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

Whitlock: The war on patriarchy explains Caitlin Clark’s stardom and Anthony Edwards’ obscurity
You Can Scratch South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem Off Your VP Short List
DARPA reveals ‘extra large’ Manta Ray underwater drone — which can be deployed rapidly ‘throughout the world’
Colbert Twists Sources To Spread Hysteria About Snipers At Colleges
Radicals are targeting the esteemed doctor whose UK-commissioned report blew up the transgender narrative

Leave a Comment - No Links Allowed:

Your email address will not be published.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