Unguarded Big-Money works like acid against democracy
Just like everywhere in the West, the money Australian’s earn may be quietly used against them to push policies they don’t want. The Australian Retirement Trust (ART) and HESTA are using their voting rights on corporate boards to push for climate action and gender diversity. They aren’t polling their members to find out if this is what they want. They are just following The BlackRock and GFANZ banker cartel modus operandi. It is coercion, done with the illusion of “good intentions”, but in reality, aggressively self-serving behaviour. The management of HESTA and ART couldn’t care less what the owners of the money want.
ART is a $260 billion fund (Australia’s second largest) with 2.2 million members. HESTA is a $76 billion fund with nearly 1 million members who are mostly working in health and community service. Just as with the US Funds, there surely is a question of fiduciary duty. Are these funds maximizing the return for investors or are they using their money to achieve political ends that result in lower income for retirees? Environmental investors lost 22% last year when energy investors made 54%.
So for directors on a corporate board, what’s the best way to hold off the climate police and the femo-activists from voting you out? You must publicly endorse “Net Zero” and women’s rights, even if you think they are witchcraft, against the company’s interests, bad for the nation, and bad for women. Imagine what happens to board members if they dare speak their mind?
The Paris Agreement, remember, appeared to be nearly worthless at the time, yet here it is years later, being foisted in reality in corporate boardrooms. A more detailed look at boardroom politics finds that global giants BlackRock and Vanguard are voting against Australian company directors that don’t serve the multinational globalist agenda.
We all know exactly how much BlackRock and Vanguard care about Australian jobs or the energy bills Australians are paying.
This is how the wheels of evil grind:
Super fund ART plans to pressure companies to slash emissions and sets a new net-zero road map
By Paulina Duran, The Australian
Australian Retirement Trust has committed to pressuring 88 companies to slash their carbon footprint, setting a new “net zero” road map to cut emissions in its portfolio of equities, infrastructure and real estate investments by 43 per cent by 2030.
Australia’s second-largest super fund said that it would start voting on all climate-related shareholder proposals in the Australian market and would link the remuneration of its own investment team to climate change performance.
HESTA to use voting rights to push for climate action, gender diversity and decent work
By Paulina Duran, The Australian
Super fund HESTA has warned the largest listed companies it intends to vote against male directors of boards with low female representation. In letters sent last week to the chairs and chief executives of the largest 292 ASX-listed companies it invests in, the $76bn fund said it would seek to engage on four “active ownership themes” ahead of the upcoming annual general meeting season. This includes influencing corporate policies on climate, “decent work” and biodiversity loss.
Thus HESTA are the climate police:
HESTA is also asking executives and board directors to work towards a goal of halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
It wants ASX300 companies to accelerate investment in the electrification and decarbonisation of the economy, and its voting at this year’s AGMs will “consider progress in these areas and whether board skills and composition demonstrate preparedness for the low carbon transition,” it said.
This is a rapidly accelerating phenomenon in Australia
Super funds are getting bigger, thanks to Big-Government forced rules taking even more from the workers and handing their money to the control of small management boards that hardly anyone pays attention too. These toxic funds are increasing their ownership and influence and using their voting rights more often:
Top Australian super funds to use voting power to push for change during AGM season
By Matt Bell, The Australian
Companies are under increasing pressure to consider the views of super funds, which held assets worth $3.5 trillion as of March. And funds are getting bigger with the compulsory super guarantee rate set to reach 12 per cent in 2025, up from 9.5 per cent in 2020.
Super funds’ ownership of the 10 largest companies listed on the ASX has more than doubled in the past 12 months to $60bn.
Super funds now own 6.3 per cent of Woodside, compared to 0.5 per cent in September 2022, with investments surging after a rally in global oil prices. Ownership of BHP, CSL, Wesfarmers and Westpac has almost doubled.
“It’s become more and more common for super funds and fund managers to use their votes at AGMs as an opportunity for investors to promote good governance and to endorse the actions of companies … or express concern over poor practices.
There are $3.5 trillion dollars unguarded in Australian Super funds
For Australians wondering where their money would be safe, the answer is not obvious. They may not even realize their funds are held with ART, which was only formed a year ago from the combination of Sunsuper and QSuper and the Australia Post Superannuation Scheme (APSS). The Chairman used to be a Labor politician in Queensland.
The news is not all bad. The largest fund in Australia — called AustralianSuper — was accused two weeks ago of protecting a Woodside board member that climate activists wanted to get rid of. The Guardian was unhappy:
Australia’s biggest superannuation fund helped Woodside Energy fend off a shareholder revolt over its climate policies, nullifying concerns raised by global investors, according to new analysis.
Activist group Market Forces said AustralianSuper recently voted for the re-election of Ian Macfarlane, a senior Woodside director and longtime sustainability committee member at the oil and gas giant.
The activist group noted the money pushing to get rid of Macfarlane included votes from BlackRock and Vanguard:
Market Forces said it paired its investment analysis with share voting data to identify how large shareholders voted. It found that major global investor BlackRock voted against the re-election of Macfarlane, as did several funds run by investment manager Vanguard.
So when Australian corporations or “The Business Council of Australia” speak about climate action, womens rights or Voting Yes for racist voices, (HESTA was the first fund to do so) they may merely be doing the bidding of foreign banker cartels. Who knows?
So if your retirements funds are in a politically toxic fund, where can you move them?
