It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I think I found it after trying to figure out where an M* writer got off to.
Mike Lee? Stan Lee? Used to cover ETF's at M*. Wrote a couple of pieces here.
I don't follow ETF's. But I always enjoyed reading his stuff.
Yes. I’ve pondered it since roughly November 9, 2016. But I ponder a whole lot of things. Folks ponder all sorts of solutions to vexing issues. So the options Larry tossed out are no doubt being considered by some. He left out shifting to foreign equities / currencies which some (self included) have also pursued.Anyone else pondering this risk?
Looking at ... total returns for the S&P 500 during presidencies since 1929, it is clear that U.S. stock returns have been much better when a Democrat was the president; however, it would be a mistake to conclude that stock returns were higher because a Democrat held the presidency.
There is no conclusive evidence suggesting the president’s party has any statistically significant impact on U.S. equity market returns. Intuitively this makes sense, because stock returns are influenced by a myriad of factors such as valuations, corporate profits, business cycles, monetary policy, etc. In addition, the increasingly global economy (the S&P 500 generates more than 50% of revenues outside the U.S.) makes the actions of a single government less important.
The stock market is a complex adaptive system in which cause and effect are not easy to link. Market movements, particularly over short periods such as a presidential term (yes, four years is a short-term investment period), are random.
I kind of agree with 1k. Perhaps for somewhat different reasons. This and many other scenarios have long been contemplated and factored into investment positioning by investors with far longer time horizons than 4 or 5 months. Doing something now in a panic-driven frenzy would be unwise. How many other black swan scenarios should we than prep for? Earth being slammed by an asteroid? Some nut touching off an A-bomb somewhere on the planet - maybe 2 or 3? Killer plague wiping out large segments of the population? How about an evil genius hacking the electrical grid and knocking out all power and communications coast-to-coast? How would (the now darkened) stock market like that?Do nothing and stop being emotional and dramatic.
Though to be honest, I don't recall seeing that in the Pax World literature!As I wrote last month, a key difference between ESG and its predecessor, "socially conscious investing," is that socially conscious managers implicitly admitted that their strategies might reduce their returns, while ESG investors do not. Socially conscious investors used negative screens to eliminate stocks that violated their beliefs. In contrast, ESG investors seek positive attributes, which they claim will make their companies better investments.
This has been quote several times here. I would use short term treasury index in place of part of money market (or CDs) given the current low yield environment.widespread perception that long-term Treasuries are the most attractive diversifiers, the recent data don't bear this out. In fact, the shorter-term Treasury index had an even lower correlation with the S&P 500 than the long-term index."
The second implication is that corporate plans will profit by switching from actively run ESG investments to lower-cost indexers. That may be true. But once again, the same logic would seem to apply to all actively managed investments. This book, after all, has been written. We know that active managers of all stripes, both retail and institution, tend to lag index funds. It is strange that the DOL’s counsel extends only to one flavor of active management, rather than the entire field.
Which is ironic coming from a Trump administration touting less regulation. And whose stance on Covid-19 has been & still is everyone fend for themselves.As Bloomberg's Matt Levine points out, each of those two sides thinks that it is best positioned to make such decisions. "Under Donald Trump," writes Levine, the U.S. government says "coal is great, more coal please," while BlackRock (being an ESG investor) responds "coal is bad, no more coal please." Levine continues, "The people making environmental, social, and governance issues should be the government, says the government; the asset managers and pension funds had better stick to making money.
Regulatory shifts driving ESG uptake in EuropeGlobally, getting ahead of regulation and viewing ESG as a fiduciary duty were the top factors for adopting ESG scoring 46% while mitigating ESG risks was highlighted by 44% of respondents.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla