The Alt Right Economy is Failing

originally posted by: Astyanax
The headline above is from a Fortune article by a group of senior economists who have been tracking the performance of right-wing investment funds (including Vivek Ramasamy's tanking Strive Asset Management), the market performance of Fortune 500 companies targeted by anti-woke boycotts, and other indicators which show how the right-wing activists whom the authors call 'anti-woke jokesters' (their term, not mine) have been performing.

Since penalising firms that support LGBTQ rights and other liberal positions on current issues is a subject much discussed on ATS, I thought members might like to see how efforts to do that are faring, and perhaps bring to the table some facts (or in the absence of facts, arguments) that might prove the authors of the article wrong.

One expects, of course, the usual, easily refuted lies-and-propaganda responses from the more reactive souls here, but I'm sure ATS has members intelligent and coolheaded enough to go beyond that sort of thing and address the subject in a mature way.

You asked about "leftist investing" and I can answer for my own experience. We have financial planners who shuffle money around for us and for the past 40 years, a part of that has gone into "woke" company portfolios (It's called "socially responsible investing").

I've done quite well with it.

Now, the one thing I should mention is that while individual stocks fluctuate, what the article is talking about is "investment portfolios" where a portfolio manager selects stocks that they think will perform well, gives that set of stocks a fancy name, and offers them to others at a price. For the buyer, you get a bit of a hedge against a single stock falling over and dying if you're buying a group of stocks.

Here's a set of them that I found online.
Shares MSCI KLD 400 Social ETF (DSI)
SDRP S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Reserve (SPYX)
Vanguard FTSE Social Index (VFTSX)
SPDR SSGA Gender Diversity Index (SHE)
Eventide Gilead Fund (ETGLX)
TIAA-CREF Social Choice Bond Fund (TSBIX)

The key to all this is, of course, having a good fund manager with a good sense of timing who is willing to drop the losing stocks and buy additional rising ones.

Anyway, that's my personal experience.

a reply to: Astyanax

right-wing investment funds
Jumbo Shrimp
Plastic Silverware
Working Vacation
Sharply Dull

What Example of the Above is Not a Oxymoron >?

One thing that really struck me as I read the article was, "is this investment manager really REALLY trying? Is he some sort of goofball that announced a portfolio and then just "let it ride" rather than swapping investments in and out and dropping stocks that were losing?

Rolling Stone had a very good article about one reason that these portfolios are failing According to them, many of the companies are basically startups that were formed as a protest against "woke-ism." Unlike the old giants, these companies don't have vast resources - they're more similar to microbreweries than they are to, say, Hershey's chocolate. The products haven't gone through the decades of testing (and rejecting) things that might attract customers and so food/candy may not match the quality or flavor of the Old Guard's product.

In addition, startups seem to be experiencing supply chain problems. While the Old Guard has warehouses full of raw and semi-processed goods, the New Guys may not be able to get all the stuff at the right time and may have trouble getting product to market with affordable shipping.

In addition, they may be suffering from poor marketing focus as their only selling point seems to be "we're not woke" rather than something like Target's mission statement of "The promise of surprises, fun, ease and inspiration at every turn, no matter when, where or how you shop." (copied from the Target site) or Hershey's (again from their site) " bringing sweet moments of Hershey happiness to the world every day,"

One simply screams "niche market (anti-woke)" while the other simply says "Hey! This is for everybody! Y'all come on in!" So one is chopping out large numbers of customers and the other... isn't.

a reply to: Byrd

That's the gist of the article, that since we have ESG driven stocks and portfolios that are quite successful, the anti ESG crowed has found a few snake oil salesmen and they are accusing Ramaswamy in a mocking manner as being one of them for tricking the "anti woke" crowed into buying an ETF that yields a whopping 3/4 of a point management fee.

They could have easily worded the entire article in a more professional manner but turned it into a political hit piece.

a reply to: strongfp

Indeed.

But I also noticed there's a problem defining "anti-woke." Apparently Chick Fil A is now "woke" because of a diversity and inclusion statement on their website.

As far as I know, they still donate to organizations and causes that this lil' liberal doesn't support.

Now, to me, an inclusion statement as part of a mission statement makes good sense, because you'd like to draw employees from a large local pool of workers. For me, hiring policies are very different than investing - a company might treat its employees very well but be throwing money to causes and politicians that I don't like. This means they're sending my money to places that don't match my beliefs (and even some people and causes that I'm very much against.)

I would think that a portfolio of stocks of companies who donate to causes and politicians defined as "anti-woke" might perform better than throwing money at startups whose only mission statement is 'we're not woke."

a reply to: Astyanax

One expects, of course, the usual, easily refuted lies-and-propaganda responses from the more reactive souls here, but I'm sure ATS has members intelligent and coolheaded enough to go beyond that sort of thing and address the subject in a mature way.