Even though AustralianSuper appears better than ART or HESTA, bear in mind that until March it had a large climate report and “Net Zero” factsheet on its website. It apparently deleted them (like many other funds) once regulators started promising to check whether funds green claims were really correct. Maybe that’s a good sign, but we could all hope to find a retirement fund that cares about our actual retirement first and foremost.
If readers want to help it would be very useful to compile a list of Australian Super Funds that had outspoken Woke policies (so we can avoid them) and a counter list that don’t play political games with your money. Naively, the climate activist group called Market Forces, and the Australian Conservation Foundation have done some work, but they are the financial simpletons that think investors just need to pull money out of fossil fuels and put it into renewable wizard magic to change the world. They don’t seem to realize that selling out is an old hat one-off protest. Activist funds now realize they have more influence by buying up shares and threatening to vote out Directors in order to change the corporate culture and sabotage companies from within.
We need those lists!
*For foreign readers, Australian pension accounts are called “Superannuation Funds”, like US 401k accounts.
Puppet image by Gerd Altmann, and cogs image by Pavlo and BlackRock photo by Jim.henderson
Must check my super fund, see how woke they are.
110
The super funds should only be interested in the money and the law.
If the world has gone mad then it is OK for the super funds to go mad too, providing they make a satisfactory profit doing it, and do it within the law.
00
Thanks for the heads-up Jo. I have money in Hesta and it is currently my default super account. I have tried to protest to them about their investment policy but it’s the same as talking to my bank (Bank Australia). They are following the woke agenda and do not care about my money, though they say they do.
It’s time to get active with direct share investments.
350
Take your money out and invest elsewhere. It’s your money not theirs.
200
You could also do yourself a favor by using some of those monies to buy some gold. Even a small amount would be good. Say, 1/4 ounce or even a smaller amount each month from here on out.
30
Bank Australia sucks. I was getting nauseated from the propaganda so I shut my accounts and loans I had with them. They started going woke years before my other banks. Defund woke banks !
110
There are many running and managing their own super funds to get away from these problems. Check with your accountant.
30
Here ya go Jo.
https://www.marketforces.org.au/superfunds/#super-funds-table
From RIAA (Responsible Investment Association Australasia)
When it comes to corporate profit, ESG and woke are in for now anyway so best if luck finding a sensible one.
“RIAA chief executive Simon O’Connor says: “We are witnessing a strong uptake of responsible approaches to managing retirement savings by super funds and other large asset owners. ”
At the same time more than 92% of Australians expect their super or other investments to be invested responsibly and ethically with 78% of Australians saying they would consider moving super or other investments to another provider if their current fund engaged in activities not consistent with their values, according to the RIAA.
In face of rising public concern and increasing financial consequences of climate change, O’Connor says the consideration of climate risk by super fund boards continues to grow. It found 81% of Australia’s largest super funds are committed to responsible investment (up from 70% in 2016), and 72% report annually on responsible investment activity (compared to 44% in 2016).
Also 61% of super funds have a least one negative screen across the whole fund, up from 34% in 2016. The most popular fund-wide exclusions are tobacco and armaments, followed by fossil fuels.”
Fewer than 20% of funds provide an online tool for members to compare features and returns of RI options.
It also found there was a disconnect between investment principles and voting policies, with few fund managers imposing voting policies in line with super funds’ policies.
The funds were assessed on five criteria:
Accountability and governance.
Responsible investment commitment.
Responsible investment implementation.
Measurement and outcomes.
Transparency and responsiveness.
Top 14 funds
Responsible Investment Super Study leaderboard
Australian Ethical
AustralianSuper
CareSuper
Cbus
Christian Super
First State Super
Future Fund
Future Super
HESTA
Local Government Super
NZ Super Fund
Unisuper
VicSuper
Vision Super
Top 14 to avoid.😉
The 2021 RIAA report:
https://responsibleinvestment.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Responsible-Investment-Super-Study-2021.pdf
260
ALL th e”platers in this game need to keep in mind the old “adage”:
Memento Mori”.
50
The steps to success.
Work in a job that has a powerful Union: or be the offspring of well connected unionists.
Work the system, grasp power and influence and become a union powerbroker: put yourself in the top job.
When all seems settled “acquire” a position of influence in the linked “workas” Super Fund and congratulate yourself.
Buy lots of renewables with “other people’s money” and enjoy China’s munificent gratitude.
Then, apply pressure to inkumbent politicians to make sure the super renewables stay buoyant, at least until you retire.
Global Warming must be fixed.
At any cost.
320
Add this to your list…. Aware Super. (Australia).
Used to be First State Super, default fund for NSW Government employees. Still is I believe.
“We invest for strong retirement outcomes for our members, while also considering the impact of our investments on the environment and society.
We embed environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations into our investment processes across all our investment options and asset classes.”
also “Our commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”
also “climate-conscious returns, and safer futures. We exist to do better by our members.”
Seems I really do have to change from my fully woke super fund. I have tried before. They don’t make things easy.
I hope to have a better outcome this time, in gaining access to my share of “their” money.
All I can say imho, is beware Aware.
190
“All I can say imho, is beware Aware.”
Another caveat is also BE INTERESTED AND INVOLVED. Our small fund manager consults us about all investments, presents reasons behind recommendations and seeks approval before any changes are made. I often disagree with recommendations and do our own research and reasons why we disagree. What ever the outcomes , its our money, we control it, for better or worse.
We have friends and acquaintances that I have tried to talk to about their funds and sadly the interest only extends to “I dont care as long as money goes into the account”.
