Ten Reasons Why ESG is Bad News for Investors.

November 15, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

Slowly, but steadily, more and more Americans are becoming familiar with the term ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance). This three-letter acronym is designed to veil a collectivist/fascist corporate approach to business that has been taking hold in publicly traded companies, mutual fund companies an rating agencies over the past decade. It stifles individual liberty, free market capitalism, and returns on investment.

Simply explained by its supporters, ESG is represented as being:

…a set of standards for a company’s behavior used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments.

Environmental criteria consider how a company safeguards the environment, including corporate policies addressing climate change, for example. Social criteria examine how it manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates. Governance deals with a company’s leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights.

One of the problems that conservatives have is their tendency to surrender language. That habit has played right into the hands of the little dictators from Blackrock and Vanguard who have been able to shove this collectivist approach to organizing economic activity right down America’s throat. After all, how can you argue against companies “setting standards” to be “socially conscious,” and using “social criteria” in deciding how they “manage relationships?” These things sound good to most people for one simple reason: They sound good!

The truth, however, is that this near-Orwellian doublespeak used by ESG advocates is nothing more than lipstick for the pig we all know as socialism (centralized planning, management, and oversight of political, social, and economic activity). For those inclined to think critically, here are ten good reasons why ESG policies are not at all what the flowery language of WEF-types suggest:

ESG deflects attention away from maximizing shareholder value:

When a company starts to make decisions based upon social engineering principles instead of principles relating to maximizing return on investment, they will by definition sacrifice the latter in service to the former.

If you want companies to move away from maximizing shareholder value, do you really believe that they will? The ESG paradox:

Since companies maximizing shareholder value has been the focus of free market capitalism since it was first truly unleashed during the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain during the 18^th century, do you really believe that when they say they are supporting ESG agendas they are stepping away from that traditional role? Herein lies a bit a of a paradox for investors to consider. If you really believe in ESG then you might want to take a lesser return on your investment in pursuit of serving the “general will.” But then you are left with the problem of trusting the company to really support your shared collectivist vision. What if they cheat?

ESG-reported compliance efforts can be used as an excuse for a company underperforming:

When does a bad company become a good company? The answer is when they can claim that their “badness” is simply a result of implementing ESG policies to serve the greater good. Management isn’t incompetent. Goods and services aren’t failing to offer customers what they want. Investment decisions weren’t badly made. The climate (like the Devil) made me do it!” What better corporate trick of the light can a C-suite have available than to tell shareholders that they aren’t making money but that they should feel really good about it?

Over time, investment funds comprised of ESG companies tend to underperform:

Writing for the Harvard Business Review back in March of this year, Sanjai Bhagat points out that ESG funds tend to lag in performance when compared to the market overall. Citing research from the University of Chicago using data from Morningstar, Bhagat writes that those researchers…

… analyzed the Morningstar sustainability ratings of more than 20,000 mutual funds representing over $8 trillion of investor savings. Although the highest-rated funds in terms of sustainability certainly attracted more capital than the lowest-rated funds, none of the high-sustainability funds outperformed any of the lowest-rated funds. Read that again – none of the high ESG funds outperformed the lowest rated, ie. less ESG funds. None!

When combined with the first three problems noted above, it is easy to draw the conclusion that corporate promotion of ESG initiatives creates opportunities for deception, obfuscation, and failure. None of those should be appealing to investors who can find the world of picking and choosing winners in the stock market difficult enough even when just considering traditional business metrics of success.

Addressing climate change lies at the heart of ESG policies but climate change science is anything but “settled”:

Whether it is the weather, warming, cooling, emissions, footprints, you name it, the idea that the concerns around “climate change” are settled science is a false one. We are told that hurricanes are occurring at a historic rate-not true. We are told that rising temperatures threaten our food supply-not true. We are told that CO2 emissions are per se threatening-not true. We are told that wind and solar can replace conventional energy sources-not true. There are credible scientists and inconvenient facts everywhere you look that refute virtually all claims that relate to climate and energy. These claims are fundamental to ESG corporate strategies. Said simply, ESG is built upon a bad foundation.

ESG can lead to neglecting necessary safety and maintenance issues:

Pacific Gas & Electric was the poster child for ESG-type policies, even before the term existed. They received top rankings from every environmental rating group you can imagine. The company claimed that over a third of its power came from renewables, which helped deliver a string of best-possible governance ratings from Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS).

That said the company’s track record over the past 20 years has included misleading regulators, felony convictions, and even contributing to the devastating California wildfires of 2017-18. PG&E has been a false flag in terms of its ESG compliance and is the perfect example of how the more self-righteous a C-suite sounds, the less righteous it is likely to act.

Companies that sign on to ESG-type commitments are some of the worst at meeting those objectives (hypocrisy in action):

In the same Harvard Business Review article cited earlier, Bhagat cites research to suggest that a company saying it will support ESG policies doesn’t necessarily translate into measurable or even positive action:

Researchers at Columbia University and the London School of Economics compared the ESG record of U.S. companies in 147 ESG fund portfolios and that of U.S. companies in 2,428 non-ESG portfolios. They found that the companies in the ESG portfolios had worse compliance records for both labor and environmental rules. They also found that companies added to ESG portfolios did not subsequently improve compliance with labor or environmental regulations.

If you think that ESG is truly important, then making your investment decision based upon a company’s stated objectives could bite you from two sets of teeth; poor returns and poor compliance.

ESG replaces a focus on innovation with a focus on compliance:

How can a company focus on finding what is “next” in terms of the best product or services when it is focused on eliminating Styrofoam from the breakroom and creating policies for the use of pronouns? The answer is that it can’t, at least to the extent that it would be it not concerned with the trivial and mundane.

