Bailie Gifford “cancelling”

[unperplex]

Is anyone else outraged at the “ousting” of Baillie Gifford as sponsors of first, the Hay on Wye and now the Edinburgh Book Festivals ?

The pressure seems to come (inter alia) from a group calling themselves “Fossil Free Books” and seems to be because BG are “invested” in some companies involved in fossil fuels and (denied by BG) in some companies involved in the Occupied West Bank.
They seem to wish BG to “divest”,ie, presumably, not “invest” in such companies.
This seems wrong-headed to me in several ways:-

1.BG are a bad target for this sort of protest. BG say that ‘Only 2% of our clients’ money is invested in companies with some business related to fossil fuels” and that this is a lot lower than their “peers” (whatever that means).I am not an expert on BG but what I know about them leads me to think that the sort of companies they invest in are not old school ones like Shell and BP, but more high tech ones (possibly across their entire group and not just in SMT).
A more appropriate “target” (if it is appropriate to target an investment company at all - see below) would surely be the big pension companies, which I think may have much higher investment in “fossil fuel” companies, since they have duties to their pensioners to obtain the best return.I am sure the families of the protestors will have pensions and therefore “benefit” from such “involvement”….

2.It is not logical to “target” investment companies at all in this way, for the following reasons:-
A. They are not “investing” in the production of fossil fuels. Even if they have bought shares in a “fossil fuel” company, the money they paid did not go to the company, but to another investor.The only occasion on which money would go to the company would have been on the Initial Public Offering which would have been many decades ago.The money they paid for the shares may even have gone to a “green” investor who was selling for political reasons and who therefore has benefited from “investment” in the “fossil fuel “ company !
B. They have a duty to their investors to obtain the best return. “Fossil Fuel” companies still offer some of the best returns. This duty is particularly important in relation to investors such as pension funds. To break this duty would leave them open to legal action. A reminder of this was recently given in the obituary of Hugh Jenkins, former head of the National Coal Board Pension Fund who defeated proposals by Arthur Scargill to force the Fund to “divest” from companies perceived as competition to the coal industry (coincidentally, companies such as Shell, BP etc…..). Jenkins obtained a Judgment confirming the Fund’s duties were to obtain the best return for its members and it was illegal to force them to take investment decisions on “political”
grounds.

3. Forcing BG to withdraw from sponsorship of Hay and Edinburgh will be a serious detriment to these long-standing and important festivals which may have to close unless suitable alternative funding is found.I am not aware that the “protestors” (or the authors supporting them) have put forward replacement funding of their own.
I read that BG have been sponsors of these festivals (especially Edinburgh, because they are Edinburgh based) for a very long time and that BG are viewed as ideal sponsors in that they give a lot of money with few if any conditions.

4. If BG are “connected” to “fossil fuel” companies, then we all are - everyone who drives a car, has a gas boiler, has a pension or other investments, drives on roads made of tarmac, lives in houses containing concrete etc. etc.Are we all, including the “protestors” to be “cancelled” ?

The phrase “mindless posturing” comes to mind…..
It is no more logical to “target” BG than it is to “target” me or you.
I am sure even Greta Thunberg’s wider family are as much “connected” to “fossil fuel”companies as BG are.

[Gerry557]

Well I hope all those sorts of people don't drive to the festival, eat anything cooked unless it's by the sun and sit in the dark at night.

[unperplex]

Quite so, but by their whimsical, illogical threats of disruption they are threatening the future of some very longstanding, worthwhile, charitable organisations.
This is not going to reflect well on their cause, even if you agree with their general principles.
It seems to be a case of power without responsibility and you know what is said about that…….

[MuddyBoots]

Is anyone else outraged at the “ousting” of Baillie Gifford as sponsors of first, the Hay on Wye and now the Edinburgh Book Festivals?
...

The pressure seems to come (inter alia) from a group calling themselves “Fossil Free Books”
...

3. Forcing BG to withdraw from sponsorship of Hay and Edinburgh ...

Interesting situation, do you have a link for it? It sounds like this pressure group has already succeeded in doing this, and I'm curious to find out more. Who gave in to them, was it BG or the festivals' organisers? For an obscure group like Fossil Free Books I'm rather surprised they got their way, what's their leverage?

[Mike4]

Is anyone else outraged at the “ousting” of Baillie Gifford as sponsors of first, the Hay on Wye and now the Edinburgh Book Festivals?
...

The pressure seems to come (inter alia) from a group calling themselves “Fossil Free Books”
...