Well good luck with that.
80
What we were taught to think of as nations, are now just business districts which require different language marketing and cultural taste adjustment.
How do you say ‘horse de-wormer’ and ‘safe and effective’ in French?
‘Climate’ and ‘Gender’ are the new superseding values that require allegiance.
They even have a flag.
No doubt a pledge and an anthem will soon be codified..
Here in the US, enthusiastic American flag display, or traditional Christian religious value expression, is officially suspect.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/house-panel-report-shows-fbi-targeted-catholics-as-terrorists.html
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/08/leaked-fbi-doc-labels-extremist-betsy-ross-flag-2nd-amendment-gadsden-flag-and-more-report/
Notice that they don’t fly their new flag in the parts of the world that never adjusted to national borders imposed upon them, and are ultimately loyal to a pre-existing 7th century value system.
But has been a good ordinance market.
130
I manage my own super fund and it is not difficult. The dearest part is establishment and then the yearly audit and accountancy fees. Whether those fees are greater than the fees charged by the super funds would be for individuals to consider. The one way to stop tyhe big funds from wasting your money is to stop giving it to them. If you do find your fund is playing political games with your money take it out and either manage it yourself or place it in a less woke and less union dominated fund. Remember that the left always use your money so when you take oit away they are powerless. Remember the squeals when people were allowed to withdraw funds during the Covid crisis? Also remember it is your money in these funds and you can put it anywhere that meets the criteria. We could also campaign for a government that would recind the whole super BS and make it voluntary.
160
Lawrie,
100% correct . Self managed super puts you in control of where your money is invested . When reality resumes HESTA and the other funds will suffer along with their clients .Actions have consequences . I try to make sure that I invest in businesses that actually make something that we all use .
141
I have a mob of shares in Ampol.
50
We have a decent-sized SMSF, and our approach has always been returns-driven. Our advisers are quite hard-nosed about the principle that money should work hard and earn its way, thankfully, and have never tried to nudge us into so-called “ethical” or feel-good funds. Fees are at wholesale rates and completely transparent, no hidden extras.
Our offspring are members, and even when forced to contribute to industry funds like CBUS, they roll their contributions over at f/y end, both are well ahead at this stage.
We meet quarterly with our advisers to review performance and strategy. This means we have control over where and how our money is invested.For example, we have recently sold FMG because we suspect Twiggy’s mental state.
110
FMG have had some great returns. The first year I had FMG it returned a share price rise and 48% dividend. However I agree that Twiggy has started to fall off his twig. He keeps sacking, or they keep leaving, his top administrators.
10
Sad part is to see things with the name “Christian Super” there – I would assume it’s not some random name like “Frank Healthcare” but Christian like in the religion. For anybody taking these things seriously, keep your eyes open and practice situational awareness – not everything is always like it appears…unfortunately the most scary business people are the ones that come to you and tell you: “I’m a child of God, you can trust me…”
72
“I’m a child of God, you can trust me…”
Or,
“they will with feigned words make merchandise of you” (60 to 150 AD sometime)
Masses of people being suckered like this but the warning has been there for centuries.
We have a political party led by a couple that started a “church” after realizing it was far more lucrative than their multi-level marketing operation – and they love to flaunt their wealth.
40
>their multi-level marketing operation
I went along to one of their recruitment meetings years ago for amusements sake.
Well worthwhile. Dude held stage in a flamboyant suit and slicked back hair. Ran the show like an evangelical crusade – which probably explains their eventual move to form a “church” (and take 10% of members earnings).
I was assigned a pretty young girl to persuade me to join up, she also doubled as one of the dudes’ cheer team affirming his key statements.
To this day I still have no idea what the “product” was they were selling. I think it was a whey-based food supplement with magical properties but I came out no wiser. Show was great though.
40
why are funds given votes at all? they might be ‘shareholders’ but in reality we are, not a handful of managers
the way i see it, there are only 2 options
get the government to remove voting rights from funds and let people direct their own vote (as they can with any shareholding)
or start having openly political super funds where members align with stated aims, though this may work against fiduciary duty (not that awoke and hesta arent breaking this by
being political already)
creating your own smsf is cumbersome now with all the government changes and really not worth it financially unless you have a substantial amount
70
The funds are shareholders of these stocks. It is the right of all who hold voting shares to vote. Sometimes companies issue non-voting shares. These are legally different. This situation would not arise if we had a real media that served the people. It would not arise if people didn’t have to put their money in giant conglomerate funds.
1. Why are people forced to buy shares? Superannuation makes everyone into a speculator whether they want to or not. The power of the funds only arises because people hand over their money and stop paying attention to it. Give people more choice about how they look after themselves in retirement.
2. Where is the Media? Owned by the Big-Money Funds? If there was any point in having public broadcasters this is the point. Where is The ABC telling people which superannuation funds are good or bad, or Woke or pro-fossil fuels? The ABC serves Big Gov. Shut it down or move to an option public subscription model.
For a thousand reasons we need media funded directly by subscribers not media owned by the same conglomerate multinational players (or governments) the media is supposed to report on.
Imagine if there were 1000 small superannuation groups competing and some could advertise that they “invest in fossil fuels for your future”.
270
One may wish, but in fact the storm of control is gathering. The MSM are now replete with self-serving people insisting that you “spend” your super money as they decree. All of these control narcissists are at odds with each other but all have no real concern for the putative owners. The Fed Govt is crusading on preventing people from passing on “their” money to their children. The bulge of older population has such enormous cumulative amounts of super, none of the managerial class can possibly keep their hands off – no way.