When you think you are doing something “good” by investing in an ESG company, you are ignoring being serious about addressing long-term problems:

If you truly think that climate change is an issue and that reducing our collective carbon footprint is vital to not forcing the man to move to Mars in the next few decades, then do you really believe that the best way to effect change and cause action is how you buy and sell stocks in what can be called an investment after-market (remember that the vast majority of sticks being traded in the open market are traded between two entities-the company itself isn’t actually getting any money)?

Who are these masters of the universe to be telling us what is best about environmental, social, and governance policies anyway?

Any time you hear people say they are trying to do what is “right”, what serves the “greater good”, and what is “ethical and moral” you need to ask yourself (and them) to get specific. What is the “right” thing to do and who defines it? In serving the “greater” who is included in that category, who is left out, and who is deciding what is good for them? The ethical thing to do? What exact system of ethics are you using or are you just talking about things that please you?

This goes back to our surrender of language. We hear these kinds of terms from corporate titans and just take them at their face value because the words sound good. But you have to ask them and yourself, what do your words mean?

——

In 1970, Milton Friedman penned an essay for The New York Times titled “A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits.” He argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only commitment is its shareholders. Times have changed…or have they? Given the uncertainty of today’s financial climate and all of the inherent contradictions contained with corporate ESG policies, your best choice is to work with a politically conservative financial planner who shares your values and can help make sure your focus remains on ROI and not ESG.

So, I would ask your broker these questions:

Does your firm support ESG? Why?

Are any of my funds in ESG investments?

Since it’s hard to completely avoid ESG and since ESG negatively affects my rate of return, what are you doing to minimize the amount in my account?

For more questions to ask your broker and how to minimize the amount of ESG in your account contact Bob Rubin from Rubin Wealth Advisors today.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

Bank of “America” Is Anything But

June 27, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

Bank Of “America” Is Anything But

Rubin Wealth Advisors, in conjunction with American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF) has identified the ten worst companies for political conservatives (or patriots) to invest in. Investors can’t completely avoid placing their funds into all woke companies, but they can avoid investing in the worst offenders.

Announcing “Rubin’s Bottom 10”

Let’s get to #2 on the list

We typically think of government and business as competing, adversarial sides in the United States. The concept of “good guys” and “bad guys” is oversimplified, but people like it. Socialism sees government as good and business as bad, while conservatism sees the opposite.

What role does the bank, America’s financial middleman, play in a binary paradigm? For the past few decades, the answer has been easy. With very few exceptions, banks and bankers are agents of the government because of their highly regulated operations and the consolidation in the industry over the past 20 years. Merrill Lynch, and its wholly-owned subsidiary Bank of America, Corp (NYSE-BAC), are more zealous agents.

Being an agent of the government in these times means being an agent of wokeness. Bank of America made it to near the top (or bottom if you look at it that way) of our list of companies in which conservatives should not invest because they are fully woke in every possible way. It has impacted their external and internal practices, and they do not even pretend to hide it.

Start with their woke policies to try to support the Marxist-inspired climate agenda. You don’t have to look at what outsiders are saying about BOA in this area, and you can just go right to the company’s website:

Building on our longstanding support for the Paris Climate Agreement, we have a goal to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in our financing activities, operations, and supply chain before 2050. Our Environmental Business Initiative will deploy and mobilize $1 trillion by 2030 to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, sustainable economy as part of a broader $1.5 trillion sustainable finance goal aligned to addressing the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our multi-year financing commitment provides financial capital, along with significant intellectual capital, to develop solutions to climate change and other environmental challenges.

BOA Supports Marxist Agenda

To make certain you don’t miss the significance of this, BOA is going to
deliberately lend money to support a Marxist agenda. They will pick winners and losers in the marketplace based upon their willingness to fall in line with the World Economic Forum and the Paris Climate Accords as opposed to just looking at the overall strength of the company borrowing money. This is centralized planning. This is the government controlling us dressed in an often ill-fitting blue pinstriped suit.

Switching from geographic climate to human climate, BOA has instituted employee training for the purpose of integrating critical race theory ideas into their corporate environment. As was reported in the New York Post last year, BOA has encouraged to get “woke at work,” and to that end, has created a curriculum that includes teaching how white supremacy ideas can be found even in preschool-age children:

BOA Officially Hates White People

In the first day of the training, Bank of America teaches employees how race is used to establish and justify systems of power, privilege, and discrimination.

The training program illustrates that white people live with white-skin privileges regardless of their socioeconomic status. White toddlers are implicated in white supremacy by age 3 to 5 and must be actively taught to reject white privilege smog.

The Post story further reported that:

Bank of America immerses employees in full-spectrum CRT, not least framing all white people as oppressors and all racial minorities as irreproachable. “Racism in America idolizes white physical features and white values as supreme over those of others,” the program says. As a result of being part of the “dominant culture,” whites are more likely to “have a more limited imagination,” “experience fear, anxiety, guilt or shame,” “contribute to racial tension, hatred, and violence,” and “react in broken ways.”

Ironically, BOA has decided to officially hate White people considering that it was originally formed by Italian immigrants who were hated and unable to get bank
credit.

Nations 2nd Largest Bank

This is the nation’s 2nd largest bank controlling over $2 trillion in assets,
deliberately creating an internal culture of hatred all the while they are attempting to virtue signal. It is perhaps the most egregious example of the pure evil of corporate wokeism that can be pointed to within any major U.S. Corporation.

Then again, BOA is not much more than an extension of the federal government. Their C-suite and HR people come to work daily wearing a bracelet that says WWBD? (What Would Biden Do).

