"ESG executive investigated ESG system and found ESG to be better at everything than less ESG compliant systems."
Snark out of the way, it is difficult to believe people who say their system is better when they hide their methods and data behind a curtain. Show us your numbers! They may not lie, but you surely would, especially as the Head of U.S. ESG Strategy at the Bank of America. ESG cheerleading, for all intents and purposes, is the point of that position.
While it's true that women are more risk adverse than men on average so less willing to risk a lot for possible profits, this is offset by the costs of them more trying to micromanage and effectively 'mother' in the office than just focusing at the designated tasks at hand.
The few women I've worked with (I'm lucky in that I've mostly worked with Tomboys all my life) have all admitted to me they prefer working in a male office than a female led office because women get petty on little things to the point it develops grudges while guys will get it out of their system quickly and get back to work very quickly.
A woman from the Wharton school of business did a meta study of all the "more women = better outcomes" studies and found it was all bunk.
It's the typical situation where the data says one thing but the researchers twist it to say something else. Anyone who analyzes the data themselves will easily see that but most people just read the headlines and assume it's true.
They might even be getting it completely reversed. Bigger companies get hit with the quotas, so more successful businesses may potentially have to promote women.
So, success attracts women, not women create success. Sounds accurate in general, actually.
Hmm, let's just take a little look at the metrics they chose, shall we? First off, ROE -- return on equity -- varies wildly between different industries. Because of this comparing any company's ROE versus the all company average is really only serves to show how capital intensive its industry group is. If 'women led' companies score higher on this metric it only means that they are concentrated in less capital intensive industries such as retail or tech versus utilities or mining, for example. But the article doesn't seem to mention anything about this. How odd.
A lower weighted cost of capital to women led companies is easily explained by the ESG incentives themselves where governments or private entities give preference (lower borrowing rates) to such companies.
Similarly, stock valuation of women led companies are likely to outperform under an ESG regime that directly incentivizes investment in such companies or discourages investment in their competitors. For example, under this regime many large investment funds such as government pensions may ONLY invest in companies with 'appropriate' ESG scores. On top of this there are now many active and passive investment instruments which track high ESG score companies and as such serve to buoy their stock prices.
So in summary what we've got here is some simple 'how to lie with statistics' combined with predictable effects of the ESG movement itself. What a surprise.
And then there's this little gem at the end:
In Asia, meanwhile, companies with a greater proportion of women in management outperformed those with a lesser proportion by 29% over a five-year period, according to BofA’s analysis. Since 2010, these companies have, on average, had higher ROE, better environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, rankings, and a lower weighted average cost of capital.
Soooo... companies that have more female leadership (thus bumping up their ESG score) have a higher ESG score! Shocking, right?
"ESG executive investigated ESG system and found ESG to be better at everything than less ESG compliant systems."
Snark out of the way, it is difficult to believe people who say their system is better when they hide their methods and data behind a curtain. Show us your numbers! They may not lie, but you surely would, especially as the Head of U.S. ESG Strategy at the Bank of America. ESG cheerleading, for all intents and purposes, is the point of that position.
While it's true that women are more risk adverse than men on average so less willing to risk a lot for possible profits, this is offset by the costs of them more trying to micromanage and effectively 'mother' in the office than just focusing at the designated tasks at hand.
The few women I've worked with (I'm lucky in that I've mostly worked with Tomboys all my life) have all admitted to me they prefer working in a male office than a female led office because women get petty on little things to the point it develops grudges while guys will get it out of their system quickly and get back to work very quickly.
You'd think companies would do [thing] by themselves if the numbers were that great.
But you still need to threaten them with not giving them money if they don't do [thing]
Makes you think, no?
Rain and mud, then.
A woman from the Wharton school of business did a meta study of all the "more women = better outcomes" studies and found it was all bunk.
It's the typical situation where the data says one thing but the researchers twist it to say something else. Anyone who analyzes the data themselves will easily see that but most people just read the headlines and assume it's true.
They might even be getting it completely reversed. Bigger companies get hit with the quotas, so more successful businesses may potentially have to promote women.
So, success attracts women, not women create success. Sounds accurate in general, actually.
hiring women for the sake of having a vagina on the board doesn't magically make more money.
it's the same shit with affirmative action in schools... they don't magically become qualified just by being present.
'The FAGMAN group hasn't fallen below the competition yet, so ESG is still winning! Never mind that we've lose billions, we're still number one!'
Hmm, let's just take a little look at the metrics they chose, shall we? First off, ROE -- return on equity -- varies wildly between different industries. Because of this comparing any company's ROE versus the all company average is really only serves to show how capital intensive its industry group is. If 'women led' companies score higher on this metric it only means that they are concentrated in less capital intensive industries such as retail or tech versus utilities or mining, for example. But the article doesn't seem to mention anything about this. How odd.
A lower weighted cost of capital to women led companies is easily explained by the ESG incentives themselves where governments or private entities give preference (lower borrowing rates) to such companies.
Similarly, stock valuation of women led companies are likely to outperform under an ESG regime that directly incentivizes investment in such companies or discourages investment in their competitors. For example, under this regime many large investment funds such as government pensions may ONLY invest in companies with 'appropriate' ESG scores. On top of this there are now many active and passive investment instruments which track high ESG score companies and as such serve to buoy their stock prices.
So in summary what we've got here is some simple 'how to lie with statistics' combined with predictable effects of the ESG movement itself. What a surprise.
And then there's this little gem at the end:
Soooo... companies that have more female leadership (thus bumping up their ESG score) have a higher ESG score! Shocking, right?