To: sense who wrote (3855 ) 3/10/2023 7:44:39 PM From: sense Respond to of 5610 A first stab at how to pick the best losers... Making money is hard enough, and only tougher in a tough market, that it can't help to be forced to... ignore what that requires ? Banks that focus management on things other than "minding the knitting" as part of making money... Woke Bank Tells Customers to Leave If They Don’t Like Pronoun Badges But, not just those... as "it's hard enough" already enables some very simple sorts: The Worst Rated Banks addresses those whose customers dislike them... which probably doesn't matter most of the time. But, in a rising rate environment... as money supply tightens... suddenly banks might find themselves having to compete for deposits... And, when that happens, they only have a few choices to make in how to do that, the top two being... 1. Quit being assholes. 2. Pay out more than other banks to win deposits. 3. Beg for bailouts. The difficulty, though, is that if customers already know how you treat them... you can't undo that awareness that easily. And, if that means losing deposits and having to pay more to keep them... well... that's only inching closer to the brink, not backing away from it ? Republican states are planning an all-out assault on woke banks: 'We won’t do business with you' But, note... those "worst rated" banks least willing to listen... probably also the ones least likely to survive... Under Joe Biden, Woke Banks Run Wild | Opinion Probably no surprise... that some of the banks mentioned in those articles... are also on the list of the "worst" banks... in their retail customers opinions? Silicon Valley Bank... probably unique in that, only in having had (past tense) a lot of customer deposits from customers who were not typical "retail"... and they voted with their feet... in lock step... given the chance to "return the favors" the bank had done to them ? I think there has to be a parallel concern in "other issues"... which might most easily be addressed by scanning the ESG Funds... There will a fair number of them "green washing" to scam easily duped people into giving them money... so, the label in itself isn't that useful. But some few will be more aggressive, and more effective... in distracting the management of those they invest in, inhibiting them from keeping the business functional. And, you can look for those in anecdotal reviews or success stories in "responsible" investing articles... A better approach might be to pair the worst of bad fund management with their selection of the most impaired businesses... by just doing a sort of the ESG titles... based on performance. There's probably a reason or two that they're already under-performing... and, while past proof of stupidity is not a guarantee of sustained stupidity... it might be the best bet ? Maybe start to look here with the Bottom Performers, Top Redemptions and AUM Losers lists ? Then, you can short those ETFs... or look to see who their "top picks" are... and short those ? Prior posts... here or on other lists I post on... have outlined the reason... that the culture of "easy money" virtually assures that those "buying into it"... are imposing existential risks on themselves without realizing it... And, that's what "market corrections" are for... is to eliminate the failures and the dead wood... so that they don't force the rest of the apples in the basket to rot... The market is agnostic to the culture or the philosophy behind them ? But, when allowed to function, it is ruthless in its accounting for error, whatever the source of its drivers ?