The SEC’s Green Name Game

US
Securities and Exchange Commission headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
The agency is not — and should not be — in the business of deciding what is good for the environment and society.




NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE

W
hen considering the prospect of “green” finance, I’m often tempted to burst into song: Green, green, bo-bean, bo-na-na fanna, fo-fean, fee fi mo-mean. Green! Perhaps this can be attributed to my children, who are entranced by the rhymes in Shirley Ellis’s iconic song, “The Name Game.” Yet rather fortuitously, that song can actually help us in thinking about how to name investment products.

While determining what “green” means — or what qualifies as such — is not a new endeavor, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently begun to wrestle with it for investment products. As funds advertising themselves as …

To Read the Full Story

Articles You May Like

Sydney Watson and Elijah Schaffer explain Communism in less than five minutes
No, Gun Culture Has Not Been Radicalized
WATCH: The Ultimate Guide to the Great Reset: A Sneak Peek at Our Dangerous Future
Don’t Assume That College Will Pay Off
Psaki Claims Biden Was Not Making ‘Human’ Comparison Between Racists and Opponents to Dem Voting Bills

Leave a Comment - No Links Allowed:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *