RE:RE:RE:RE:The Caisse and other institutions continue to bailThat's probably just BS, Experienced. MONEY is the reason fund managers invest where they do.
When I say Money, that does not necessarily mean money for the fund, it could also mean money for themselves maybe or "perks".
It's rare for SHAREHOLDERS to "control" what company CEOs do. Even to vote, shareholders can only vote on what CEOs decide on, if shareholders even given opportunity to vote.
All just my opinion/veiw/thinking
Experienced wrote: Obscure1 wrote: Yes.
"Caisse de dpt et placement du Qubec says it will divest all of its oil investments by next year as part of the pension plan's plan to help combat climate change by cutting its carbon footprint in half by 2030. The province's public pension fund unveiled its climate change strategy on Tuesday.Sept 28, 2021"
A number of American funds also indicated last year that they intended to exit oil.
Funds can get stuck between a rock and a hard place when the political landscape shifts. When cash withdrawals exceed expectations, funds can become exposed due to liquidity issues.
Rather than seeing investors flee with their money, which might be irreversible, funds will do just about anything to keep the funds "in house". Hence the "divesting oil" decrees.
Once a fund makes a public announcement, they are pretty much stuck with the decision.
The funds that have been exiting oil have actually been lucky in that the price oil and therefore the shares in oil companies have risen dramatically. It could have been really ugly for companies that announced that they were getting out of oil if oil prices had sagged.
SU was an early adopter of aggressively using its NCIB to pick up tens of millions of cheap shares. If I remember correctly, SU's average cost of purchasing about 86 million shares via its NCIB in 2021 was about $28 per share. At the time, a number of posters on this thread were whining about how SU was wasting its money buying back shares instead of raising the dividend. Hmmm.
I find all this very interesting.
Back in the day before I retired when I was still in the investment business, I recall being part of a meeting with the manager of one of the so-called Ethical Funds. This class of funds pitched the concept that they would only invest in companies that were socially responsible and hence they didn't invest in such things as tobacco companies.
Prior to the meeting, I did a bit of homework and looked at what the Fund had as investments and lo and behold I found that they were invested in so-called unethical companies!! Me being me (my wife has less kinder words...lol) I took the opportunity to ask him why they had holding in such companies.
His response is why I am posting now. He said that in some cases, they take a significant holding in such companies to have a voice in changing what the company is doing in order for the company to stop doing the bad things (from their perspective) that the company is doing. So when the Caisse says it is getting out in effort to move the world to a cleaner less carbon centric world, they might be wiser to think about what they are doing through the lense of the Fund manager I referred to above.