Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
State treasurers question independence of BlackRock board members (2023)
| Environmental, social, and corporate governance |
|---|
|
| • What is ESG? • Enacted ESG legislation • Arguments for and against ESG • Opposition to ESG • Federal ESG rules • ESG legislation tracker • Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's weekly ESG newsletter |
Daily Mail reported on August 8 that fifteen state treasurers, with the aid of the State Financial Officers Foundation—a nonprofit group that says its “mission is to drive fiscally sound public policy” among state treasurers and other financial officials—sent a letter to BlackRock suggesting that the company’s board members might have conflicts of interest that could interfere with their ability to make decisions that benefit shareholders:
| “ |
Fifteen Republican state finance chiefs are probing whether directors of BlackRock mutual funds are sufficiently independent of the giant asset manager, questioning their investment moves on China, coal, and climate change. The group has raised concerns in a letter about the governance of mutual funds as part of a broader push against the growing clout of environmental, social and governance (ESG) values in business. Their letter, dated August 2 and obtained by DailyMail.com this week, was addressed to ten members of BlackRock's Fixed-Income Board of Directors, which oversees the group's closed-end mutual funds. BlackRock says board members act in the best interests of all fund shareholders. 'We are concerned about whether your board is sufficiently independent to supervise BlackRock's performance as an investment adviser,' says the letter. 'Most of you are either employed by BlackRock or hold additional positions as board members of publicly traded companies in which BlackRock owns a sizeable share.' The GOP letter says 'these personal entanglements' could 'easily impair a director's ability to exercise independent judgment when reviewing possible misconduct by BlackRock.' The financial officers raise concerns about investment choices 'in response to outside pressure from large institutional clients' that help fight climate change but don't make investors richer. Fund managers pulled out of coal, which causes more carbon pollution than other energy sources, meaning investors missed out on an 'enormous rise in share prices within the coal industry,' the letter says. Meanwhile, BlackRock has 'poured billions of dollars into China' as the first foreign firm allowed to operate there, even though this created 'potential financial risks to its clients,' the letter said. This also hurt the 'national security interests of the US and other democracies,' says the letter. … The document follows up on last month's letter from 15 Republican state attorneys general to the same directors, asking about financial relationships that could undermine their independence. … Derek Kreifels, CEO of the State Financial Officers Foundation, said the letter highlights 'troubling conflicts' between BlackRock and its 'supposedly independent' board. 'There is no way of knowing if BlackRock is acting in the best interest of the shareholders or pushing a political agenda,' Kreifels said in a statement. Will Hild, director of Consumers' Research, a non-profit, said the 'ESG scam' was out of control. 'The fact that BlackRock isn't even following their own rules shows you how corrupt these ESG extremists really are,' said Hild.[1] |
” |
See also
- Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
- Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's ESG newsletter
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