Not content to stop with CRT, BOA also announced in 2019 that it would dedicate$1.25 billion of investment into minority programs in response to what has been a fabricated narrative about increased hate crimes against Asians. In making the announcement, BOA explained the decision by writing:

The urgency we feel to address longstanding issues of inclusion and
racial inequality has only increased following the attacks and hate
speech directed at Asian people over the last year,” said Bank of
America Chairman and CEO Brian Moynihan. “Across the public and
private sectors, it is clear that we must do more – to take action, help
others convene, and serve as a catalyst for a broad-based, collective
response to the critical issues affecting our nation.”

These examples illustrate BOA’s woke practices regarding climate and race, either one of which on their own would be a good reason for conservatives to steer their investment dollars in a different direction. When taken together, they make an irrefutable argument to “walk away from BOA (catchy?).”

But in the words of rocker Jon Bon Jovi in the classic song, Bad Medicine, “Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I’m not done.”

BOA Stepping into the Woke Realm

BOA also has stepped into the woke realm by making it clear that they want people to be able to enter this country illegally. Perhaps this is profit-driven as they might want to charge fees for low-wage illegal workers cashing their paychecks, or perhaps it is just more virtue signaling.

Fox News reported in 2019 that BOA was going to divest in companies that provided private prison and immigration detention services to the federal government and to states and counties. These firms have been objected to by pro-illegal immigration groups because, well, they detain people entering the country illegally.

If I have this straight, BOA first teaches its citizen employees to hate themselves and each other, but then it tells everyone that they love people who aren’t citizens? Confusing? Not to BOA executives. They know exactly what they are doing. They are trying to divide and dilute our country so they can more easily conquer it.

For a conservative investor, BOA is no longer worth their money. This organization is as sinister as one can possibly be. BOA might be “too big to fail” financially, but they have not been too big to fail as an American corporation. They and the people that work for them are a disgrace.
They are not worthy of your dollars. Make one final withdrawal from BOA stock and close your account.

Ps. Note BOA owns Merrill Lynch. That means if you make your trade to divest in BOA stock using your Merrill account, you are still making money for BOA on the exit. Best to close that account, too. I know just where you can go for an orderly transition.

To read the next article in this series, click here.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

Active vs Passive Investing

December 7, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

There are two ways to put your money to work in the markets: passive and active. Both use standard benchmarks like the S&P 500 to measure their success, but dynamic investing tries to beat the benchmark while passive investing attempts to match it.

What does “active investing” mean?

Active investing is a strategy that involves buying and selling stocks often, usually intending to get better returns than the average index. It’s what you think of when you envision traders on Wall Street, though nowadays, you can do it from the comfort of your smartphone using apps like Robinhood.

Bob Rubin, an investment advisor and senior partner at Rubin Wealth Advisors, a financial planning firm in Boca Raton, Fl, says that investing usually requires a high level of market analysis and expertise to determine the best time to buy or sell investments.

You can invest actively on your own or hire professionals to do it for you through actively managed mutual funds and traded funds (ETFs). These provide you with a ready-made portfolio of hundreds of investments.

Active fund managers look at a lot of information about each investment in their portfolios. This includes both quantitative and qualitative information about security and the market and economic trends. Managers use this information to buy and sell assets to take advantage of short-term price changes and keep the fund’s asset allocation on track.

Without that constant attention, it’s easy for even the most meticulously designed, actively managed portfolio to fall prey to volatile market fluctuations and rack up short-term losses that may impact long-term goals.
Most investors should avoid active investing, especially regarding their long-term retirement savings.

Pros of investing actively

Flexibility in volatile markets. “In down markets, the active investor can move to a defensive position or hold, like cash or government bonds, to avoid huge losses,” says Brian Stivers, an investment adviser and founder of Stivers Financial Services in Knoxville, Tennessee. In the same way, investors can change their portfolios to hold more stocks in growing markets. By reacting to real-time market conditions, they can beat the performance of market benchmarks like the S & P 500, at least in the short term.

Trading options have grown. Active investors can use trading strategies like hedging with options or shorting the stock to make windfalls that increase their chances of beating market indexes. But these can also significantly increase the costs and risks of active investing, so they are best left to professionals and investors with a lot of experience.

Tax management. Active investing allows an intelligent financial advisor or portfolio manager to make trades that offset gains for tax purposes. This is called “harvesting tax losses.” Even though you can use tax-loss harvesting with passive investing, active investment strategies may offer more opportunities and make it easier to avoid the wash-sale rule because they involve more trading.

If you’re more interested in achieving financial gains instead of perpetuating underperforming woke strategies, call Rubin Wealth Advisors to speak to a professional with the same moral values as you.

Active investing has some drawbacks.

There is an increase in costs. Stocks and ETFs are no longer subject to trading fees at most brokerage firms. There may be fees associated with more complex trading strategies that use derivatives. If you invest in actively managed funds, you’ll pay high fees. Actively managed funds had an average expense ratio of 0.71 percent as of 2020.

Added Risk. If correct, active investors can make a significant amount of money but if you make the wrong call, then the opposite is also true. Using borrowed money, or margin, to purchase an investment can cause huge gains and losses if it moves in the opposite direction.

Trend exposure. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and follow active investing trends, whether meme stocks or exercise fads related to pandemics. Think about the investor who decided to join the movement of working out at home and bought Peloton (PTON) on January 4, 2021, for $145. Since the pandemic is almost over, that stock is worth less than $10 as of July 2022. Investing based on trends can take time to tell if you’re at the end of the movement or if there’s still room for growth.

How does passive investing work?

The goal of passive investing is to buy assets and keep them for a long time. It’s best described as a hands-off approach: you choose security and then hold on through ups and downs with a long-term goal like retirement in mind.