3. Forcing BG to withdraw from sponsorship of Hay and Edinburgh ...

Interesting situation, do you have a link for it? It sounds like this pressure group has already succeeded in doing this, and I'm curious to find out more. Who gave in to them, was it BG or the festivals' organisers? For an obscure group like Fossil Free Books I'm rather surprised they got their way, what's their leverage?

One wonders if the main target of this bunch of fruit loops was the book festivals themselves, for promoting books of all sorts and without a care for for how fossil-free said books might, or might not, be.

[88V8]

Is anyone else outraged at the “ousting” of Baillie Gifford as sponsors of first, the Hay on Wye and now the Edinburgh Book Festivals ?....

Somewhat.
These up-themselves leftie twats do have an angle in that they are ostensibly protesting about the alleged harms done by oil exploration, and not just the oil use.
However, like most other twats, they have nothing to say about the underlying cause of many environmental problems - the excessive human population.

I wonder what corporate sponsors get out of such an event. They would do better to give their money to something like the WIldlife Trusts, rather than waste it on a bunch of ingrates.

V8

[SalvorHardin]

An article in this week's Spectator (1st June) says that the treatment of Baillie Gifford is making a lot of corporate sponsors think about whether sponsoring the arts is worth it.

Recent events have made it increasingly difficult to justify it to shareholders given that pressure groups and some of the luvvies will use you as a punching bag to score points.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind

[Lootman]

An article in this week's Spectator (1st June) says that the treatment of Baillie Gifford is making a lot of corporate sponsors think about whether sponsoring the arts is worth it.

Recent events have made it increasingly difficult to justify it to shareholders given that pressure groups and some of the luvvies will use you as a punching bag to score points.

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind

Indeed. But then again I would not donate to any charity that helped Palestine. So perhaps I should not complain.

[bungeejumper]

I wonder what corporate sponsors get out of such an event. They would do better to give their money to something like the WIldlife Trusts, rather than waste it on a bunch of ingrates.

Is it really so very any different from the investment funds that sponsor the Chelsea Flower Show? It's all just about publicity, press, champagne, corporate banners and photo opportunities which can normally be hard to come by among the general public.

With the difference that the Chelsea shows have their own environmental impact. Forty-odd show gardens, each costing half a million or so, fifty-odd trees that have been lovingly uprooted, earth-moving equipment everywhere, and maybe a thousand of tonnes of concrete that's been dug up and carted away to landfill before it's even had a chance to set properly.

I once got a sponsor bank's invite to the press and champagne day at Chelsea, but it happened that I was due somewhere else that day. You could almost hear the jaws dropping at the other end of the phone. How could I possibly be so plebby as to pass up this glittering opportunity? Well, my dinner jacket was away at my tailor's in Hong Kong at the time (no it wasn't). They didn't ask me again.

BJ

[SalvorHardin]

Baillie Gifford have now cancelled their sponsorship of every literary festival for which they had not already withdrawn sponsorship. Excellent news. Most literary festivals are anti-capitalist lefty love-ins anyway, nowadays with the addition of openly hating Jews.

Far too often corporate sponsorship is done because a senior executive (or their spouse) favours the cause but doesn't want to spend their own money. Much better for Baillie Gifford to sponsor sports (the Scottish Cricket team would be a very good fit).

"Cambridge, Stratford, Wigtown and Henley festivals say firm ended deals after protests over its links to Israel and fossil fuels"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/jun/06/baillie-gifford-cancels-all-remaining-sponsorships-of-literary-festivals

No doubt we'll see quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who wanted Baillie Gifford to stop supporting the festivals but who still wanted their money. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. Actions have consequences.

[scrumpyjack]

Well I'd rather they sponsored things like Hospices and so on and let the woke luvvies sort out their own literary festivals, which they no doubt drive to in their Range Rovers and Discoveries.

BG is a private company anyway, or limited partnership. I trust the payments are from that rather than the funds of shareholders in Scottish Mortgage.

[DrFfybes]

Far too often corporate sponsorship is done because a senior executive (or their spouse) favours the cause but doesn't want to spend their own money.

What do you mean, "far too often"?

I'm thought that's how all Corporate (or company) sponsorship works - use the company money to get me and some mates/clients posh tickets to something I'm/they're interested in.

[Mike4]

Well I'd rather they sponsored things like Hospices and so on and let the woke luvvies sort out their own literary festivals, which they no doubt drive to in their Range Rovers and Discoveries.

BG is a private company anyway, or limited partnership. I trust the payments are from that rather than the funds of shareholders in Scottish Mortgage.

I'd have thought the wealthy north London leftie lovies in their expensive Range Rovers and Audi Q7s were exactly the people attending the book festivals that BG sponsored.

Both sides have actually shot themselves in the foot, I'd have thought.