There's nothing like starting off a thread in which you invite arguments then immediately polarize the readers and set the ground work for debasing and insulting anyone who disagrees with the narrative.

And here I thought we had members intelligent and coolheaded enough to avoid baiting with backhanded insults...

Bud didn't lose 27 billion because alt right economics are failing. And that 27 billion didn't just disappear, it went to other brands. Target didn't suffer not one but two stock downgrades because the right have no economic influence.

Woke is failing. And some people, even senior economists (whatever those are), can't deal with it.

The companies that run the world and want a one world government are winning, which are left wing. I'm shocked. How did they manage to do it, with the support of governments and the wealthiest people in the world?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I wonder why Lary Fink of Blackrock has sold his shares in one of the most resilient companies, it is almost as if he knows something might be going down soon.? www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: Byrd

The key to all this is, of course, having a good fund manager with a good sense of timing who is willing to drop the losing stocks and buy additional rising ones

Indeed. But a big difference between ESG and anti-woke investing (as strongfp notes two posts below your first) is the lack of choices available to an anti-woke fund manager. There just aren't that many publicly quoted businesses willing to lose sales by adopting social discrimination as a marketing strategy.

Perhaps they'd be better off investing in primary producers rather than consumer-marketing enterprises; extractive producers often find themselves in conflict with social activists, so they probably hate wokeness as much as MAGA does.

Thank you for providing a hint of discussion on the thread. People seem to be more interested in taking offence at the article than with discussing its contents. I wish someone would open up the boycott issue a bit more, for instance. Was BB&B's bankruptcy really due to their parting ways with 'the My Pillow Guy'? Is Bud Lite really going to lose its place as America's best-selling beer by the end of the financial year? Can the boycotts be sustained, even?

It would be good to read a level-headed rebuttal. I choose to believe that someone capable of writing one exists on this site.

a reply to: Astyanax

It doesn't have to be a declared "anti-woke" investment. It just needs to be free of woke influence or agenda. The 27 billion dollars of Bud value didn't go to an anti-woke brand, it just went to a brands that aren't openly woke with their agenda. As such, the investment opportunities are nearly endless.

The sales lost to being anti-woke are few and far between. When I see articles about companies that lost 27 billion due to having traditional values or companies that suffer multiple stock downgrades for saying there are two biological sexes, then there is something notable to discuss. The few gay people who won't buy Miller because Kid Rock drinks it are just a popcorn fart in a tornado - much ado about nothing. Look at it this way: how much credence do you give to a group who demand unconditional acceptance while simultaneously demonstrating the complete and total inability to accept themselves as they are in their own bodies?

BTW - I think most people weren't offended by the article a much as the op itself. Continued back-handed insults on your part are not helping your cause. Try writing an OP that has an opinion, not one that just asks for one. And try to do it without insulting the people you expect to participate in it. I think you will see better results that way.

It would be good to read a level-headed rebuttal. I choose to believe that someone capable of writing one exists on this site.

Write a level headed OP and you will get level headed responses - if you are capable...

originally posted by: Astyanax
Thank you for providing a hint of discussion on the thread. People seem to be more interested in taking offence at the article than with discussing its contents. I wish someone would open up the boycott issue a bit more, for instance. Was BB&B's bankruptcy really due to their parting ways with 'the My Pillow Guy'? Is Bud Lite really going to lose its place as America's best-selling beer by the end of the financial year? Can the boycotts be sustained, even?

BB&B was failing long before it parted ways with MyPillow and Anheuser-Busch has more than just one lite beer in its offerings (same with Target.)

Boycotts are more about optics, I think, than actual financial slams when you're dealing with huge companies. They can indeed kill a local business, but 50 million people not buying Bud Lite all of a sudden doesn't mean they won't buy/drink a Corona or Michelob or any of the other beers. Further, if someone wants a beer in a year or two and AB products are the only ones around, some of them will drink the product.

Big Box Stores that carry A-B aren't going to see much of a dip in sales since that's a small portion of their profits.

Now, the stock market might go nuts because of optics. There's the big danger to the large companies. However, as we see, if everything else is in order they can ride out a wave of bad publicity.

I can't think of successful companies that folded after bad press though I'm sure they're out there. It would be interesting to see which ones they were.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

We Have Known Who " They " are for a Long Time Now , but Haven't Seemed to have had the Chance to Confront these Creatures Face to Face Because they are All Pathetic Useless Parasitic Cowards to Begin with . Humanity Needs to get " Lucky " in Order to Rid the World of these Vermin . Lets Start by Identifying , Locating , and Neutralizing the " Crown Counsel of 13 " I'd say .........

a reply to: Vroomfondel

he 27 billion dollars of Bud value didn't go to an anti-woke brand, it just went to a brands that aren't openly woke with their agenda. As such, the investment opportunities are nearly endless.

Thank you for making the effort. I think you have brands and companies confused, though; shares are sold in the latter, not the former. There are no 'Bud Light' shares. It is the shares of its manufacturer, InBev, that have lost $27bn in value since April 1.

Although some of this is certainly due to the effect of anti-trans campaigns and the right-wing boycott of Bud Lite, most of it is really a natural correction; at the end of March 2023, the InBev share price was at its second-highest peak since Feb 2020 and a fall was certainly due. As a comparison, the world's second-largest beer company, Heineken, peaked slightly later and has lost $10bn in market cap since then. Heineken's market capitalization tends to be about half that of InBev's, and the losses are in proportion too.

More pertinent (to your argument) is the effect of the boycott on sales. They have fallen by about a quarter, which is pretty good going, I will admit. I wonder what the boycotters are now drinking. InBev brands hold about 45% of the US beer market; they include Budweiser, Michelob and about a dozen smaller ones. If you would like a list so that you know what to boycott, here's one.

Taking on board the fact that investors buy company shares not shares in brands, and that the social trend, in the USA as well as worldwide, is towards corporate support for anti-discrimination measures, I think your anti-woke investors are going to have a bit of trouble finding firms to buy into. Which is what the Fortune article says, and I believe it.

a reply to: Astyanax

Division between Bud Light and the parent company is kind of a pointless argument. Saying Bud Light lost 27 billion dollars is not incorrect. It was Bud Light making disastrous marketing decisions teaming with the trans agenda that caused the loss. I would go as far as to say Bud Light didn't lose 27 billion of its own money, it lost its revenue for its parent company. When people say Bud Light lost 27 billion everyone knows what they mean. It is disingenuous nitpicking to say otherwise. If your defense for your position has been reduced to niggling minutia I would suggest abandoning the argument for a more tenable position.

As I stated earlier, I don't believe the displaced market share went to one company. I believe it simply went to whatever any given individuals second choice of beer would be provided it had no ties to the lgbt agenda. The push for what you refer to as anti-discrimination is from a very small percentage of society. I refer to it as embracing mental illness. I don't need a declared anti-woke investment, just one that does not openly embrace delusion or dysphoria.

Look at it this way, people didn't invest in Anheuser-Busch because it was woke, but that is why they left it. In 2012 Chic-fil-et declared its position that marriage was between a man and a woman. It was followed by protests from the lgbt community, during which Chic-fil-et set records for single day sales and broke their own records several times. The media would have had you believe the general public was against Chic-fil-et. I tried to go to my local Chic-fil-et that day and the line was more than half a mile long. I waited in line for quite a while then decided to go run my errands and come back later. The line was even longer, police were directing traffic, and the restaurant had sold out of most products. People were buying things they didn't even want just to make a point.

The portion of society that does not favor the lgbtq agenda is far greater than the portion that does. But, like vegans and atheists, the lgbtq groups absolutely insist on making sure everyone knows who they are. The heterosexual omnivore non-secular groups don't rely on identity politics to feel as though they have an identity. We are who we are. We just don't need to get in everyone's face and scream about it.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Astyanax

Division between Bud Light and the parent company is kind of a pointless argument. Saying Bud Light lost 27 billion dollars is not incorrect.

Anheuser-Busch lost it in stock market pricing, not in people not buying beer.

A six pack of Bud Light costs just slightly over $10 when I checked it today - meaning for that to be true, they'd have NOT sold 2 billion six packs of the beer. There's around 300 million people in America and most of them don't buy Bud Light anyway (babies sure don't, and while beer is popular it's not as popular as milk.)

And if you look at the stock market prices (here) for the year you can see the big smack that they took that dropped their stock from a high of $64/share to around $53/share... and that's where that billion went.

You can also see that it's climbing back up.

It took an even bigger hit in 2020.

budlight sales way down compared to other bud

The Bud Light backlash rages on.

Anheuser-Busch InBev's (BUD) Bud Light sales tanked 24.6% for the week ending May 13 per new Nielsen data. That's a faster pace than the week-on-week drop of 23.6% for the period ending May 6.

Volumes, meanwhile, plunged 28.4% from the prior week compared to a 27.7% decline the week before.

a reply to: Byrd

Context is important.

Division between Bud Light and the parent company is kind of a pointless argument. Saying Bud Light lost 27 billion dollars is not incorrect. It was Bud Light making disastrous marketing decisions teaming with the trans agenda that caused the loss. I would go as far as to say Bud Light didn't lose 27 billion of its own money, it lost its revenue for its parent company. When people say Bud Light lost 27 billion everyone knows what they mean. It is disingenuous nitpicking to say otherwise.

Of course it was Anheuser Busch stock where the billions disappeared. And it was the backlash in sales of Bud Light, and other A-B brands, that drove the loss. A-B lost the stock value because of the backlash to the disastrous Bud Light advertising scheme with the lgbtq agenda. They failed to properly identify their biggest market demographic and instead appealed to a fringe minority. And they are paying for it now.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Byrd

Context is important.

Division between Bud Light and the parent company is kind of a pointless argument. Saying Bud Light lost 27 billion dollars is not incorrect. It was Bud Light making disastrous marketing decisions teaming with the trans agenda that caused the loss. I would go as far as to say Bud Light didn't lose 27 billion of its own money, it lost its revenue for its parent company. When people say Bud Light lost 27 billion everyone knows what they mean. It is disingenuous nitpicking to say otherwise.

Of course it was Anheuser Busch stock where the billions disappeared. And it was the backlash in sales of Bud Light, and other A-B brands, that drove the loss. A-B lost the stock value because of the backlash to the disastrous Bud Light advertising scheme with the lgbtq agenda. They failed to properly identify their biggest market demographic and instead appealed to a fringe minority. And they are paying for it now.

Agreed that context is important, which is why I pointed to the stock, which is going back up. Sales are down and the share price is still down -- but if you look at the larger picture, they appear to have survived this well and will probably be doing Pride parades and so forth next year.

Look at Walmart for an example. We Liberals scorned them for the horrible way they treat their workers - and they took some hits from that. But their stock has not dropped off the face of the planet and they seem to be doing well.

So I think we'll see much the same here. It took a hit (and I think the "hit" is mainly absorbed by the Bud Light product and not other products) but I believe it'll be back. I could be wrong, mind you, but this is what I suspect will happen based on history.

Did you see that news story on Fox about a small business in Louisiana whose owner posted a message (somewhere) calling for taking back Pride month and making a statement about his (Catholic) faith? His business took a huge hit and he's not sure if he can recover.

The lesson, I think, is that business people are better off sticking with business and making faith and politics or whether you should put pineapple on pizza (joke!) something they do in private. Invest, contribute, etc, but if you're going to stand up and wave a banner around then don't be surprised when you offend a portion of your customers and they go away and don't come back. It's easy to misjudge the buying public and think a stance is more popular than it really is.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Division between Bud Light and the parent company is kind of a pointless argument. Saying Bud Light lost 27 billion dollars is not incorrect. It was Bud Light making disastrous marketing decisions teaming with the trans agenda that caused the loss. I would go as far as to say Bud Light didn't lose 27 billion of its own money, it lost its revenue for its parent company.

This is not how businesses (or capital markets) work. Bud Light did not lose $27bn in revenues for the going concern known as InBev. In cash terms, the impact on the firm's profit-and-loss account would be, at most, about a quarter of the brand marketing and product distribution spend for Q2 2023 in the US alone. That would be a much smaller amount -- millions rather than billions.

That is the only real, cash loss to InBev. And even this was not all wasted, because (as Lord Lever observed a century ago) the effect of brand advertising is better estimated over decades than financial quarters.

It was InBev shareholders who lost $27bn off the market value of their shares. Even that loss was only real to them if they actually sold InBev shares after 1 April.

In other words, the investors who lost money in the Bud Light debacle are (1) anti-woke types and MAGA ideologues who sold their shares at once due to their outrage over the Mulvaney incident and (2) panicked non-MAGA investors who, if they'd just held on to their shares, would now be watching them recover their value.

In other words, it was largely the anti-woke and the overly timid who lost out when the boycott started to work. Balancing that out, some lucky investors were able to buy highly desirable InBev shares at a discount. Good for them.

You pitched some gratuitous advice at me in your first post in this thread. Allow me to offer you some in return. The modern world is a very complicated place; backwoods verities and prejudice tarted up as policy don't work very well in it. You need intelligent, properly informed, coolheaded action and debate, not angry schoolyard tit-for-tat, to get results -- as we see in this case, when we sift the numbers for what they really mean.

Thank you, once again, for your honest engagement with the thread.

a reply to: Byrd

I doubt this will put A-B out of business, but I never believed it would. It suffered some pretty dramatic losses but it is also one huge company and losses happen sometimes. I wouldn't be surprised if they recover at some point, but, I doubt that the Bud brand itself will ever get back all that it lost in consumer sentiment.

The small business owner who may not recover, many small businesses, especially after covid, are hanging by a thread and it doesn't take much to push them over the edge. Even a minimal effort to boycott a small business like that can have a huge impact. But the flip side of that is also true. Some small businesses who put up signs saying things like, "If you voted for biden and don't regret it please take your business elsewhere - we don't want or need you here." Some places like that have seen big profits from having taken a stand for conservative values. Chic-fil-et set single day sales records and then broke them again when they declared marriage is between a man and a woman. I tried to go to our local restaurant that day but never made it anywhere near the place despite having waited in line for quite a long while. The line was just too long. They ended up running out of most products. People were buying things they didn't even want just to prove a point.