Passive strategies usually involve buying shares of index funds or ETFs that try to match the performance of major market indexes like the S&P 500 or Nasdaq Composite. The active approach tends to focus on individual stocks. You can buy shares of these funds through any brokerage account or a Robo-advisor.

Passive investing doesn’t need to be looked at every day because it’s a “set it and forget it” method that only tries to match the performance of the market. This means fewer transactions and much lower fees, especially regarding money. Because of this, financial advisors often recommend it for retirement savings and other investment goals.

Pros of Passive Investing

Lower cost. Passive investing can lower costs for individual investors because there are fewer trades. Also, passively managed funds have lower expense ratios than most actively managed funds because they don’t have to do as much research or work. In 2020, the average cost of passive mutual funds was 0.06%, while the average price of passive ETFs was 0.18%.

You have less risk. Because passive strategies focus on funds, you usually put your money into hundreds or thousands of stocks and bonds. This makes it easy to spread your money around and lowers the chance that one lousy investment will ruin your whole portfolio. If you do your own active investing and don’t diversify enough, one terrible stock could wipe out many of your gains.

Transparency. When you invest passively, you get what you see. The index your fund follows is often part of its name, and it will never invest in anything else. On the other hand, actively managed funds sometimes provide a different level of transparency. A lot is up to the manager’s discretion, and some techniques may even be kept from the public to maintain a competitive edge.

Higher average returns. When investing for the long term, passive funds of all kinds almost always give higher returns. Over 20 years, about 90% of index funds tracking companies of all sizes outperformed their active counterparts. According to the latest S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) report from S&P Dow Jones Indices, even over three years, more than half of them did.

What’s wrong with passive investing?

It doesn’t stand out. If you want the excitement of seeing a single stock’s price go up quickly and skyrocket, passive investing can’t compare.

In lousy bear markets, there is no way to get out. Stivers warns that passive investing has no way out during big market drops because it is made for the long term. Even though the market has always bounced back after a correction, there’s no guarantee it will do so quickly this time. This is one reason why it’s essential to change your asset allocation from time to time over a long period. So, as you get closer to the end of your investing time frame and have less time to recover from a market drop, you can make your portfolio more conservative.

Should You Choose an Active Fund or Style of Investing?

Since passive investing offers higher returns and lower costs over the long term, you might wonder if active investing has any place in the average investor’s portfolio. The answer may be yes for some types of investors.

Keeping your money safe

Stivers says that active investing strategies could help investors who care more about keeping their money than making more of it. For example, someone close to retirement who doesn’t have time to recover from significant losses or who wants to build a steady income instead of seeing steady long-term capital gains might do well with an active strategy.

Strategies that work together

Bob says that active and passive investments don’t have to be opposites and that a mix of the two could work well for many investors.
During a bull market, investors with both active and passive holdings can use their active portfolios to protect against downturns in their passive portfolios. A combination approach can also give investors peace of mind, knowing that their passive, long-term strategy (like retirement funds) is on autopilot. In contrast, their active, short-term approach (like a taxable brokerage account) lets them explore trends without putting their long-term goals at risk.

Bob says that active and passive investments don’t have to be opposites and that a mix of the two could work well for many investors.

During a bull market, investors with both active and passive holdings can use their active portfolios to protect against downturns in their passive portfolios. A combination approach can also give investors peace of mind, knowing that their passive, long-term strategy (like retirement funds) is on autopilot. In contrast, their active, short-term approach (like a taxable brokerage account) lets them explore trends without putting their long-term goals at risk.

If you’re more interested in achieving financial gains instead of perpetuating underperforming woke strategies, call Rubin Wealth Advisors to speak to a professional with the same moral values as you.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

What Sports Car Racing Taught Me About Business

January 24, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

What Sports Car Racing Taught Me About Business

What if I told you that running a business and car racing is almost identical? Most people do not know that car racing is one of my passions. You might not know that when I was a kid, I used to drag race cars and race Motocross. A few years back, I was on the pit crew for Starworks Motorsports. Because I did not move as fast as I used to, I wouldn’t be one of those guys you see jumping over the wall. Instead, I did lollipop. Lollipop? The sign looks like a lollipop! The lollipop guy holds the sign to stop the car coming into the pits at the exact right spot, so my pit crew can fuel the car, change tires, and/or do a driver change. After I get the car to stop, I hand a tire to a member of my crew and then I pull an air hose back over the wall. All this happens in less than 40 seconds. It is a tightly choreographed process. If a mistake is made in the pits you can lose a race.

Why does all this matter? I have come to realize how car racing and running a business both require a highly coordinated team to succeed. It is not a one-man band. Like race car drivers, business owners are confident in taking risks because of the team they have behind them. Business owners wear many hats; many times, we deal with the financial gains and risks of owning a business. Like driving a race car, owning a business is for the hard worker, risk-taker, and visionary. Their lives and our livelihoods are at risk. Performances by the team have the most significant impacts on us from the eyes of our fans or clients. To succeed, our teams need to know the goals and be motivated to reach the finish line.

As proven by the Chinese virus, a successful business does not pause, it adapts. A business owner must take the time to lead, manage, motivate to ensure that employees perform at their full potential. In racing, inadequately trained pit crews can result in wasted time where every second counts. The best teams are the ones that learn from their mistakes, improve their processes, and recover quickly. Even with the best pit crew, there is still a risk associated with being the driver. Like drivers, business owners take the highest risk, putting their blood, sweat, and tears into trying to win the race.

Confidence on the racetrack and in business is essential. The crew must be ready, motivated, and focused on doing the job. The driver must have confidence in the team. We cannot win the race alone and it is crucial to be completely confident in your teams’ ability to complete their task.