So two developments are afoot: 1) the prevention, or removal, of the right to withdraw “lump sum” super when you have reached the legislated age to do so (and following that, a monthly dole of your super as an “annuity”, with the State taking what may be left when you fall off the twig); 2) inheritance, or death, taxes again, with the necessary imposition of gift taxes to punish transfer of wealth before death.
Take this suggestion or leave it, but I strongly suggest that you get exact and reliable information on what your super fund has recorded as your date of birth. You may well find that your fund has recorded you as considerably younger than you actually are. So when you turn say 70, and decide to pull the plug, you may be told that “records” show you are only 56 and ineligible as yet. I kid not here – did the fund admin ever actually ask you directly what your date of birth is ? Have you ever asked fund admin what they think your date of birth is ? I have struck this issue twice with two separate funds, so I don’t regard it as just an admin typo.
Bluntly, super is not now your money. It is regarded defacto as a Govt gift, to be spent as others may wish.
101
What you say is extremely worrying. I have a SMSF and am quite happy to do the small amount of work to make it run profitably. The costs are the annual audit to meet government regulations and the Accountant. I gave up using funds and advisors years ago and have done much better sisnce. I do note Jo’s advice about gold. I still own some dirt with a nice house which so far the government cannot touch but that too is subject to their greed and incompetency. It was interesting yesterday as commentators discussed Andrews nresignation and the state debt he left behind. The answer was that sisne young people don’t seem to worry about accumulating debt then his state didn’t need to either. There is some truth in that. The get it now and worry about paying for it later is prevalent among many young people particularly those who have decided that they will never own a home. I live near a small country town which in the past decade has lost several big industrial employers. Still many are paying $500 per week in rent for a 3 BR house with a nice back yard. That would pay a sizable loan if the borrower could find the deposit and that seems to be the major stumbling block; the deposit. That is probably where retirees with some spare cash can help their kids and at a time when they really need the help.
I still believe that instead of 12% of a workers wage being put in a union fund it would be better put toward a home. A home of your own in retirement is the best form of security I can think of. It would be good for industry and employment and a real disaster for unions and the ALP. A real win win win situation.
10
My super is in REST (Retail Employees Super Trust), not because I was in retail, but that is the one my accountant recommended years ago. So far, I have only had one year when the fund made a loss on my investment and, so far, the gains made on my capital in the fund have more or less kept pace with what I take out each year. I am watching it though, as things may change, but the fund seems to have very low charges and overheads and does not seem to be so union dominated as some. Fingers crossed!
90
Unfortunately REST were one of the ones I noticed in my quick search today.
https://rest.com.au/why-rest/about-rest/sustainability
https://rest.com.au/investments/how-we-invest/approach-to-responsible-investing
Fore purely financial reasons, you will probably get better returns in a fund that is not betting on renewables. (Though I have presume REST has other types of funds, and you are in those?). Last year was awful for renewables compared to energy funds. If there is some kind of financial crisis, and it’s a house of cards, then betting on things we know the world will need — coal oil gas, fertilizer, minerals, etc, seems obvious. Even if REST has cash or industrial funds, it is still a worry that part of the operation is so “eco” focused. Says something about the management.
101
HESTA and REST support the YES vote. https://www.investmentmagazine.com.au/2023/05/hesta-rest-support-to-boost-first-nations-constitutional-inclusion/
But one reason I remember REST is actually not their fault. They were sued in 2019 by a member who said they should have considered climate change as a risk. But in this case the 23 year old member won a settlement of the case (sigh) and REST was bullied into saying the climate matters.
The discovery categories can be found here.
The Australian Financial Review reported on the significance of the orders here.
111
Foreseeable risks.
It is hard to believe that the law could make such a finding, or that the finding could be significant. We are, after all, only dealing with a hundredth of a century using rubbery metrics. But:
I gave up chasing temperature records 15 years ago. Let them come to me. I could be wrong.The website I have used ever since I got the internet is going backwards, so that I should but haven’t yet, build my own weather page.
But intuition, which I rely on a fair bit, tells me that the local temps I have been seeing show a rise far greater than anything the lunies have yet dreamt up. Maybe I am stuck in the summer of the bushfires, when December’s average max was more tham 5 degrees above average, and November, January and February were more than 3 degrees above average. Even divided by 100 those are significant numbers.
But over 15 years or so it has seemed rare for any month’s average max to not exceed the long term average.
00
Jo. You are correct about what the world will need. We sometimes forget, and the elites want you to forget, that the West contains less than 25% of the world’s population and that they need food, fibre and power. The rest of the world wants what we already have and all the posturing by the WEF, the UN and elites in general can go jump. We have a responsibility to provide their needs.
00
Thanks Jo. I will take a good look at my investment choices within REST.
00
Curious that these woke funds have shares in companies like Woodside. More hypocrisy?
90
It’s not hypocrisy now. It’s deliberate. They realized the divest and boycott move was a loser. They could divest, but then someone else just bought the damn oil and gas share and made money, and voted at the AGM.
So in the last few years they switched strategies. BlackRock has been levering Exxon to sabotage it and making money through other avenues that profit from the bad decisions.
It’s a “whole portfolio” strategy.
150
“I am watching it though, as things may change, but the fund seems to have very low charges and overheads and does not seem to be so union dominated as some. Fingers crossed!”
