little more research before voting your proxies. That goes for shareholder, board, or management proposals as well as electing board members. You are very unlikely to swing the vote, but it might send a useful signal. I recently voted against a Unilever green initiative. I also researched each of the candidates for board seats, voting against a few based on their political, social and environmental positions and activities. Good information can be hard to get, however, so I abstained from a few others. This kind of thing is time consuming and I’m not sure I’m eager to do very much of it.

You can also support organizations like the American Conservative Union, which is “taking a stand against the increasingly divisive and partisan activism by public corporations and organizations that are caving to ‘woke’ pressure.” And there is Stop Corporate Tyranny, which is “a one-stop shop for educational resources exposing the Left’s nearly completed takeover of corporate America, along with resources and tools for everyday Americans to fight back against the Left’s woke and censoring mob in the corporate lane.”

People can make it harder for social credit scoring to enter the consumer realm by protecting their privacy. There will be obstacles, however, as sellers offer certain benefits and apply “nudges” to obtain their customers’ data, and it is often shared with other sellers. Sadly, one day those who guard their privacy most closely might find themselves punished in the normal course of trade due to their “thin” social credit files. There are many dark aspects to a world with social credit scoring!

Conservative Social Scoring?

There are at least two ETFs available that utilize conservative “social scoring systems” in picking stocks: EGIS and LYFE. Both are sponsored by 2ndVote Funds. EGIS has as its stated theme to invest in stocks which receive a favorable rating in support of the Second Amendment right to bear arms and/or in the interest of border security. LYFE seeks to meet its long-term return objectives in stocks with a favorable rating on the pro-life agenda. Both have reasonable expense ratios, as those things go. Unfortunately, my advisor says Merrill won’t allow those funds to be purchased until they have close to a full year of experience.

Are these two ETFs really so special? Are they really just marketing gimmicks? After all, I noticed that EGIS has Goldman Sachs in its top 10 holdings. While Goldman might not be the worst of its peers in terms of wokeness, it has stooped to some politically-motivated “cancel capers”. Moreover, do I really want to mix my investment objectives with my social preferences? Leftist investors are doing it, so countering might be well-advised if you can afford the risk of diluting your returns. My heart says yes, but my investor brain isn’t sure.

Closing

When it comes to investing, I’d prefer absolute neutrality with to respect social goals, other than the social goals inherent in the creation of value for customers and shareholders. Any emphasis on ESG scores is objectionable, but it’s a regrettable fact that we have to live with to some extent. If “social scoring” is unavoidable, then perhaps the themes adopted by 2ndVote Funds are worth trying as part of an investment approach. After all, given my personal blacklist of woke corporations, I’ve already succumbed to the temptation to invest based on social goals. And I feel pretty good about it. Unfortunately, it might mean I’ll sacrifice return and witness the continued descent of western society into a woke hellscape.

Initial Coin Offerings: Bits of Capital For Little Guys

27 Wednesday Sep 2017

Posted by pnoetx in Capital Markets, Technology, Transaction Costs

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Andreas Antonopoulos, Bitcoin, Blockchain Technology, Crypto-Currency, Due Diligence, Ethereum, Exit Scams, ICO, Initial Coin Offering, Investment Banking, Jeffrey Tucker, Listing Requirements, Risk Preference, SEC, Self-Governance, Venture Capital

It’s possible for relatively small ventures to raise significant sums of capital without meeting onerous government filing requirements or venture capitalist demands and controls. This is enabled by a sort of hybrid between an initial public stock offering (IPO) and the issuance of private crypto-currency (like Bitcoin). It’s called an initial coin offering (ICO), and it is growing in importance as a funding source, primarily (but not exclusively) for applications leveraging blockchain technology. ICOs themselves are enabled by blockchain, through which a system of virtual, shared accounts is maintained in the cloud, essentially a ledger of who owns (and owes) what claims on whom (and to whom). Like stock or a venture capital investment, its value is tied to the success of the venture or project:

“When a cryptocurrency startup firm wants to raise money through an [ICO], it usually creates a plan on a white paper which states what the project is about, what need(s) the project will fulfill upon completion, how much money is needed to undertake the venture, how much of the virtual tokens the pioneers of the project will keep for themselves, what type of money is accepted, and how long the ICO campaign will run for. During the ICO campaign, enthusiasts and supporters of the firm’s initiative buy some of the distributed cryptocoins with fiat or virtual currency. These coins are referred to as tokens and are similar to shares of a company sold to investors in an Initial Public Offering (IPO) transaction.“

Scanning though a list of ICOs or “token sales” just might make your eyes glaze over. The descriptions of some of the ventures sound impossibly intangible (or ethereal… a major blockchain application platform is called Ethereum). A few relatively accessible examples: augmented reality platforms; crypto-payment mechanisms; gaming community services; software platforms for dentists and “gig” economy providers; “tokenized” real estate investment; and peer-to-peer property rental.

Crypto-currencies like Bitcoin are viewed as highly speculative by many investors; likewise, ICO tokens are very risky. In fact, the ICO “space” has been fertile ground for fraudulent activity, pyramid schemes, and “exit scams”. Investor due diligence is often no better than guesswork, unless there is already an established product or service related to the project. The last link quotes a Bitcoin expert name Andreas Antonopoulos:

“The best way to learn which ICOs are worth it is to lose money. Waiting for the wash-out. When these people promise great riches, they usually mean for themselves. If you have a viable product… build it first and they will come. I do not treat these technologies as investments but learning opportunities.“

Very comforting! Some guidance and a framework for ICO due diligence are offered here and here, respectively. More guidance is here. And here is an actual due diligence report on an ICO. Suffice it to say that ICOs are not a perfect match for my risk-return preferences!

Nevertheless, there is a lot to like about ICOs. Jeffrey Tucker writes enthusiastically about their disruptive and innovative nature. The heavily regulated world of investment banking tends to deny smaller firms access to capital, and venture capitalists have their own, frequently costly demands on start-ups. ICOs open a new, low-cost channel through which funds can be raised from investors with a greater appetite for risk. Here is Tucker:

“Why is this strategy for raising money for new ventures working so well? There is the most obvious consideration of low barriers to entry. Anyone can float them and anyone can buy them–from and to anyone in the world regardless of geography. There is a larger pool of investors that can bypass the impossiblycostly and complex national regulatory machines that have gummed up capital-raising methods in conventional finance.

It has been a long time since the financial markets have been free. That the market is mostly deregulated and decentralized, and thereby more active and effective, is itself interesting. No sector is more replete with the myths of ‘consumer protection’ than this one. …

And the solution is absolutely ingenious. It relies on decentralized markets that live on the Internet, combined with the invention of new tokens that have all the qualities of traditional money, depending entirely on supply and demand for their value, and also serve as asset titles to the protocol of the company itself.“

Unfortunately, governments and large private players do not always wish to promote decentralized markets. Quite the contrary, and in the case of ICOs, governments and regulators are already “chomping at the bit”, so to speak, to impose regulation. Warnings of ICO risks have been formally issued by the SEC, and China has placed a freeze on ICO activity pending inspections of exchanges, reports and the likely issuance of regulatory measures. Given this scrutiny, Tucker might be a bit too optimistic about the ongoing development of the ICO market. It will depend in large part on the success of efforts by participants at self-governance. That’s something financial markets have traditionally done well, despite shrill claims to the contrary. Let the investor beware!

ICOs will tend to encourage the development of competitive forces in the broader economy. And while investment banks might view the funding objectives of many ICOs as table scraps, ICOs will create more competition for those banks if the volume and breadth of “coin” funding continues to grow. ICO’s won’t find their way into my portfolio any time soon, but they show great promise as an economic development.

Sacred Cow Chips

Category Archives: Capital Markets

Initial Coin Offerings: Bits of Capital For Little Guys