Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
ICLN (global renewables), PORTX (global quality, heavy U.S. & Europe, no fossil fuels), and PCEBX (Pimco climate bond, acts like a slightly lower vol core bond fund). Don't own any of them now except a fraction of 1% in ICLN to watch for a buying opp'ty.
Thanks for the query @rono. I really like BIAWX as a sustainable growth fund. As I am a plant-based food eater, I am concerned about how conventional food production may be harmful to us and to the planet. No meat, no dairy, no chemicals if possible, whole foods preferred. A new ETF, KROP, holds companies engaged in innovative ways to produce food. That strikes me as a “green” initiative and so I own a slice of that pie. FIW, another holding, invests in companies involved in water production and conservation, in the broadest possible way. Delivering water and conserving it are surely a significant part of going “green” I don’t own any funds with ESG or similar terms in their names or mandates. Best of luck in your search.
I second @Ben WP's selection of BIAWX. I've held it a little over 3 years now. I am also invested in some solar stocks: ENPH, SPWR and a little bit of RUN. I use FAN an ETF devoted to wind power. I have been in and out of ICLN but I'm out for now.
@rono: there’s a brand-new ETF, MOTE, the VanEck Morningstar ESG Moat ETF. It tracks the M* US Sustainability Moat Focus Index. The original MOAT fund in this series has done great, while the derivatives (MOTI, GOAT, etc) are less successful.
Thanks for that link, @Mark. Very perceptive view of ESG investing and whether or not buying “good” companies or funds actually does any good or leads to higher returns.
Thanks for that link, @Mark. Very perceptive view of ESG investing and whether or not buying “good” companies or funds actually does any good or leads to higher returns.
@BenWP - seems like there's always been a tagline about one SRI or ESG investing option or another, on the order of "doing well while doing good." ESG, though, is fundamentally just another layer of risk assessment and avoidance; corporations just aren't built for "doing good."
I once stumbled into a short editing job with an ESG, mainly E, fund when they were redoing their web site. I asked about some phrasing about sustainable investing that I thought was a little odd, and the answer from a co-manager was "There is no such thing as a sustainable corporation." What he meant in their case was that they invested in companies that had some arguably sustainable policies, not that the companies themselves were overall "good" in any sense.
In the Wealthtrack interview with Chuck Royce (posted here on MFO), he had an interesting response to a question from Consuelo about whether he was an ESG fan or not -- and his response was that all of it is part of his process, and it should be the norm for funds to adopt ESG measures, because it's just due diligence ... and it sounded like he thought it wouldn't even need to be highlighted if fund managers were doing their jobs.
Just completed BUYs on 1/2 of intended holding of FDRV, Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021.
@stillers : Were you buying on the dip ? Also is this a long term hold ? Derf
FDRV just incepted on 10/07/21 so our first BUYs of it were not driven by the recent Dip in the overall markets. This we saw as a separate opportunity.
That said, coincidentally, its inception date was right around the time we were pulling UP from the recent overall market Dip. FDRV did NOT have the same overall market move during the first BUY period.
I've noted on the Fido board that FDRV and PAWZ (which we've also just done the same thing with) are two ETFs that we believe will perform well going forward a LONG ways. We plan to make each ~2.5% of total port to collectively comprise ~5% of our total port in our "Explore" sleeve (which is about 10% of the total port).
We had conversely been watching PAWZ for a while and it had Dipped recently. We decided to take the first plunge on it close to its Dip lows in early Oct when we BOT FDRV.
So yes, we very much plan both of these as LT HOLDs. Being "Explore" sleeve holdings though, LT does not mean "until they plant us" (Thanks, Dick) like it does in our "Core."
I agree with the given caveat, not only in this context but generally, "For any variable, no matter how intuitive and obvious its connection to value might be, to generate 'excess' returns, you have to consider whether it has been priced in already."
I strongly disagree with the statement that "Milton Friedman, the bête noire of ESG advocates, would stand vindicated, and companies would do good, because it made them more profitable and valuable." Friedman, like most economists, ignored behavioral economics and started with the assumption that actors are rational. If businesses acted rationally there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws.
If businesses were focused on long term results and not quarterly profits, they would invest in producing less waste (saving material costs). They would plan better for having to pay for the pollution that they emitted in the past "for free".
That said, fund sponsors also tend to focus on what's currently hot. Like electric, self-driving cars, "FDV ... Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021."
Vehicles, Future Transportation - that's not just cars, though you wouldn't know it from this fund. Efficient transportation? That's mass transit.
while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.
Where are the investments in electric rail, in fully automated (GoA level 4) systems? For example,
“[Siemens Mobility's] state of the art CBTC signaling at GoA 4 [for the Bangalore Metro] will allow trains to operate driverless, as they will be automatically controlled and supervised without any onboard intervention. This will deliver a truly modern system featuring superior availability, reliability and passenger experience.”
GoA 4 is also termed as an Unattended Train Operation (UTO) system. Therefore, the safe departure of the train from a station, including door closing, must be done automatically. The UTO system can detect and manage the hazardous conditions and emergency conditions by introducing guideway intrusion detection, platform, and onboard CCTV, etc. UTO is only possible for systems with GoA 4.