Of course it has very low charges as it is an Industry Fund not a Retail Fund and like all industry funds, is not, repeat not, dominated by trades unions. However right wing conservative continually pursue untruthful claims that unions rort money from industry super funds claims that are completely without any foundation in fact.
36
Many many years ago, my work was designing corporate super computer systems. We designers saw the appalling corporate rorts that were going on, followed by the unions getting into the act and starting rorts of their own. Anywhere there’s a large bucket of money there will be concerted efforts at rorting it, by government, business, unions and individuals. In the end, only the separation of powers in our constitution protects us.
61
Separation of powers ???
You must mean where the W.A. Premier appointed the Commissioner of Police to be State Governor?
30
This will only get worse if companies keep giving in to this blackmail. These superfunds can never be placated by acquiescing to their demands and will just be embolden them. Companies who try the nett zero PR will be disappointed when no matter what they do they will still be despised by the market and the activists are really in there to put them out of business.
50
Zig, too true, but one board director cannot take on the SuperFunds or BlackRock etc on their own. This is where super fund clients need to sit up and pay attention. The super funds have nothing without their clients. If the clients start to leave the activist funds, things will change fast.
Imagine if the ABC reported that BBB fund was voting against sensible experienced directors who said things like men are men, and people will always need oil? Imagine if people started to realize their super fund might be harming the companies their retirement savings were held with, or using their own funds to bully diversity policies that work against their own children?
That outrage is waiting to be sparked.
140
Everyone wants free electron even if it isn’t really free.
Everyone wants to denounce evil fossil fuels. Even if the unecessary evil isn’t quite so uneeded.
Becomes a race to skim off the cream before the tragedy of the commons sets in.
Becomes an exercise in NIMBYism. Smugly claim that we are virtuously NET ZERO whilst having earned the entitlement to vacation and buy stuff manufactured abroad at supressed prices.
It’s wishful selfserving thinking. The world is ripe with suckers to buy into it.
30
I endorse William X’s comment. I too am a member of Aware Super. Like Banks and Insurance Companies, I consider Super Funds a necessary evil. The only good thing about it is that my retirement income from Super is tax free (at least at my level). Aware’s statement that William includes in his comment is, IMO, just mumbo jumbo. Like most investment organisations, Aware tries to please every member (and fails).
60
Just a point of USA information.
Savings, such as the 401(k) accounts are retirement savings plans offered by many American employers, while 403(b) are designed for certain employees of public schools and other tax-exempt organizations. Participants may include teachers, school administrators, professors, government employees, nurses, doctors, and librarians.
Particulars vary by company or whatever, say a university.
The names come from sections of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
After retiring, a person usually can take control of the savings.
60
Also be aware that the USA tax authorities seem to have taken a “dim view” of Australian self managed super funds. On first glance, they would be under the definition of a “foreign owned trust account” and therefore suspect.
00
When one buys a stock directly the concept is that you become a part owner and have a voice in the affairs of the company. Included are opportunities to vote for directors and on proposed operational alterations such as shifts of corporate aims and goals or fundamental structural changes.
Sounds good.
If you own one, two, or three stocks you can investigate the company(s), read all the materials, learn who the directors and management are – and make informed decisions when the yearly voting materials are sent to you.
If you want greater diversification you can buy 100 or 500 stocks. Doing your homework for 100 or 500 stocks is (likely) not possible.
If you put your money in a mutual fund firm you will pay a fee to have employees do the homework. The larger the firm usually means the costs of investigation are spread across more investors, and “lower fees” invariably lead to higher returns for the saver. Likewise, diversification is a good investment strategy. That means owning 500 stocks is better than owning 5.
Compromises and trade-offs abound.
The “woke” and ESG agendas need to be deep-sixed.
40
Tragedy of the commons.
Don’t climate activists like to cite this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
20
This situation asociates with the essence and problem of wokeism. A little bit of wokeness in all directions is good thing. Unfortunately when kept unchecked it disintegrates into destructive qualties such as strong selection, hair shirts, tragedy of the commons. Entitlement and tyranny of the majority to supress the minority.
Hopefulluy humanity is catching on to these failings
10
A little bit of a good thing is a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?
*Cough*
It’s like banks and pension funds investing in the stock market. zeveryone forgets that the stock market crashes .People forget that stocks crash to near zero and get delisted forever (not to sully the fortune 500)
Instead there are other laws of economics such as too big to fail. Unacceptable catastrophy if big pension funds fail. Thus the private investor goes down with the ship but the public pension fund gets bailed out.
We are at the point where the stock market is too important to fail. That is a serious problem
/frownie
60
This is a libertarian viewpoint? … as in How dare big business do what it wants! (/sarcasm)
Understand what you are getting at but your criticism is more akin to “How dare big busineess carry on in a reckless manner which cramps our own ability to act for ourselves”
10
What is libertarian about the government forcing you to pay 12% of your income to a conglomerate superfund?
What is libertarian about the management committee voting and speaking for 2 million Australians that they have not consulted?
I didn’t say a thing about Big Business behaving badly. I’m talking about forced conglomerate money being used to attack and influence Big Business by isolating individual directors with the aim of removing them for political gains. And in the act of threatening them, they are defacto silencing all directors everywhere. The message is clear. You are not free to speak your mind unless you agree with big conglomerate multinational money managers. And each of these money managers might be being offered personal golden handshake deals to sell out their countrymen — how would we know if the media are not scrutinizing them?
