Can ESG labels be used to mask other intentions? Of course; as with any other investing theme, there is ample potential for hucksterism or simple sloppiness. Even Larry Fink, BlackRock’s chief executive officer, has been known to mix up ESG with SRI.
And now so is Texas, in an interesting twist on the theme. Under Senate Bill 13, which came into effect almost a year ago, the state comptroller drew up a list of financial firms deemed hostile to fossil-fuel producers, which will now face obstacles, or outright exclusion, to doing business with state and local entities, such as raising municipal bonds. In theory, the law punishes Wall Street firms with ESG policies that might, for example, lead them to hold off making loans to an oil producer.
In practice, that is true to an extent: Big financial firms would rather not lose any business in the country’s second-largest economy. But also in practice, the law is replete with loopholes that may blunt the impact; one allows state pension funds not to divest any holdings involving the proscribed firms if it would hurt their performance. That’s kind of a big one and gets to the interesting twist. Because what Texas is doing here is akin to SRI.
There is a tiresome tension in the way the law operates — if that word can be used — in that the banned firms say they are using ESG in the proper sense to manage risk while Texas officials dismiss it as merely imposing leftist values. In doing so, the state has effectively adopted that dexterous feat of simultaneously covering its eyes and putting its fingers in its ears.
Because even if one doesn’t like the idea that a chief industry in one’s state — oil and gas — faces existential risk from efforts to curb climate change, that situation is impossible to deny. That is precisely why the biggest oil and gas firms residing there don’t deny it anymore. In a delicious bit of timing, the same day Texas released its version of the index prohibitorum, it emerged that California would ban gasoline-powered cars by 2035. Now one can, of course, say that policy is misguided or too costly; that is a valid debate. But to say that firms lending to or investing in the oil industry shouldn’t factor in the biggest car market in the US — which also sets the regulatory agenda in many other states — banning the biggest source of demand for oil is simply delusional.
Or, put another way, it is a values-based boycott. Just like SRI. And just like SRI, by constraining the options of Texas’ pension funds and muni issuers, it will incur a cost. That is how SRI works: You withhold dollars and thereby raise the cost of capital for your chosen target but, in doing so, take a hit to your own risk-adjusted returns (see this). In Texas’ case, another law aimed at firms shy of doing business with gun manufacturers has cost its taxpayers half a billion dollars already, according to a paper published this summer. Did I compare these laws to socially responsible investing? Fiscally irresponsible invective might be nearer the mark.
More From Other Writers at Bloomberg Opinion:
• Matt Levine’s Money Stuff: AMC’s APEs Might Stick Around
• A California Winery Is Cheating Climate Change: Amanda Little
• Did Congress Really Snub Supreme Court on Climate?: Noah Feldman
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. A former investment banker, he was editor of the Wall Street Journal’s Heard on the Street column and a reporter for the Financial Times’s Lex column.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
©2022 Bloomberg L.P.