I want my team to know that they have my support and that I have confidence that we can succeed, whether it be securing a new client or winning a race. The employees and the pit crew can only do so much, but without trust and a leader in place, it is not easy to find the motivation to work as a team to get the job done.

My team should feel just as accomplished as I do when things go in the right direction. We all must celebrate our accomplishments together, just like how we learn from our mistakes together. The first person the driver hugs after he wins the race is his crew. Similarly, when things go well, we as owners thank and show appreciation to our employees first. It is surprising what people can do when they are a part of something bigger than themselves.

Although our hobbies can teach us all a few things about business, there are some things you WON’T learn, like some of the common money mistakes that business owners make.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

Biden Administration Threatens to Solve Supply Chain Problem

March 2, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

USA Being Threatened by Biden Administration Supply Chain Issues

Even with Joe Biden administration supply chain issues piling up. In his State of the Union Speech, he took credit for improving a few things inside the American economy that simply don’t pass the test of even a cursory fact check.

First, he talked about the number of jobs added in the economy last year as being a record 6.5 million. While that number is true, he ignored that fact that 9.5 million jobs were lost in the prior year due to the panic over the pandemic. Fewer people are working today than were during the boom years of the Trump Presidency.

Biden then mentioned that manufacturing jobs had increased by 359,000 last year. Unfortunately, according to data from his Bureau of Labor Statistics, that number was only 179,000 and, like the overall jobs number, fails to account for manufacturing jobs at pre-pandemic levels (note: the page with the DOL statistics has been temporarily taken down as of this writing).

Let’s give Uncle Joe the benefit of the doubt and assume that he just doesn’t understand economics as opposed to the inescapable alternative, that being he is simply lying. In generously presuming the ignorance of the President, let’s turn our attention to the much discussed, little understood, supply chain crisis and what government should, and shouldn’t, do about it.

Any businessperson has an almost inherent understanding of what the term “supply chain” means and what its function is in pathing the final delivery of goods and services to American citizens, for whom economics has created alternate terms of art in “ultimate consumer” or “end user.” While businesspeople understand the meaning of supply chain, they also understand that the supply chain itself is extraordinarily complex and not something that can be controlled by government in the manner that socialists like Joe Biden and his team tend to prefer.

Said differently, the socialists inside the Biden administration might be able to centrally manage and plan Uncle Joe’s day, but they can’t replicate the process for the supply chain. Only market mechanisms can build an effective supply chain and in order for those mechanisms to work, government has to stay out of the way.

Which brings us to the comedy-noir document released by the White House on February 24 titled, “The Biden-⁠Harris Plan to Revitalize American Manufacturing and Secure Critical Supply Chains in 2022.” The report starts by creating a nifty acronym for Biden’s team designed to centrally manage the supply chain, the SCDTF or Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force (The acronym’s absence of vowels makes me wonder if it was originally written in Hebrew).

After starting in true Soviet-style by telling Americans how glorious things have become in Mother America since Biden took office (using some of the same false data he cited in his SOTU) the report then shares the 12 steps (apologies to those in recovery for the sacrilege) that SCDTF plans to take to “fix” the supply chain crisis

Put the U.S. Economy on a Path Towards Long-Term Resilience Across Critical Supply Chains
Propose a new domestic manufacturing initiative through the Export-Import Bank to strengthen U.S. manufacturing exports.
Expand access to capital for small manufacturers
Advance the technological leadership of both small and large manufacturers
Leverage the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to move critical goods from ships to shelves faster and more affordably
Invest in sustainable domestic production and processing of critical minerals
Leverage the American Rescue Plan to jumpstart a more competitive, innovative, and resilient meat and poultry supply chain
Institutionalize Supply Chain Resilience Throughout the Federal Government (This is the only one they underlined. Must be really important)
Bolster the American manufacturing of critical goods through new reforms under the Buy American Act.
Fully establish a Defense Production Act Investment Program to build and expand the health resources industrial base
Bolster clean energy manufacturing through implementation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
Restore U.S. global leadership on supply chains

The problem with the SCDTF, aside from its clear lack of an inclusion policy for vowels, is all their “solutions” for supply chain problems focus on government intervention. Government intervention has CREATED the supply chain problem! Having SCDTF step in to solve supply chain issues has the familiar feel of the old military joke of “Today we dig the hole. Tomorrow we fill in the hole.”

The paradox is that since government has created the problem, government has to be part of solving the problem, and the way they can help solve the problem is by getting themselves out of the way of the market and let it solve the problem.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

Investing in Google is a Bad Idea

April 13, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

This is a countdown of the ten worst companies that conservative investors should avoid. While many or most of the Fortune 500 companies engage in “woke” corporate practices, some are more aggressive than others. Rubin Wealth Advisors, in conjunction with William Flaig, portfolio manager at American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF) has identified the ten of the worst companies.

Investors can’t completely avoid placing their funds into all woke companies, but they can avoid investing in the worst of the offenders.

Ten Woke Companies that Politically Conservative Investors Should Avoid:

10. Alphabet – GOOG

9. Starbucks – SBUX

8. Apple – AAPL

7. Amazon – AMZN

6. Comcast – CMCSA

5. AT&T – T

4. Nike – NKE

3. Meta (Facebook) – FB

2. Bank of America – BAC

1. Disney – $DIS

We are going to go more in-depth on all of these choices on a week-by-week basis. Subscribe to stay tuned!

Everyone knows who Google is, at least sort of. The search engine giant has become so popular it has turned itself from a company name into an actual verb (I Googled it.). Its name is also attached to advertising, smartphones, and digital payment wallets. Google is everywhere.