30
Reminds me of the expression .. “those who live by the sword, die by the sword”, Achillies (heel) …
Those who embrace strong market forces risk encountering strong market failure. It is reckless.
Climate activists die by similar argument that they embrace.
11
And is it a free market if the media themselves are owned by the very groups that are colluding for profit that the media don’t report on?
I’m writing about corruption and coercion.
Without free speech, there is no free market.
30
Let me gets this straight
You want a feudalistic structure aka a shareholder company, to become somehow democratic?
And you don’t want any decisions made by this now democratised company to be based on science?
218
Peter >”based on science?”
Don’t you mean “The” science ?
As in – “We own the science”
81
Peter Fitzroy,
Didn’t do well at comprehension there did you? It is the *country’s* democracy Joanne is worried about, not the corporate ones. Here’s the reasoning, in baby steps:
1. Super funds get regular contributions from members
2. These contributions add up to a *lot* of money with which the funds buy shares
3. Large shareholders get many votes both in AGM agenda items and board membership
4. Fund managers themselves get these votes, even though it’s members’ money that is at risk
5. This opens the door for fund managers to (for example) stack boards with directors who will favour ideologies which the managers like, but are *against* the interests of real shareholders (including their own members of course).
It is the ongoing politicisation of the corporate sector. Far from their “evil profit-seeking” caricature, profit is secondary. We see a growing warm embrace between the large corporations and the political parties, with no interests of shareholders or voters getting a look in.
We need to get away from this embrace. The corporations *should* exist for nothing more than making profit. The government’s job is to curtail the profit motive when it is harmful to the people’s interests. About thirty years ago we started hearing about public-private partnerships. It’s grown pretty cosy in that time. Time for a divorce.
100
So according to your reasoning there should not be any democracy associated with corporations.
But how will you keep them out of politics, after al they will own the economy, and on you model, they exist to make a profit, and if they can have laws passed, like downplaying pollution, or wages, that is what you will get.
But if you pay a pittance, pollute with abandon, own politicians, profit will follow, and be maximised
03
Thanks. Confirms your status. I’ll try you again in another year or so.
00
Pension funds take a longer term view than most investors. They have to pay out many years in the future, so their investments have to be resilient and adaptive to change, whether that be societal, economic, or climate-related. They are working in the best interests of their investors, because they are financially motivated to do so.
219
“And then the harder they come
The harder they fall, one and all ..”
Beware Safe money is risky
41
“They have to pay out many years in the future”..which is until the current directors retire with their golden parachutes, after that they couldn’t give a shit about your retirement!
Without Govt rorts like super, what would we do with all these has-been politicians? We need lots and lots of useless positions for incompetents on boards of organisations that use other people’s money.
51
That’s not my experience. Pension plan managers seem to me to be very smart people who push through resolutions because they are concerned about the long-term viability of the companies they invest in. Is there anyone here involved in corporate finance or are we speaking from a position of collective ignorance?
03
Yes,
I think that you are
” speaking from a position of collective ignorance?”
30
Hesta has a climate change transition plan, the board is stacked in favour of flawed science.
https://www.hesta.com.au/stories/climate-action#how-we-do-this
00
But will being WOKE be profitable?
“It’s estimated that around 85% of the total value of offshore wind insurance claims relate to subsea cables. Insurers are losing money underwriting cables with the average settlement claim in the region of £9million. Brokers have warned that the high number of cable claims is affecting capacity and coverage and the cost of repairs typically runs into millions, with warranties rarely covering the high cost of business interruption.
If these critical components become uninsurable, offshore wind projects around the world will be derailed, making global 2050 net zero targets completely unachievable.
61
Sooner or later a majority of people will come to understand that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud, especially as the world fully enters a cooling phase as we come to the end of the present interglacial, which we are overdue for.
Then we’ll have to invest vast amounts to build all the power stations that Australia has foolishly demolished.
Also, as people do come to understand the fraud, wind, solar and other woke projects will become worthless.
Funds will expect taxpayers to bail them out.
There should be a law against these funds investing member money in anything not supported by solid scientific evidence or any investment whose profitability is soley dependent upon government legislation and subsidies as wind and solar are.
Get woke, go broke.
I’d happily invest in any fund that didn’t invest in woke nonsense.
200
Oh really?
2023 is going to be far and away the warmest year in recorded history and may be the first year exceeding 1.5C above preindustrial levels:
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/visualizing-a-summer-of-extremes
018
Simon >”2023 is going to be far and away the warmest year in recorded history”
So natural factors, not CO2-forced then?
121
Simon >”[2023] may be the first year exceeding 1.5C above preindustrial levels”
As per yesterday:
Please keep up.
90
From Simon’s “The Climate Brink” article:
Global monthly mean surface temperatures 1950s-2023 absolute
[JRA-55 Reanalysis data]
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F592a2f68-8459-4f2d-8f0b-a76217dcd30c_7446x3441.png
The actual caption provided is incorrect:
That describes an anomaly graph but it is actually in absolute terms. Simon may want to check his sources in the future.
Evenso, the graph corresponds to the Berkeley Earth and Climate Reanalyzer (NCEP CFSV2/CFSR) graphs in previous comment.
The 1.5℃ “limit line” at 15℃ is valid for this graph too.
Every datapoint above 15℃ is above the “limit”.
I’m amazed how stupid this concept is and equally the people that subscribe to it.