That said, fund sponsors also tend to focus on what's currently hot. Like electric, self-driving cars, "FDV ... Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021."
Um, yeah, and I'm kinda thinking EVs and Future Transportation are a wee bit more than just the next "hot" investment idea. I'm kinda thinkin' EV's (and whatever else comes next/with them) are gonna be a HUGE part of the LT future of transportation. To wit, CA and 2035 legislation.
Regardless, it's the play we've made and a green idea for others to consider. Take it or leave it.
Um, yeah, and I'm kinda thinking EVs and Future Transportation are a wee bit more than just the next "hot" investment idea. I'm kinda thinkin' EV's (and whatever else comes next/with them) are gonna be a HUGE part of the LT future of transportation. To wit, CA and 2035 legislation.
I don't doubt that. What I question is how green it is (which is the topic of this thread). Adding lots of cars, regardless of their source of power, is an inefficient way to transport people. The second largest equity holding (4.88%) is Uber. Lyft is not far behind at 2.59%.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ride-hailing trips today result in an estimated 69 percent more climate pollution on average than the trips they displace. In cities, ride-hailing trips typically displace low-carbon trips, such as public transportation, biking, or walking. Uber and Lyft could reduce these emissions with a more concerted effort to electrify its fleet of vehicles or by incentivizing customers to take pooled rides, the group recommends.
“However, those strategies alone will address neither the increases in vehicle miles traveled nor rising congestion concerns,” the report says. “For ride-hailing to contribute to better climate and congestion outcomes, trips must be pooled and electric, displace single-occupancy car trips more often, and encourage low-emissions modes such as mass transit, biking, and walking.” ... A more systemic effort to address climate pollution has yet to emerge from either Uber or Lyft. And the solutions they’ve proposed so far are unlikely to address the core problem with ride-hailing: it is often more convenient and less expensive than other, less-polluting transportation options.
Here's an October 2021 op-ed piece going though the myriad of broken green "pledges" by Uber and Lyft: NYTimes original (with embedded links), SF Examiner reprint (free w/o links)
Aside from their green failures, the piece also notes:
Lyft’s president, John Zimmer, once claimed the majority of rides would be in autonomous vehicles by 2021, but the company has largely backed away from its self-driving efforts, including selling its developmental unit to a Toyota subsidiary this year. Uber, which once characterized robot cars as “existential” to its future, sold off its autonomous vehicle division last year after mounting safety and cost concerns.
(Not relevant to the question of green investing, but it is relevant to the ETF's stated strategy of investing in companies "engaged in the production of electric and/or autonomous vehicles".)
Since others here have mentioned ESG, and you suggested looking at California statutes, one can hardly mention Uber and Lyft without also mentioning Prop 22. IMHO fortunately the courts just overturned it (thus moving closer to restoring employee rights and protections to Uber and Lyft drivers). https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/can-anyone-stop-the-uberization-of-the-economy.html
Yes, that's it. Fidelity's EV and Future Transportation ETF. You can find the its daily holdings here (click on the Daily Holdings Report tab).
Though we don't quite know what's in the index it tracks, since the index is proprietary and the fund "Normally invest[s] at least 80% of assets in securities included in the Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation Index℠ and in depositary receipts representing securities included in the index."
Also FWIW, and it may be worth plenty to anyone considering or actually BUYing FDRV...
FDRV is a brand new relatively, lightly traded ETF. It is (mysteriously?) UP 4.92% pre-market on a coupla hundred shares traded.
Just a WAG here, but looks like a single BUYer may have entered a Market order and got taken to the cleaners/woodshed. As an owner of FDRV, hoping it's something other than that, but...
Moral: HIGHLY suggest using ONLY Limit orders on FDRV given its daily trading volume.
EDIT_1: FDRV opened UP ~1%. Looks like some poor (pun intended) got burned on their pre-mrkt BUY.
EDIT_3: Yeah, RE E_1...looks like FDRV BUYers are getting burned/today with their market orders, as it whiphaws between UP ~0.50% to ~3.0% during markets hours. Having owned it from near its inception date earlier this month, have not seen anything like this on any previous trading day so far. Noted that volume is heavy on it today, 38K shares traded by 11:30 AM with avg daily volume 40K.
Comments
Yep, wear the damn mask.
Darn straight you WTDM.
Aemetis
The ESG Movement: The 'Goodness' Gravy Train Rolls On
Link: An Unusually Honest Evaluation of Climate Change
For non-subscribers, it's a free read.
I once stumbled into a short editing job with an ESG, mainly E, fund when they were redoing their web site. I asked about some phrasing about sustainable investing that I thought was a little odd, and the answer from a co-manager was "There is no such thing as a sustainable corporation." What he meant in their case was that they invested in companies that had some arguably sustainable policies, not that the companies themselves were overall "good" in any sense.
In the Wealthtrack interview with Chuck Royce (posted here on MFO), he had an interesting response to a question from Consuelo about whether he was an ESG fan or not -- and his response was that all of it is part of his process, and it should be the norm for funds to adopt ESG measures, because it's just due diligence ... and it sounded like he thought it wouldn't even need to be highlighted if fund managers were doing their jobs.
Best, AJ
https://screener.fidelity.com/ftgw/etf/goto/snapshot/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=FDRV&type=o-NavBar
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/fdrv
Derf
That said, coincidentally, its inception date was right around the time we were pulling UP from the recent overall market Dip. FDRV did NOT have the same overall market move during the first BUY period.
I've noted on the Fido board that FDRV and PAWZ (which we've also just done the same thing with) are two ETFs that we believe will perform well going forward a LONG ways. We plan to make each ~2.5% of total port to collectively comprise ~5% of our total port in our "Explore" sleeve (which is about 10% of the total port).
We had conversely been watching PAWZ for a while and it had Dipped recently. We decided to take the first plunge on it close to its Dip lows in early Oct when we BOT FDRV.
So yes, we very much plan both of these as LT HOLDs. Being "Explore" sleeve holdings though, LT does not mean "until they plant us" (Thanks, Dick) like it does in our "Core."
Derf
Note there is also a discussion of FDRV on the Fido board in case you are interested. It's invitation only there and it's currently down.
My comments over there about this are on the "PAWZ" thread.
I strongly disagree with the statement that "Milton Friedman, the bête noire of ESG advocates, would stand vindicated, and companies would do good, because it made them more profitable and valuable." Friedman, like most economists, ignored behavioral economics and started with the assumption that actors are rational. If businesses acted rationally there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws.
If businesses were focused on long term results and not quarterly profits, they would invest in producing less waste (saving material costs). They would plan better for having to pay for the pollution that they emitted in the past "for free".
That said, fund sponsors also tend to focus on what's currently hot. Like electric, self-driving cars, "FDV ... Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021."
Vehicles, Future Transportation - that's not just cars, though you wouldn't know it from this fund. Efficient transportation? That's mass transit. https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-electric-cars-why-we-also-need-to-focus-on-buses-and-trains-147827
Where are the investments in electric rail, in fully automated (GoA level 4) systems? For example, https://railway-news.com/siemens-mobility-wins-bangalore-metro-contract/ Global Automatic Train Control (GoA 1, GoA 2, GoA 3, GoA 4) Market Forecast to 2023 - ResearchAndMarkets.com (2019)
https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-businesswire/7dd0aca732d347389a6ab8d383ff18ff
Here's the updated report:
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5300830/global-autonomous-trains-market-2020-2030-by
Um, yeah, and I'm kinda thinking EVs and Future Transportation are a wee bit more than just the next "hot" investment idea. I'm kinda thinkin' EV's (and whatever else comes next/with them) are gonna be a HUGE part of the LT future of transportation. To wit, CA and 2035 legislation.
Regardless, it's the play we've made and a green idea for others to consider. Take it or leave it.
Here's an October 2021 op-ed piece going though the myriad of broken green "pledges" by Uber and Lyft: NYTimes original (with embedded links), SF Examiner reprint (free w/o links)
Aside from their green failures, the piece also notes: (Not relevant to the question of green investing, but it is relevant to the ETF's stated strategy of investing in companies "engaged in the production of electric and/or autonomous vehicles".)
Since others here have mentioned ESG, and you suggested looking at California statutes, one can hardly mention Uber and Lyft without also mentioning Prop 22. IMHO fortunately the courts just overturned it (thus moving closer to restoring employee rights and protections to Uber and Lyft drivers).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/can-anyone-stop-the-uberization-of-the-economy.html
Though we don't quite know what's in the index it tracks, since the index is proprietary and the fund "Normally invest[s] at least 80% of assets in securities included in the Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation Index℠ and in depositary receipts representing securities included in the index."
EDIT: For anyone considering this ETF, FDRV closed UP 2.6%, showing the impact of a 12.7% move UP in TSLA.
FDRV is a brand new relatively, lightly traded ETF. It is (mysteriously?) UP 4.92% pre-market on a coupla hundred shares traded.
Just a WAG here, but looks like a single BUYer may have entered a Market order and got taken to the cleaners/woodshed. As an owner of FDRV, hoping it's something other than that, but...
Moral: HIGHLY suggest using ONLY Limit orders on FDRV given its daily trading volume.
EDIT_1: FDRV opened UP ~1%. Looks like some poor (pun intended) got burned on their pre-mrkt BUY.
EDIT_2: Article on EVs:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/americans-are-buying-teslas-not-evs-heres-why-thats-about-to-change.html
EDIT_3: Yeah, RE E_1...looks like FDRV BUYers are getting burned/today with their market orders, as it whiphaws between UP ~0.50% to ~3.0% during markets hours. Having owned it from near its inception date earlier this month, have not seen anything like this on any previous trading day so far. Noted that volume is heavy on it today, 38K shares traded by 11:30 AM with avg daily volume 40K.
Be careful out there!