It is even in more places than you might think. Google is only one silo under the publicly traded company Alphabet (NASDAQ stock symbol). Alphabet also owns YouTube, Fitbit, Mandiant (cyber security), Looker (business intelligence software), Nest (smart home products), Waze (mobile navigation), and DoubleClick (that’s the advertising arm).

Alphabet has found a way to completely encircle the digital landscape. As an end user of virtually anything, it is nearly impossible to escape daily engagement with at least some portion of the Google empire. As an investor, however, it is easy to escape them and here are few reasons why you should.

YouTube has been a well noted suppressor of not just conservative political content, but also of content they deem to be “misinformation.” It has been this section of their five-part community guidelines that they have invoked to censor everything from reporting on 2020 election interference, to treatments for COVID-19, to factual reporting about Hunter Biden and his ties to corruption in Ukraine and China.
In 2020, Google blocked the conservative site, ZeroHedge, from receiving ad revenue because of its reporting on the Black Lives Matters’ riots. They also warned The Federalist that they could face the same fate for their reporting. Other sites and political celebrities have faced a similar fate. Advertising dollars are the lifeline for political content.
In 2018, Google fired engineer Kevin Cernekee for what Cernekee contends was expressing his conservative political beliefs. Also in 2018, former Google engineer James Damore filed a suit against Google alleging discrimination against white, male employees.
Countless conservative journalists have shared with me that Google suppresses search results for conservative information and resources. Routine queries that might be found on the first page of DuckDuckGo as an example, may not show on Google anywhere on the first 3-5 pages, if at all. Information found on Breitbart is particularly difficult to find in Google searches. This practice has been reported on in the WSJ and other publications.
In its 2019 acquisition of Fitbit, Alphabet gained access to health data for millions of users causing many to abandon their favorite wristlet. The company already collects data from users on their search history, YouTube viewing, and geographic location. The Fitbit acquisition only increases its reach.

It isn’t just that Alphabet accumulates lots of your personal data, it is that have demonstrated repeatedly that they are willing to actively suppress, which means attack, conservative content and the providers of that content. This makes them public enemy number one in terms of companies that should not receive the investment of conservative-earned dollars.

A publicly traded company that is so thoroughly woven throughout the mosaic of daily American lives cannot be supported in its efforts to deny fair access to at least half of the population. More important than its denial of access and its collection of information is their clearly demonstrated willingness to act punitively toward anyone who doesn’t support their woke agenda. Their power is significant. While Alphabet might like to consider itself an information company, they are more of a misinformation, disinformation, and missing information company when it comes to conservatives.

Don’t let Alphabet and its various-owned entities benefit from your investment dollars. There are other ways to find a good return in the marketplace. Just remember, that when you search for those alternative investments, don’t use Google. They likely will not direct your conservative dollars to the right location.

To read the next article in the series, click here.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

One Of The Top Investments I Would Make This Year (Updated for 2022)

December 15, 2021 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

One of the investments I would make this year (Updated for 2022)

It is going to take a bit longer for the Biden administration to realize that inflation may not be transitory and that it may not have peaked. Denial will not make inflation go away!

But while Uncle Joe may take a bit longer to realize that inflation is pulling the rug out from under our investments, I’m urging my clients to take action today!

While I’m recommending several asset classes that can help your portfolio during inflationary periods, there is one investment I’m recommending you purchase while it’s available in 2022:

The Series I Savings Bond

You might’ve just laughed, so why the Series I Savings Bonds?

The Series I Savings Bond is issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. They are inflation-protected and nearly risk-free investments that, through April 2022, are paying a 7.12% annual rate of interest.

7.12% interest risk-free? What’s the catch?

The catch is that there are two parts to a Series I Savings Bond’s returns: a fixed rate and a variable rate. Currently, the fixed rate is at zero percent and the variable rate, which changes every six months based on the Consumer Price Index, is at 7.12 percent.

This means that the bondholders may have rate changes twice a year.

The value of a Series I Savings Bond doesn’t decline, and rates won’t drop below zero. If inflation continues that rate may go up even further, so they make a great investment if you believe inflation is with us for the long-term.

I mention long-term because Series I Savings Bond investors can’t access the funds for 12 months, and if they redeem the bond within the first five years, they lose the last three months of interest.

How many of these bonds can I purchase?

One of the limitations of the Series I Savings Bond is that individual investors can’t buy more than $10,000 per year.

But there is a workaround – couples can purchase $10,000 each and a family of four can purchase up to $40,000 a year as long as they are in each individual’s name.

I eat my own cooking!

My family and I maxed out our Series I Savings bond purchases for December and we already maxed out our 2022 purchase….

…and there are several additional strategies I’m using to reallocate my family and clients’ portfolios in anticipation of continued inflation.

To find out, give me a call – (561) 288-1160

I’ll be happy to discuss how you can protect your portfolio from inflation, the Biden administration, and your current investment advisor who may not share your politically conservative beliefs.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

CEOs follow ESG guidelines despite not agreeing with the ESG raters about the long-term value of their companies.

November 14, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

ESG is good for the environment but bad for business.

Which one is it? This is the beginning of the straddle. On the one hand, most retail investors (and politicians from blue states) who buy ESG do so because they want to save the world.

They want strong policies, not just wise advice for CEOs about how to look out for their interests. But on the other hand, rating agencies know they can’t tell pension portfolio managers to ignore their fiduciary duty to investors.

It might look like there’s no way around this. But there’s a way out. What if we look at a company’s self-interest over the next 20 or 30 years? (When defending its most vague ESG rating criteria, BlackRock emphasizes the word “long term.”)

It’s okay if CEOs of companies and experts hired by rating agencies don’t know what the world will be like in 2050. But, also, think about this: Laws and rules that haven’t been made yet will be among the risks of that future world. The original U.N. document discusses “increasing pressure from civil society to improve performance, transparency, and accountability, which can lead to reputational risks if not handled properly.”

Here’s the bottom line. By saying that laws and rules that will be in place tomorrow are a risk to a company’s reputation today, ESG raters say they know how our democracy will decide on all these issues in the future.

CEOs follow ESG guidelines despite not agreeing with the ESG raters about the long-term value of their companies, but to avoid reputational risk. In this way, the ratings are self-reinforcing in a strange way. They don’t need a reason.

When CEOs of companies say that adopting ESG standards is in the long-term interests of shareholders, they are telling the truth. But, of course, shareholders lose when there is bad press. But, as Ramaswamy points out, if you follow that thinking, ESG is not much more than “a protection racket.”

Let’s move on to the next problem with a definition. Let’s say we agree with this project as a whole. We want to determine the company’s risks over the next few decades. This includes risks that come from public policy. So how do we even start something so big? How do we know what the world’s risks will be in 2050? And how do we know which risks investors have already priced in and which they haven’t?

You can’t, is the answer? These choices are made at random. These choices are made at random. According to the people who rate companies, Philip Morris (PMI) is not at risk from regulation because it sells 700 billion cigarettes annually.

MSCI has given Coca-Cola a AAA rating because the people who do the ratings think that, while methane emissions are a new health risk, obesity and type 2 diabetes are not.

And since we’re talking about methane, let’s talk about McDonald’s, which puts out a lot of greenhouse gases. The MSCI rating for McDonald’s was recently raised to BBB due to the company no longer worrying about climate change. However, some utilities that emit much less are graded much more harshly. S&P removed Tesla (TSLA) from its broad ESG index (SPXESUP) in May because of problems in the workplace. This was done even though the company was the world leader in getting drivers to stop using carbon-based fuel. Exxon (XOM) stays on the index, though. Hmm? How do the people who rate compare bad bosses to warmer earth? You can guess just as well as I can.

That’s something else. Why do big energy companies stay on so many ESG indexes if carbon emissions are the biggest problem? The raters like to compare firms to others in the same industry.

So if you’re Exxon and you’re better than Chevron, you get to stay in (CVX). This needs to be clarified. Risk is a risk. So what if that means the whole industry goes down? Why don’t raters have more courage? Simple. They want to keep most companies from all sectors in the ESG index so that their return is similar to that of the whole market. They only go after the last ones standing, probably to put “social pressure” on the industry by making it more competitive.

Even when teams of experts work hard, they often come to very different conclusions about how dangerous something is. So the rating agencies start with the concerns listed in the original U.N. report: environmental, social, and corporate governance issues.

But the ways they measure risks for each of these issues are very different. One study of six rating agencies found that they used 709 various measures of risk across 64 different categories. All six agencies only used 10 of these metrics.

Not surprisingly, the fact that there is no standard method means that ESG scores are very different depending on who makes them. Credit risk ratings from other agencies agree 99% of the time, but ESG ratings agree just over 50% of the time. S&P Global gave Credit Suisse a terrible 15% score for corporate governance in January. This was a long way behind competitors like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs. MSCI gave it a rating of A, which is about the same as the other two banks. Refinitiv was the least harsh, giving Credit Suisse an 81% score for governance.

Firms like Credit Suisse, which get a wide range of scores from different agencies, may be told to only talk about the best when they talk to investors or the general public.

Some companies may have fewer choices. And companies that want to be in the top-rated ESG ETFs may have to figure out how to do well on the MSCI index, which is used by most “green” funds now.

Lastly, let’s ignore all the problems with how these ESG ratings are calculated in terms of ideas and how they work in real life. Let’s say we could come up with a good, consistent score. What good would it do for society? That’s hard to answer. It gives big companies a big reason to eliminate “problem” operations.

Energy giants are selling off dirty refineries in the Middle East and Africa. Now, the Iraqi and Nigerian governments are in charge of these refineries. This doesn’t make the world much better. And some companies that have lost value because of the ESG stigma may decide to stay there as long as they don’t have any big plans for new capital expenditures. Many investors will be happy to buy them because the returns will be higher.

The best way to resolve this mess would be to get rid of ESG. The whole thing. Not only the “S” and “G,” but also the “E.” Businesses aim to make money for their investors in the long run. Usually, this mission serves the public interest.

When it doesn’t, the government (federal, state, or local, depending on the issue) is there to act in the public’s best interest. If, for example, you want companies to cut carbon emissions to help the people (to get rid of what economists call “negative externalities”), then do everything you can to pass a carbon tax. That’s clear, reasonable, open, and democratic. Everyone can talk about the issue, and then everyone can vote.

ESG, on the other hand, is indirect, doesn’t make sense, is hard to understand, and isn’t democratic at its core. It also messes up our government. Do we want to see different groups of blue and red states fighting over whose pension funds go to whose idea of how the future should be run?

It’s insane. Individual investors are free to think about what they want about where the world is going. And if you think we should be running things differently, you can try to change how we do things now. But if that doesn’t work, don’t force other people to invest the way you want them to.

If you’re more interested in achieving financial gains instead of perpetuating underperforming woke strategies, call Rubin Wealth Management to learn more.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

What Is Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)?

December 6, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

Investors, regulators, customers, and other stakeholders can evaluate a company’s environmental, social, and governance efforts based on measurable metrics. These metrics include the organization’s ability to assess risks and govern the organization transparently and its ability to support various communities.

A company should be able to demonstrate its commitment to these endeavors by analyzing its ESG. Depending on their industry and company, companies collect ESG data using guidelines or frameworks they believe are the most appropriate and relevant.

For example, retailers could assess, monitor, and engage their supply chain vendors as part of an ESG framework. “Retailers have global supply chains, and social media can be used to highlight risks or erode consumer trust. In a report, the National Retail Federation trade group stated that consumers, investors, and regulatory authorities expect retailers to mitigate ESG risks throughout their supply chains.

By comparing ESG data over time, companies can see if they have improved in their focus areas and how they compare to their peers. The information can then be shared as deemed appropriate by organizations. The data can then be shared as deemed appropriate by organizations.

Many choose to provide the data to ESG rating agencies, which can rate companies based on their research, whether or not a company has provided them with their ESG data. A company can use an ESG rating agency – for example, MSCI ESG, Institutional Shareholder Services ESG, and Morningstar Sustainalytics. Some ESG rating agencies use a numerical rating system, while others use a letter grade system.

Fund managers and others seeking to invest in companies with high ESG metrics will often turn to these rating agencies to see where an organization ranks before investing in them.

Companies, in a move to be transparent and hold themselves accountable, can also share this information with the public, ranging from employees to customers. Some companies will go as far as publicizing the release of their ESG report versus quietly posting it, especially if the results are promising.

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE VS. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Due to investor demand for quantitative data to compare companies, ESG was created as a qualitative concept in contrast to corporate social responsibility. CSR covers areas such as diversity programs or green efforts a company has underway, Christine DiBartolo, senior managing director and Americas head for FTI Consulting’s corporate reputation practice, told Built In.

“You need both. There isn’t one versus the other. ESG is data-driven, disclosure-oriented, and quantitative metrics around those three areas, whereas CSR is the programs and engagement you have around some of those same issues,” she said.

For example, a company may measure the diversity among its workforce as part of its ESG data gathering and sponsor workshops on combating cultural and racial biases as part of its CSR strategy.

Investors are now demanding the ESG component.

If you’re more interested in achieving financial gains instead of perpetuating underperforming woke strategies, call Rubin Wealth Advisors to speak to a professional with the same moral values as you.

Do you want to lean more about ESG and how it’s affecting your financial returns? If so, check out this article!

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

Follow us on Social Media

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

Is ESG a form of Greenwashing?

December 1, 2022 in Uncategorized /by Bob Rubin

The stocks owned by some socially responsible mutual funds and ETFs are strangely out-of-place

Sustainability, responsible, and impact investing (SRI) has historically been dominated by mutual fund companies that align their investment strategies with their values (SRI). Many companies, such as Calvert, Domini, Parnassus, and Pax World, have invested responsibly to make the world a better place. In most cases, their investment managers built portfolios by understanding the companies and industries they invested in and their environmental impact.

Over the last decade, SRI investing strategies have increased in popularity. The 2020 US SIF notes an increase of 42% for investors considering environmental, social, and governance factors across $17 trillion of professionally managed assets.

However, this increased popularity led to more prominent firms looking for easier ways to adopt SRI, and more significant firms sought more accessible ways to join. New, low-cost, index-focused investment landscapes could have played better with legacy firms’ time-consuming research. ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) research measures sustainable, responsible, and impact investing. Companies are often rated by their peers based on their ESG performance. If fossil fuel companies are more accountable than their less-responsible peers, they could score highly.

ESG + greenwashing

Companies can easily game ESG ratings when they use them. As an example, let’s look at a fossil fuel company. As a result, it boosts its social and governance scores to compensate for its low environmental score. The company may increase its charitable donations to improve the “G” score. Deception is the result of these moves – they’re not responsible. You should monitor your holdings to build a sustainable portfolio based on ESG ratings.

In the absence of human oversight, ESG portfolios are usually just watered-down versions of their underlying benchmarks. William McDonough, co-author of the book “Cradle to Cradle,” says, “Being less bad is still bad.” These portfolios are just less harmful, he says. There is no such thing as sustainable, responsible, or impact investing in ESG investing.

There may be a question asked by investors and advisors: what’s wrong with using less harmful funds? If there were no alternatives, there is nothing wrong with it. These insufficient funds can be dangerous for investors who believe they are investing responsibly. This is greenwashing when they are marketed as “best in class,” “sustainable,” or “low carbon.”

Greenwashing refers to presenting false information or impressions about how a company’s products are eco-friendly. The new ESG index funds are greenwashed when you look under the hood and examine their holdings.

If you’re more interested in achieving financial gains instead of perpetuating underperforming woke strategies, call Rubin Wealth Advisors to speak to a professional with the same moral values as you.

Are you concerned about inflation, ESG compliances, and the 2022 crypto crash?

Your investment portfolio can be affected by any or all of these factors.

Schedule an appointment with Bob Rubin, your dedicated, conservative financial advisor, for a free portfolio analysis today.

Get started by clicking the button below.

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Contact Bob, the Nation’s Predominant
Politically Conservative Financial Advisor Today!

Call Bob @ (561) 288-1111

Email Bob @ Bob@RubinWA.com

Or schedule a call below!

About Bob Rubin

Entries by Bob Rubin

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

To read the next article in this series, click here.

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

What does “active investing” mean?

Pros of investing actively

Active investing has some drawbacks.

How does passive investing work?

Pros of Passive Investing

What’s wrong with passive investing?

Should You Choose an Active Fund or Style of Investing?

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

What Sports Car Racing Taught Me About Business

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

USA Being Threatened by Biden Administration Supply Chain Issues

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Ten Woke Companies that Politically Conservative Investors Should Avoid:

To read the next article in the series, click here.

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

One of the investments I would make this year (Updated for 2022)

The Series I Savings Bond

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE VS. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Follow us on Social Media

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice

The stocks owned by some socially responsible mutual funds and ETFs are strangely out-of-place

Related Articles

No BS… Just straight forward advice