40
>”I’m amazed how stupid this [“limit”] concept is”
Also from yesterday:
And,
The Earth Has No Average Temperature
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/09/the_earth_has_no_average_temperature.html
The concept of an average temperature of the Earth is a figment of the climate scientist’s imagination, conjured up to try to prove a fraudulent hypothesis.
20
It depends upon the data set and how you measure the 1850-1900 baseline: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/will-2023-be-the-first-year-above
It’s curious that you are arguing that anthropogenic warming is actually higher than stated. It doesn’t help David’s argument that AGW is a fraud and that we’re heading for a new ice age 🙂
09
Simon
>”It depends upon the data set”
In absolute terms all the datasets (including all reanalysis datasets) agree so no problem. Even your link “The Climate Brink” displays JRA-55 Reanalysis data (see #26.1.2.1 upthread).
That is replication and replication is the essence of science. Climate models are thus unscientific by definition because they cannot replicate either their own results, the results of other groups, or the observations particularly in absolute terms.
>”and how you measure the 1850-1900 baseline”
Base is either given (MIT below) or easy to establish working backwards (NASA GISS below).
Explained: The 1.5 C climate benchmark [MIT]
https://news.mit.edu/2023/explained-climate-benchmark-rising-temperatures-0827
13.5 + 1.5 = 15
So by this MIT measure the 1.5℃ “limit line” is at 15℃.
I’ve posted the working using the NASA GISS number but here it is again:
So by this GISS measure the 1.5℃ “limit line” is at 14.8℃.
0.2℃ is nothing to quibble over so may as well accept the nominal 15℃ figure (it’s usually a horizontal line on the graph).
30
Simon >”It’s curious that you are arguing that anthropogenic warming is actually higher than stated”
There you go again putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say.
It is perfectly clear now that 2023 is dominated by natural factors far beyond what any theoretical human forcing could ever achieve even if the theory was valid (it isn’t).
If you had been keeping up you would know from yesterday that even Robert Rohde from your cherished Berkeley Earth has been forced to tease out one the natural factors that “scientists” are scrambling to identify that have driven the extraordinary 2023 temperatures:
That is only one of several natural factors. Cap Allon at Electroverse identifies these:
So no, I certainly am not arguing that anthropogenic warming is actually higher than stated.
I’m arguing that previously unaccounted for natural factors have overwhelmed the 2023 temperatures.
40
No doubt some natural variation is playing a part, hwoever the only unusual factor might be stratospheric water vapour from the Hunga Tonga eruption.
As David correctly pointed out, we were in an inter-glacial and temperatures were cooling, but then the hockey stick of AGW kicked in.
https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/1706296288705212894/photo/1
07
Simon >”No doubt some natural variation is playing a part, hwoever the only unusual factor might be stratospheric water vapour from the Hunga Tonga eruption.”
Please present the scientific documentation of ALL the natural factors that have been established (previously accounted for) as being the drivers of the extraordinary 2023 temperature (I’ve noted 5 previous).
You actually contradict Robert Rohde, Berkeley Earth.
Rohde:
You:
20
Simon
You cite Ed Hawkins on X who states:
Except there’s a big problem with that as Ed Hawkins inadvertently reveals:
Connecting Climate Model Projections of Global Temperature Change with the Real World
Ed Hawkins and Rowan Sutton (2016)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fbams$002f97$002f6$002fbams-d-14-00154.1.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fbams%24002f97%24002f6%24002fbams-d-14-00154.1.xml
Fig. 1.
(top) Global-mean 2-m air temperature from CMIP5 historical simulations (gray, 1861–2005) and various reanalysis estimates (colors; from Saha et al. 2010; Dee et al. 2011; Rienecker et al. 2011; Kobayashi et al. 2015).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/97/6/full-bams-d-14-00154.1-f1.jpg
If the physics are “well understood” why are the climate models so wildly astray from the observations?
Also, what happened to the AGW “hockey stick” blade?
20
Here’s another natural factor from Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading:
Also known as wavy jetstream. So now 6 natural factors:
1 Sahara dust (less than normal)
2 an El Niño event (ENSO)
3 the Stratospheric Polar Vortex
4 Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO)
5 Stratospheric Water Vapor
6 ‘Stagnant’ anticyclones (wavy jetstream)
Climate science hasn’t even started to identify and quantify all the natural factors driving 2023 but the trickle is starting to flood. It will take years to tease them all out.
They are however, wedded to one all encompassing notion:
Problem with that is, with El Nino and Tropics say, the initial state at the beginning of the year was normal:
Daily 2-meter Air Temperature – Tropics
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=tropics
Any “supercharging” only occurred after May 1.
How exactly did “Human-made climate change” kick in on May 1 ?
20
90
Its a pity then that people in England have been complaining about the cool sumer, and those in Scotland are claiming that the crops aren’t ripening yet.
Simon, your comment is typical of those living in the (inner) city and getting “the News” from those who want the public to be misinformed.
111
Those mysterious ‘people’ who don’t conform to statistics. England’s summer was wetter and a bit warmer than average. Maybe their crops didn’t get enough sunshine.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2023/summer2023ukweather
12
Simon you are on safe ground, the spike in temperature has been caused by the eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga, water vapour in the stratosphere is a greenhouse gas.
They say it could remain up there for five years and in real time we get to experience the Medieval Warm Period.
20
Part of the problem is that junk science has become an instrument of government policy and this makes fund managers and investors less critical or not critical of “The Science” (sic) and the nature of these woke “investments”.
