Beware the guide firms for investors that put politics over looking after your money

Beware the guide firms for investors that put politics over looking after your money


Investors thought they had reason to celebrate: A new report scores Wall Street firms on whether they put politics over their clients’ financial interests, and many firms got passing grades.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, received an adequate “C” score. Investment giant Vanguard got a perfect “A.”  

But if the news seems too good to be true, that’s because it is.

While the study sheds light on a critically important issue — whether Americans’ retirement accounts, pension funds and other investments are being hijacked for political purposes — it lacks the in-depth analysis needed to show what’s really going on.

Here’s how the study worked: The Committee to Unleash Prosperity looked at how Wall Street firms voted on the 50 most extreme environmental, social and governance (ESG) proposals across corporate America last year.

The proposals were chosen because they have no connection to helping the company’s bottom line.

One, for example, instructed Chevron to conduct a racial-equity audit because Chevron allegedly finances the Richmond police and thereby contributes to police brutality.

Time Magazine owner Marc Benioff

Marc Benioff has been accused of putting social issues over shareholder value.  REUTERS

Another told Chubb to stop selling insurance to fossil-fuel companies.

Researchers then looked at how asset managers voted and scored them accordingly.

There’s a lot the report got right: Dozens of firms, including Charles Schwab and State Street, earned “D,” “F” or “F-” scores. They certainly deserved it. And more.

As the authors note, failing to vote in your clients’ financial interest isn’t just wrong, it’s often illegal.That’s because asset managers have what’s called a “fiduciary duty” to put clients first.

If asset managers vote their political preferences instead, investors can sue.

But elsewhere, the study falls short.

Researchers only looked at the 50 most extreme proposals, ignoring the rest.

BlackRock, for example, votes on executive compensation at hundreds of companies and often asks them to tie CEO pay to achieving BlackRock’s ESG goals.

Vanguard has voted in favor of plastics-reduction reports at Jack in the Box, a racial-equity audit at American Express and emissions reductions at ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, Rio Tinto and more.

Disney CEO Bob Chapek

Bob Chapek was ousted by Disney after profits did not meet expectations. AP

The study also ignores the votes asset managers cast to elect (or oust) a company’s board of directors, even though directors have far more influence than a single shareholder proposal ever could.

On that front, BlackRock and Vanguard routinely elect leaders who put social issues over shareholder value, including Salesforce’s Marc Benioff and ousted Disney CEO Bob Chapek.

BlackRock isn’t shy about its motivations, either: In 2022, it bragged that it voted out directors at 936 companies for lack of diversity and another 176 over climate-related concerns.

The study also doesn’t consider what’s happening behind the scenes.

Vanguard, for instance, voted against a gender-pay-gap proposal at Cigna, but only after receiving assurances that Cigna was “addressing the underlying concern” by hiring outside lawyers to review its policies.

Similarly, BlackRock voted against an emissions-reduction proposal at Chevron, but only because Chevron already agreed to reduce its carbon footprint.

These asset managers aren’t putting clients first; they’re using the threat of upcoming ESG votes to extract smaller, though still problematic, ESG concessions.

Praising these votes is like praising an armed robber for never pulling the trigger.

Perhaps most fundamentally, the rankings fail on their own terms.

According to the study, an “A” grade means an asset manager “voted in the interests of their clients at least 90% of the time.”

But the law doesn’t require asset managers to vote as a fiduciary 90% of the time; it requires they do so 100% of the time.

A view of the Charles Schwab office location in Manhattan, New York.

Charles Schwab earned a “D” on the rating. REUTERS

Look at it this way: An employee that steals just once every 10 days would be fired; an asset manager that steals client votes with the same frequency — or just once — deserves the same fate.

Giving an “A” to these managers is misleading to investors…


Header featured image (edited) credit: BlackRock building/REUTERS

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.