The more customers and Congress learn about how asset managers are colluding to advance a political agenda at the expense of financial performance, the more asset managers are fleeing their Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) climate cartels.
On Monday – three days after the deadline for its members to respond to a House Judiciary Committee inquiry – the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative announced it had suspended operations, citing both “client expectations” and regulatory developments:
“Recent developments in the U.S. and different regulatory and client expectations in investors’ respective jurisdictions have led to NZAM launching a review of the initiative to ensure NZAM remains fit for purpose in the new global context.”
NZAM said it will remove information about its members from its website and will stop tracking their efforts to pressure capital-seekers into ESG compliance:
“As the initiative undergoes this review, it is suspending activities to track signatory implementation and reporting. NZAM will also remove the commitment statement and list of NZAM signatories from its website, as well as their targets and related case studies, pending the outcome of the review.”
ESG Today describes the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative as “a major multi-trillion dollar group of investment managers committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.”
NZAM isn’t the only ESG-activist climate cartel bleeding members, ESG Today notes:
“The move may also be aimed at staving off a repeat of a rapid exodus experienced by NZAM’s sister coalition, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which saw all major U.S. banks leave within a month, following the initial exit of Goldman Sachs in early December.”
Goldman Sachs’ exit also appears to have been another move to avoid House Judiciary Committee scrutiny, and followed its withdrawal from the Climate Action 100+ climate cartel, as CNSNews reported at the time:
“Goldman Sachs has left another climate coalition that uses members’ financial leverage to advance net-zero emissions goals - but says it won’t stop discriminating against industry sectors and capital-seekers based on net-zero emissions ideology.
“On Friday, the giant global investment banking, securities and investment management firm issued a statement reporting its exit from the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). In August, Goldman Sachs Asset Management ended its participation in Climate Action 100+, another climate change ideology investment network, on the eve of a deadline to respond to a Judiciary Committee collusion probe. The Climate Action 100+ cartel “targets” companies that are seeking capital.
“Net-Zero Banking Alliance is one arm of a global, UN-backed initiative to impose net-zero emissions by refusing to provide capital to sectors that produce, and companies that use, traditional energy, in favor of so-called ‘green’ energy.”
Like NZAM, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance imposes climate agenda goals and guidelines on its members.
Earlier this month, JPMorgan – the largest U.S. bank - exited the NZBA, leaving the group with a net of zero large U.S. banks among its members. JPMorgan said the move was designed “to enable inclusive” economic growth, suggesting that it would stop discriminating against companies that produce traditional sources of energy in order to coerce net-zero emissions compliance.
Asset manager climate cartels have been under House Judiciary Committee scrutiny for potential anti-trust violations and, last month, the committee released an interim report presenting findings of “substantial evidence of collusion and anticompetitive behavior” by activist asset manager cartels to “impose radical ESG-goals” on U.S. companies.
Investors, such Americans with retirement accounts, have likewise begun to take a hard look at how their ESG-activist asset managers may have been sacrificing return on their investments in order to advance ideological goals. Back in late 2023, 78% of Americans had never heard of ESG or of how it was potentially hurting their investment returns.
ESG funds have had legacy of underperforming the S&P 500, and even posting double-digit percentage losses, as companies that are politically-neutral on social and political issues are more profitable than those that practice leftist political activism. ESG funds also charge higher fees, some charging as much as forty percent more, reducing retirement savings growth.
As awareness of the financial consequences of ideological asset management has grown, investment in activist investment has shrunk. As of the third quarter of 2024, the value investment in ESG funds had contracted for eight straight quarters.