100
The silent majority needs to wake up before they are “woke” up by the climate cultists masquerading as Board Members and carers of your retirement funds! In most instances, they are installed by stealth. Marxists have been planning their assault on hard-earned for decades. They are often university-trained Unionists.
20
So glad we set up our own SMSF years ago. But, even then the SMSF’s are not immune from the influence of the big banks. They generally wont lend money to SMSF’s any more for investment properties etc. Makes you wonder if the SMSF’s will become a target of government in the future. Would certainly fit into the Labor/Teals/Greens ideology and I would have no faith in the LNP providing any defence either.
80
I think underlying all government policy is the WEF decree/prediction that in future (non-Elites) “will own nothing and be happy”.
Australian governments and many of the Sheeple are fanatical followers of such WEF, UN and other globalist Marxist nonsense.
I have tried to think of an investment vehicle that is free from government interference to devalue it but can’t think of any. In Australia you can’t even buy physical gold without multiple forms of ID which means that the Government knows you have it and can send around the storm troopers at any time to confiscate it. I am not personally comfortable with crypto although many people swear by it as a secure store of value.
61
You can walk off the street and buy $4999 worth of physical gold with no ID. Daily.
50
Ok, the amount I looked at buying cost more than that and required multiple IDs.
There is no point in buying it if it is registered with government so they can just confiscate it at will.
31
Part IV of the Banking Act was “suspended” from operation in 1976.
It (the suspension), can be cancelled forthwith at any time without notice.
Is a matter of When, not If.
Legislation exists to authorise the Gov’t to confiscate your private property.
10
David,
You would be better off buying small gold pieces (coins etc) as they are more useful in using them for payment . Chopping a chunk of a bar is difficult and dangerous if gold has become currency . Gold can be hidden , but as every pirate knows you have to remember where your treasure is .
10
When they get their dictatorship they will confiscate all super funds and tell the owners how they will help them spend it wisely.
30
Have been an investor for over 60 years, and the current scene depresses me. The conga line of companies, lining up to donate company funds (shareholders) to a political campaign, seems to me to be at odds with the fiduciary duties of directors-have they no shame?
Sorry Jo, but I think WA may be especially egregious. Perhaps WA Inc never died, it has just hidden for a third of a century. Perhaps the Federal Gov’t used threats/inducements to coerce/encourage donations to the “Yes” campaign, or perhaps it is what they (managers) truly believe. I read that Kate Chaney (Teal MHR), is the daughter of Michael Chaney, top man at Wesfarmers. How can giving Wesfarmers shareholders funds to support the family’s political causes be acceptable. I know that I never voted for it, (proxy) for the AGM. If you are a shareholder, write to WES. See if any of your concerns at all are addressed. I expect that the boards of Woodside and BHP also employ PR hacks, to fob off shareholders, since the only people the boards answer to are not you. The top 3 holders of WES were Black Rock, State Street, & Vanguard. All are US based funds that now, perhaps in cahoots with union based super funds, have an influence, over some of our largest retailers, Bunnings, Officeworks etc. Do Australian VOTERS want to be controlled by Larry Fink of Blackrock? All I can do is vote against EVERY person and proposal by companies that treat the owners like trained poodles. I encourage others to tick the No boxes, on shareholder voting forms and return the voting form.
70
garry b, you’re right about BlackRock et al, but WA is no worse than any other state. We’re the only state without an emissions target BTW — despite having an obscenely large dominant labor party in both houses. Even the labor team know our state government budget is funded by Big Gas and Big Iron Ore. Thank the surplus…
What do you really know about WA Inc — just what the media told us? I used to believe that too.
I have come to know the former Labor Minister Julian Grill, and he is a climate skeptic and an outstanding man. He wrote a book last year called Secret State, exposing how WA Inc investigations were a shocking misuse of the CCC powers which bugged homes, but found virtually nothing. It was a witchhunt. They created many headlines and destroyed lives. To what end?
https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/julian-grill-book-why-secret-state-an-expose-by-julian-grill-is-set-to-make-leaders-nervous-c-5452411
10
I do often reflect about “how do I know, if what I think I know, is true?”. The period following the 1987 market collapse revealed the extent to which reckless lending by banks, and imprudent borrowing came unglued. The media attention went from puff pieces about the Skase’s, Bond & the Americas Cup, etc, to hunting for Skase in Spain, and the collapse of Bond Corp, and others. I formed much of my opinions about WA Inc, and the sundry other company failures from the Melbourne Herald, whose columnist at the time was Terry McCrann whose opinions, then and now, seem very well informed, and prescient.
No offence meant to WA, but it seemed (from a distance) to suffer disproportionately, from the hubris of the era. Whether the WA gov’t were “babes in the woods”, or co-conspirators, is where readers of the media are let down, relative to readers of books, who can get the entire story, to the outcome. We need to be selective in our search for the truth.
00
Dangerous Dan has resigned just like Cain did when Victoria was bankrupt. I wonder what is coming.
30
As a self funded retiree, I’d LOVE to see any list of safe places to move my nest egg! Unfortunately, I don’t have the market savvy to investigate the options myself.
20
This sounds like a violation of the fiduciary responsibilities to the super fund members.
00
Same as Rick earlier (comment #33) – what am I supposed to glean from all this?
Is SMSF the only way to go or is there an Industry Fund that is better than the others – even if it is only a least worst option?
I know that some of this rubbish you run into at its worst mainly if you choose an “ethical” option. We don’t all use the same definition of “ethical”.
00