Even though I may agree with the commissioner on climate change, he is exceeding his authority by restricting these investments. The insurance department’s job is to implement laws not make policy. In the future, any commissioner could restrict insurer investment in an industry that may have campaigned against them.
I’m open to be persuaded here but right now I don’t think just forcing them to disclose the information is that bad. It follows with the larger idea of socially responsible investing where people and organizations can choose to support or oppose (via their investment dollars) any number of issues like gambling, human rights, animal testing, etc.
Directly calling for voluntary divestiture is bad because I believe that kind of pressure should be outside of the purview of a commissioner but just calling for them to disclose seems less objectionable.
Hi Counterpoint: While pure disclosure on all investments might be a fair policy, the real goal of the commissioner might be to leverage companies into divesting in order to get favorable treatment on a rate change request or some other provision which the DOI has authority. We all so the treatment from the Department after Mercury backed an initiative that they did not want. The other issue is whether the insurance industry should be singled out. If any company is privately held (insurance, In and Out Burgers, Joe’s Hardware Store, etc) should they all have to disclose their investments or do only insurance companies have that accountability?
Telling businesses where to invest their money is like telling politicians where they should stick it. Neither will listen and all politicians do is hurt the economy through their lack of knowledge of how the economy actually works. They already have their heads up there so nothing else will fit.
Even though I may agree with the commissioner on climate change, he is exceeding his authority by restricting these investments. The insurance department’s job is to implement laws not make policy. In the future, any commissioner could restrict insurer investment in an industry that may have campaigned against them.
I’m open to be persuaded here but right now I don’t think just forcing them to disclose the information is that bad. It follows with the larger idea of socially responsible investing where people and organizations can choose to support or oppose (via their investment dollars) any number of issues like gambling, human rights, animal testing, etc.
Directly calling for voluntary divestiture is bad because I believe that kind of pressure should be outside of the purview of a commissioner but just calling for them to disclose seems less objectionable.
Hi Counterpoint: While pure disclosure on all investments might be a fair policy, the real goal of the commissioner might be to leverage companies into divesting in order to get favorable treatment on a rate change request or some other provision which the DOI has authority. We all so the treatment from the Department after Mercury backed an initiative that they did not want. The other issue is whether the insurance industry should be singled out. If any company is privately held (insurance, In and Out Burgers, Joe’s Hardware Store, etc) should they all have to disclose their investments or do only insurance companies have that accountability?
Telling businesses where to invest their money is like telling politicians where they should stick it. Neither will listen and all politicians do is hurt the economy through their lack of knowledge of how the economy actually works. They already have their heads up there so nothing else will fit.