Any super fund that claims to be ethical and or sustainable while investing in fossil fuel should be fined and sued.
Interesting read. I mentioned Future Super as an ethical alternative in a different thread about a week ago and someone replied that it was under-performing compared to other “ethical” super funds, citing Australian Ethical which invests close to $150 million in companies earning revenue from fossil fuels.
Yep sorry, that was me. I still think the fees from future super are exorbitant but Australian ethical isn’t a good alternative
Nothing to apologise for, I just found the timing of this article interesting given that recent conversation.
Yeah I thought timing was interesting since I haven’t been online in about a week when the other thing was posted and came back to this post. Btw it looks like SSSuper and Prime Super are the only ones on the list that seemed to actually be ethical.
Yeah I thought timing was interesting since I haven’t been online in about a week when the other thing was posted and came back to this post.
Yes, it was literally the exact same scenario for me lol
Hmm it doesn’t show Australian Ethical as having any fossil fuel investments???
Scroll down.
The ABC cross checked its findings against a second list of companies, supplied by financial data and analysis company Morningstar.
This list was made up of public companies that reported generating revenue from oil and gas, as well as coal production and exploration. Unlike the data from Bloomberg, this also included companies that earn revenue from fossil fuel power generation.
It also captures investment companies and other financial institutions that have holdings in companies that produce fossil fuels.
This method identified more than $2 billion invested in publicly listed companies generating revenue from fossil fuels.
Australian Ethical are listed as having invested $147.4 million in this section.
For example, NGS Super’s policy excludes investment in companies that make more than 30 per cent of their revenue from thermal coal mining.
As a result, BHP is not excluded because the $US3.5 billion it earned mining thermal coal last financial year only accounted for 6.6 per cent of its total revenue.
I can see a case being made for allowing >0, even if I don’t really like it myself.
But 30% is ridiculous. It should be more like 10%, with an additional stipulation on maximum total, so a giant company like BHP which produces billions doesn’t get away with it just because they also do a bunch of other stuff.
shocked face
This is a terrible form of analysis Why would you show these assets in terms of an absolute number? The ngs analysis showed that 3.5% of their assets fell under the fossil fuel category, and some of those companies operate in other areas
If you want to get mad at super funds go ahead but I don’t know what you want them to do? If you go fully renewable instantly you’re not going to be as attractive as an option, meaning even less people investing in renewable super. Meaning potentially less investment in that space
