The FactSet Review is the cornerstone of any mergers and acquisitions library. This must-have resource delivers comprehensive rosters, data and statistics on merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions that involve U.S. companies, including privately held, publicly traded and cross-border transactions, and also lists unit divestitures, management buyouts, and certain asset sales.

The FactSet Mergerstat Review is the cornerstone of any mergers and acquisitions library. This must-have resource delivers comprehensive rosters, data and statistics on merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions that involve U.S. companies, including privately held, publicly traded and cross-border transactions, and also lists unit divestitures, management buyouts, and certain asset sales.

"Paul Tice delivers a body-blow to the predations of the ESG-industrial-complex." —Mark P. Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute Over the past few years, sustainable investing—which is based on the theory that subjective environmental, social and governance or ESG factors should drive corporate policy and investment decisions—has swept across Wall Street, spurred on by the United Nations, sovereign governments and financial regulators and cheered on by academics, environmental activists, social justice warriors and the media. To date, there has been little public resistance or analytical pushback as the ESG orthodoxy has integrated itself into almost every corner of the financial markets. By 2030, the iron curtain of sustainability will have fully descended across Wall Street. Race to Zero is meant to provide a detailed rebuttal to the case for sustainable investing from the perspective of a long-time Wall Street analyst and investor and latter-day finance professor. Sustainable investing is a scam because it is not about generating excess returns for investors or furthering ethical goals such as improving society or saving the planet; rather, it is about controlling the world’s financial system and determining the allocation of capital and investment flows across the markets. It is liberal progressive politics masquerading as finance whose objective is to create a compliant corporate sector that serves as both Greek chorus and funding source for the environmental and social causes championed by government and the elite class. This book is designed to expose this truth in plain-spoken language—free of financial jargon—to reach the widest possible audience, including the silent majority on Wall Street now afraid to speak up about ESG.

This survey examines the vibrant academic literature on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing. While there is no consensus on the exact list of ESG issues, responsible investors increasingly assess stocks in their portfolios based on nonfinancial data on environmental impact (e.g., carbon emissions), social impact (e.g., employee satisfaction), and governance attributes (e.g., board structure). The objective is to reduce exposure to investments that pose greater ESG risks or to influence companies to become more sustainable. One active area of research at present involves assessing portfolio risk exposure to climate change. This literature review focuses on institutional investors, which have grown in importance such that they have now become the largest holders of shares in public companies globally. Historically, institutional investors tended to concentrate their ESG efforts mostly on corporate governance (the “G” in ESG). These efforts included seeking to eliminate provisions that restrict shareholder rights and enhance managerial power, such as staggered boards, supermajority rules, golden parachutes, and poison pills. Highlights from this section: · There is no consensus on the exact list of ESG issues and their materiality. · The ESG issue that gets the most attention from institutional investors is climate change, in particular their portfolio companies’ exposure to carbon risk and “stranded assets.” · Investors should be positioning themselves for increased regulation, with the regulatory agenda being more ambitious in the European Union than in the United States. Readers might come away from this survey skeptical about the potential for ESG investing to affect positive change. I prefer to characterize the current state of the literature as having a “healthy dose of skepticism,” with much more remaining to be explored. Here, I hope the reader comes away with a call to action. For the industry practitioner, I believe that the investment industry should strive to achieve positive societal goals. CFA Institute provides an exemplary case in its Future of Finance series (www.cfainstitute.org/research/future-finance). For the academic community, I suggest we ramp up research aimed at tackling some of the open questions around the pressing societal goals of ESG investing. I am optimistic that practitioners and academics will identify meaningful ways to better harness the power of global financial markets for addressing the pressing ESG issues facing our society.