Pushing back against SEC's Big Green agenda

 PJ Media:

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently proposed a new disclosure rule called “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors.” The proposed rule would require public companies to disclose their climate-related risks to investors. The reporting framework is the first significant step toward making environmental, social, and governmental (ESG) reporting a regulatory requirement.

Twenty-three state financial officers sent a letter to the SEC outlining concerns with the proposed rule. The State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF) led the effort on behalf of its members and identified eight specific problems with the proposed rule:

  1. The SEC is not a climate regulator, and this rule lies outside the scope of the SEC’s responsibilities.
  2. This proposed rule violates the First Amendment because it will force company leadership to speak extensively about their impacts on climate change, even if they disagree with the assessment of climate risks.
  3. The proposed rule does not consider impacts on everyday Americans investing in an unstable economic environment.
  4. This proposed rule would be extremely costly for issuers because they would need to account for climate risks throughout their supply chain, and there is no apparent benefit to these increased costs.
  5. The proposed rule indulges in climate exceptionalism elevating climate concerns above pertinent economic risks.
  6. It fails to consider relying on the EPA’s existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions registry, which already requires disclosures for environmental issues.
  7. A justification for this proposed rule is comparable data, but it fails to provide a method to enable comparisons across issuers.
  8. The decision to require additional disclosures has been prejudged by the SEC Acting Chair, who has not allowed the proposed rule to have fair and full consideration.

“It is disheartening but not surprising to see activist behavior from the SEC as it continues to promote rules and policies which prioritize polarizing political agendas over fiduciary duties to investors and issuers,” SFOF Chief Executive Officer Derek Kreifels said. “This proposed rule is well out of the scope of SEC’s authority, and we highly encourage them to address our concerns about using ESG as a political weapon against consumers.” He added that the SFOF is not seeking a “conservative” fund manager. It wants funds managed from a neutral perspective for the benefit of the investors.

...

Climate risks usually involve events that can't always be predicted.  No one can forecast when a 100 or a 1000-year flood event may happen or when a tornado may blow through their area of operation.  There are certain risks that all of us live with including investors.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more