The Cracker Barrel rebrand debacle has been one of the most misunderstood corporate wokeness sagas of 2025. For months, it’s been held up as an example of the failures of ‘culture war conservatism,’ a tempest in a teapot that no one really cared about. Yet, we recently received data-driven proof that the backlash to one of America’s most beloved country brands has been anything but imaginary.
At first glance, it would appear the outrage from consumers and shareholders was simply about the advent of a minimalist logo. The reality, however, is that Cracker Barrel’s performance has been slipping for years. For example, if you invested $1,000 in Cracker Barrel at the start of 2021, it would be worth less than $300 today. That can’t be explained away by a simple logo change. That’s a major problem, years in the making.
But the real test for Cracker Barrel wasn’t whether customers would forgive Uncle Herschel and his wayward brand. It was whether investors would forgive the Barrel’s board of directors, specifically embattled CEO Julie Felss Masino.
On November 20, Cracker Barrel held its annual shareholder meeting, and we found out exactly how much investor trust had been destroyed. Simply put: a lot. A large percentage of investor votes are guided by the recommendation of proxy advisory firms, none of which were inclined to let Cracker Barrel walk away from the debacle scot-free.
In the lead-up to the meeting, much of the ire was focused on Gilbert Dávila, Cracker Barrel’s compensation committee chair and a marketing and diversity specialist, advising a vote against, with some firms also advising against re-electing Jody Bilney, the chair of the Barrel’s nominating/governance committee. CEO Masino wasn’t spared either, with proxy advisory firm Egan-Jones <a href="https://ejproxy.com/post/cash-is-king-the-vicious-cycle-at-cracker-barrel">recommending</a> a ‘no’ vote over the brand’s underperformance. Pay attention to these names — this is how you measure impact.
The outcome? CEO Julie Felss Masino failed to gain support from a quarter of shareholder votes. Bilney, the nominating chair, lost almost a third of shareholder support. And Gilbert Dávila, the diversity specialist, barely broke two-fifths of shareholder support, <a href="https://www.scrippsnews.com/business/company-news/cracker-barrel-ceo-survives-push-for-ouster-after-logo-controversy">resigning</a> after the meeting.
In fact, of the 10 directors up for election, seven of them didn’t break 90% support. That may not sound like much, but in a corporate context, let’s be clear: that’s a vote of “no confidence” from a very sizable number of shareholders.
For comparison, in a 2024 <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/06/exxonmobils-victory-over-climate-activists-is-a-win-for-its-shareholders/">pressure</a> campaign against ExxonMobil, left-wing activist efforts successfully brought down vote counts by a single percentage point — to 95%. Exxon’s CEO, Darren Woods, lost maybe 1% percent of investor support over manufactured outrage. Cracker Barrel’s CEO lost around 20% percent investor support as a result of real outrage.
If you’ll recall, Cracker Barrel made the risky and seemingly unprompted decision to change its logo in August of 2025. In an attempt to reach a younger, less nostalgia-driven audience, they removed ‘Uncle Herschel’ from the classic logo that had been emblazoned on storefronts since 1969.
But that move didn’t proceed as anticipated. The rebrand <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/cracker-barrels-new-text-only-logo-how-you-destroy-brand-critics-claim">got</a> all the wrong attention, from ordinary customers to President Trump to a wide swath of conservative commentators, with Rod Dreher <a href="https://x.com/roddreher/status/1958293733092528218?s=20">deeming</a> the marketing shift “the New Coke of corporate logos.”
And Cracker Barrel, to its very limited credit, listened. After a flurry of negative X impressions and customer protests, the company walked back the rebrand. “We hear you,” Cracker Barrel <a href="https://www.crackerbarrel.com/allthemore">announced</a>, shortly before restoring their old logo, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/food/cracker-barrel-drops-design-firm">firing</a> their design firm, and embarking on one of the most embarrassing rollbacks in recent corporate marketing history. “We heard clearly that the modern remodel redesign does not reflect what you love about Cracker Barrel.”
And then, you might think, the story ends. On the business side of things, however, the apology isn’t the final salvo in any marketing fumble. Customers might forgive a brand — but there was a lot more than a logo change to forgive.
Actions have consequences. It’s one of the most foundational principles of business, economics, and politics. In Cracker Barrel’s case, however, an even more foundational principle is being played out in real time: ideas have consequences. Ideas, like allowing political bias to seep into our most prominent corporate institutions, have severe consequences — like a billion dollars&#8217; worth of largely avoidable brand damage. It’s very easy to look at the Cracker Barrel saga and conclude that it’s a non-issue, a side cultural issue invented to invent victimhood where it doesn’t exist. Yet it’s not true.
Cracker Barrel’s failure isn’t a MAGA-generated victim narrative, despite what MSNBC hosts like Jonathan Capehart might <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-host-says-hes-sick-snowflakes-slamming-cracker-barrel-logo-redesign">want you to believe</a>. The company’s struggles have hurt people of all political stripes. Using a historic, valuable brand to test pet marketing theories isn’t just a matter of X debate. It’s a threat to the financial futures of millions of Americans, including Cracker Barrel’s roughly 70,000 employees who depend on the company’s success.
Many of those Americans just made their opinions known, sending a clear sign: there’s serious trouble ahead at the Barrel. The rebrand was only the tip of a very large iceberg, and it’s not just going to be hand-waved away, least of all by the CEO and what’s left of the corporate board that allowed it to happen.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.

Barrel II

After Rebranding Fiasco, Cracker Barrel Takes It On The Chin In Latest Shareholder Meeting

Corporations

Cracker Barrel

Leftists

Restaurant

shareholders

Woke Culture

Ever since the unconscionable horror of October 7 and the brutal war that followed, there’s been a disturbing uptick in corporate activists competing to have the worst possible takes on the conflict — and getting big business to share those takes. This activism is aimed not at establishing a serious way for America’s largest tech &amp; defense companies to view the war against Hamas, but for foisting activist (i.e. non-fiduciary) objectives on the way they conduct their business involving it.
This is nothing new — last year saw a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/since-october-7-anti-israel-activism-has-failed-where-it-matters-most" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surge</a> in anti-Israel activism at numerous shareholder meetings, albeit not activism that resonated with the shareholder audience (in fact, its influence is notably decreasing). Why, then, does this activism persist? This Tuesday, we got a rare sneak peak at the real reason.
Intel is one of the largest private businesses operating in Israel. The company has been in the country since 1974 and is maybe the most crucial company in the Israeli high-tech sector, with other major corporate actors like Nvidia &amp; Apple also maintaining major presences in the region. And yet, despite this 50+ year business relationship that’s not only created tremendous wealth for Israel but generated massive return for Intel shareholders across the globe, corporate activists aren’t happy. Again, nothing new. But at Intel’s <a href="https://central.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/vsm/web?pvskey=INTEL25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">annual meeting</a> on Tuesday, the company fielded a proposal urging the company not merely for risk analysis, but to divest from the country entirely.
Dubbed an “ethical impact assessment,” the <a href="https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_1d2493931f76b3eb3a02f6d948d9f540/intel/files/documents/flipbook/Intel_Proxy_2025_Files/90/index.html#zoom=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shareholder proposal</a> pushed Intel to consider the “moral &amp; legal implications” of continuing to do business with Israel — many anti-Israel proposals, from <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1526520/000119312524129373/d725214dars.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TripAdvisor</a> to <a href="https://investors.rtx.com/static-files/f5957454-3174-4285-bf5f-06462044467d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Raytheon</a>, couch the pressure to divest in innocuous, noble-sounding sentiments involving ethics and human rights (or borrow activist terms like ‘apartheid.’)
Activists at Intel argued that the company should completely “reassess [its] business relationship with Israel,” alleging that the human costs of war against Hamas are grounds for Intel to uproot its ties to a country it’s invested in for more than half a century. And then came the <a href="https://central.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/vsm/web?pvskey=INTEL25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">boom</a>: “We risk exclusion from important ESG indices that screen for human rights compliance in conflict zones.”
There’s no analysis that could make it plainer than that. The real case for why Israel’s most consistent business partners should divest, at its heart, boiled down to ESG ratings. That’s the case: this long standing relationship, that both provides shareholder return and protects innocent civilian life in a just war against one of the world’s most brutal terrorist organizations, has to go so that Intel’s ESG score doesn’t suffer.
<div id="attachment_918149" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-918149" class="size-large wp-image-918149" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-864x576.jpg" alt="A display of missiles and drones at the Lockheed Martin Corp. booth at the DEFEA international defense exhibition in Athens, Greece, on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. The Defence Exhibition Athens takes place between May 6 to May 8. Photographer: Nick Paleologos/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />A display of missiles and drones at the Lockheed Martin Corp. booth at the DEFEA international defense exhibition in Athens, Greece, on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. Nick Paleologos/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
The implicit premise here is, of course, that Israel’s actions to subdue Hamas and defend itself against a fighting force that expressly seeks its annihilation are incompatible with ESG dogma. And it’s not just Intel — today, Lockheed Martin shareholders will vote for the second year in a row on a <a href="https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/annual-reports/2025-proxy-statement.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shareholder proposal</a> pushing the company to stop its similarly long standing relationship with Israel, arguing that Lockheed selling fighter jets renders it complicit in war crimes.
These activist narratives, while arguably nobly intentioned, make the perfect (i.e. a world where war apparently doesn’t involve business decisions and difficult questions) the enemy of the good (i.e. the real world). War has never been free of moral questions — and the philosophical questions involved in companies that operate in war-adjacent industries are real and <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1996368/000109690625000722/bowy_px14a6g.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">worth discussing</a>. But ESG-aligned activists are making it abundantly clear that their answers don’t pass muster.
Pushing a tech company like Intel to divest from an entire nation based on nothing more than chronically vague statements about human rights and a handful of Amnesty International articles opining about ‘apartheid’ (yes, that’s what activists put forward at the meeting Tuesday) isn’t a serious business argument. And pushing a weapons company like Lockheed Martin to stop selling weapons to a longtime business partner engaged in a just war, fighting terrorists that hide among innocent civilian populations, based on nothing more than vague language about “misalignment” with human rights policies, isn’t a serious business argument either.
Too often, ESG-aligned arguments boil down to profoundly unwise ideas wrapped in nice-sounding turns of phrase. Pressuring energy companies into wildly non-fiduciary <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemmagreen/2024/08/29/why-big-corporations-are-quietly-abandoning-their-climate-commitments/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">net-zero commitments</a> is portrayed as being “climate conscious.” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-radical-intolerance-behind-woke-corporate-activism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pressuring</a> companies into providing puberty blockers for employees’ children is portrayed as “healthcare,” “corporate equality,” and “inclusion.” And now, pressuring companies to divest from Israel, not for demonstrated business but activist narratives that can’t acknowledge the existence of just war, is being portrayed as “responsibly reduc[ing] risk.”
Shareholders are increasingly rejecting these arguments — given their implicit premises, perhaps that’s not surprising. But it’s as good a moment as any to remember that nice sounding business words don’t mean anything without real moral arguments behind them. And if keeping your ESG score means disarming Israeli civilians being targeted by Hamas, that says more about ESG than it does about anything else.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Intel Headquarters Ahead Of Earnings Figures

How ESG Scores Became The New Weapon In The War On Israel

Boycott Divest Sanction

Business

Dow Jones

Israel

Lockheed Martin

Opinion

Costco won’t be gutting its diversity initiatives in response to the latest shareholder pushback. At its annual meeting yesterday, more than 98% of shareholders voted against a recent proposal urging the company to axe its diversity initiatives. Sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, the <a href="https://s201.q4cdn.com/287523651/files/doc_financials/2024/ar/FY24-Proxy-Statement.pdf">proposal</a> asserted that “DEI holds litigation, reputational and financial risks to the Company, and therefore financial risks to shareholders,” and laid out an explanation of Costco’s shifting diversity initiatives, including the company renaming its DEI efforts to “People and Communities.” As of today, Costco’s defense of diversity seems to have dealt a serious blow to the growing skepticism and criticism of DEI within many American companies. Seems.
So what’s to be made of this? Several weeks ago, I <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/what-costcos-doubling-down-on-dei-means-and-doesnt-mean">wrote</a> that “Costco may not be the kind of company that flips overnight on biased corporate policies,” which is undoubtedly the case. Is Costco’s resounding rejection of this proposal an indicator that anti-DEI shareholder groups simply are falling on uncaring ears?
In a recent Axios <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/01/23/costco-dei-shareholders-reject-anti-diversity-proposal#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">piece</a> covering the vote, Trillium Asset Management chief advocacy officer Jonas Kron made the case. “It&#8217;s also a strong indication that all the media reports of the death of DEI and ESG are way overblown,” Kron said. “The investing community clearly understands the importance and value of these ESG and DEI approaches.” Let’s leave aside the whole “death of DEI” business, that’s been covered <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-year-the-dei-tide-turned" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in depth before</a>, how no serious corporate engagement figure thinks diversity programs are actually dead. However, what about Kron’s opinions on the “investing community?” This is clever wording, intentionally or otherwise, from Kron. Who exactly are the “investing community” that generated such a strong pushback to Costco’s DEI-skeptical shareholders?
To explain how shareholder proposals work, we’re going to have to get a bit technical. Perspective time: you’re a Costco shareholder and as such receive a proxy statement from the company ahead of its annual meeting, containing all the items to be voted on, including this anti-DEI proposal. But the reality? Most people don’t vote directly on shareholder proposals. That job gets outsourced to what’s called a “proxy adviser,” prominent <a href="https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog/Proxy-advisory-firms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">examples</a> of which include Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis &amp; Co. Such proxy advisory firms are the ones that make recommendations regarding the best way to vote on many shareholder proposals, including ones that pertain to ESG &amp; DEI initiatives. Very few alternatives exist for ESG and DEI skeptical shareholders — the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/proxy-adviser-iss-expands-offerings-esg-skeptic-clients-2024-03-04/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">currently offers</a> the only such set of ESG skeptical guidelines offered through ISS.
The point of this explanation? Most Costco shareholders didn’t directly vote their shares on the anti-DEI proposal on the company’s ballot yesterday. Proxy advisory services are notably unfriendly to proposals calling for corporate depoliticization — and their recommendations determine the votes of vast swaths of corporate shareholders. To be clear, many pro-ESG resolutions are also not looked fondly upon by proxy advisers.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl=1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener">CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT</a></h3>
The pro-DEI crowd, as evidenced by perspectives like Kron’s, would like you to think that the Costco narrative is one of shareholders directly voting en masse to keep their diversity initiatives. But, as with many things, the reality is more complicated. Most of the “against” votes on this proposal were determined by the will of a proxy adviser. The bias of proxy advisers is another obstacle that ESG/DEI-skeptical corporate engagement groups have to overcome — and that work is ongoing. We’re in this for the long game, and setbacks are no longer a deterrent.
Costco clearly isn’t flipping overnight on DEI, but that doesn’t mean they’re immune from pressure — and it definitely doesn’t mean the pressure’s going anywhere.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Costco Wholesale store exterior, Connecticut

Costco Votes To Keep DEI. What Now?

Costco

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Is the anti-DEI movement losing momentum? Costco certainly isn’t a fan of it.
Several days ago, the retail giant sparked <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/27/business/costco-dei/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">headlines</a> for a robust defense of its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, in response to an anti-DEI shareholder proposal from the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). “Our focus on diversity, equity and inclusion is to enhance our culture and the well-being of people whose lives we influence,” Costco <a href="https://s201.q4cdn.com/287523651/files/doc_financials/2024/ar/FY24-Proxy-Statement.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> in its response. “Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all.”
What does Costco’s doubling down actually mean? Is this the first stumble in the anti-DEI trend? Does a single company standing by its diversity efforts indicate a larger rebirth of support for biased corporate policies? The simple answer is: no. As someone whose day job involves dealing with corporate DEI, and who has helped submit shareholder proposals critical of DEI and other aspects of ESG (environmental, social, and governance issues), let me break down Costco’s DEI decision before explaining what it actually means.
<h3>What Actually Happened At Costco</h3>
To understand Costco’s decision, we first have to understand the basics of how shareholders talk to companies that they own. Under the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, eligible shareholders are allowed to submit proposals to the company and have those proposals featured on what’s known as a “proxy statement,” a document that goes to all shareholders of record before a company’s annual meeting. That proxy statement contains all the items of business on which a company’s shareholders vote — directors who are up for election, management issues, and whatever shareholder proposals are submitted.
In Costco’s case, the proposal was a simple one: evaluate the risks of Costco having DEI initiatives. That proposal is now on Costco’s ballot, and shareholders will vote on it later this month. The statement from Costco that generated the brouhaha is called a ‘statement of opposition,’ which company management issued in response to NCPPR’s shareholder proposal.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN &#8217;25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a></h3>
Now that we’re all clear on the basics, here’s the key truth about Costco’s statement on DEI: as a matter of corporate policy, this statement isn’t unusual. Companies issue statements of opposition for virtually every shareholder proposal they receive, whether it’s Lockheed Martin shareholders urging the company to ditch Israel, Google shareholders urging the company to censor pro-life pregnancy centers, or Costco shareholders urging the company to abandon DEI. As someone in the corporate engagement industry, these statements are very commonplace.
The <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/91254055/costco-no-nonsense-defense-of-dei-branding" target="_blank" rel="noopener">argument</a> that Costco’s statement, by itself, is a game-changer in the DEI debate makes no sense. It’s simply a part of the process on a matter of corporate business that hasn’t even been voted on yet.
<h3>What is Costco Actually A Litmus Test For?</h3>
That said, does the broader corporate stance behind Costco’s statement matter? Undoubtedly — and that’s also worth examining. Costco’s vision — where DEI can be simply framed as a milquetoast respect for diversity against which no one but (presumably) dysfunctional race-baiters would seriously argue — would have played quite nicely in 2021 or 2022, when the spirit of post-George Floyd racialism still permeated American corporate culture. But that vision is a hollow one in 2025. The legal/cultural <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-year-the-dei-tide-turned" target="_blank" rel="noopener">backlash</a> to DEI, combined with the reality of an incoming Republican administration that’s put DEI and ESG efforts in its crosshairs, is ushering in a new world — a world where companies with DEI programs are going to have to marshall a lot more to defend their diversity initiatives than the boilerplate rhetoric of “opportunity for all.” The microscopes of scrutiny have been brought out, by everyone from activists like Robby Starbuck to lawyers and corporate engagement professionals — and one brand’s willingness to stick to its guns now is no guarantee that it’ll do so indefinitely.
Costco’s doubling down on DEI is an unspoken appeal to a corporate zeitgeist that no longer exists. It’s a hard contrast to their competitors’ moves — such as Walmart’s admirable decision to listen to shareholder concerns about DEI. This is a different, undoubtedly shortsighted strategy: trying to peddle vaguery to shareholders and customers demanding specificity. Costco may not be the kind of company that flips overnight on biased corporate policies — but the vast majority of people working in the corporate engagement world are playing this for the long game. A short-term setback is nothing if not expected.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN and the Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Costco Wholesale in Folsom California

What Costco’s Doubling Down On DEI Means — And Doesn’t Mean

What Costco's Doubling Down On DEI Means — And Doesn't Mean

Republican state officials have pulled approximately $11.7 billion from BlackRock since the beginning of 2022 in reaction to the asset management company’s commitment to the ESG movement, according to a Daily Wire analysis.
The divestments, constituting a drop in the bucket in comparison to the nearly $8 trillion <a href="https://s24.q4cdn.com/856567660/files/doc_financials/2022/Q3/BLK-3Q22-Earnings-Release.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">managed</a> by BlackRock, occur as market forces react against the investment philosophy, which argues that firms have a responsibility beyond maximizing profits for shareholders with respect to their environmental, social, and corporate governance commitments.
Divestments began in January when West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/destroy-our-economy-republican-treasurer-cuts-ties-to-company-over-china-coal-strategies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> the state would no longer use BlackRock to manage roughly $8 billion in operating funds due to the company’s advocacy of net zero investment strategies, which discourage investments in the fossil fuel industry despite strong returns the sector has returned throughout the year. “It’s almost along the lines of a religious fervor, where they’re willing to take a loss to further their political ideology,” Moore commented in an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-barred-retirement-plans-from-mixing-wokeness-with-profits-biden-is-reversing-that-rule" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> last month with The Daily Wire. “They need to be maximizing returns for their beneficiaries.”
The action was followed in March with a $125 million <a href="https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/mar/17/arkansas-state-treasurer-yanks-about-125m-out-of/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">divestment</a> from the state of Arkansas, as well as a $100 million <a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2022/09/18/utah-state-treasurer-pulls" target="_blank" rel="noopener">divestment</a> in September from the state of Utah. The month of October saw a $794 million <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/louisiana-becomes-latest-state-to-reject-woke-investing-will-divest-800-million-from-blackrock" target="_blank" rel="noopener">divestment</a> from Louisiana, a $200 million <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/south-carolina-to-pull-final-200-million-from-leftist-blackrock-by-end-of-year" target="_blank" rel="noopener">divestment</a> from South Carolina, and a $500 million <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/missouri-is-the-latest-state-to-divest-from-blackrock-pulls-500-million-in-pension-funds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">divestment</a> from Missouri. Florida likewise <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-pulling-2-billion-from-blackrock-as-company-pushes-social-engineering-with-taxpayer-dollars" target="_blank" rel="noopener">removed</a> $2 billion from the company earlier this month, asserting that the mission to “change the world” promoted by BlackRock CEO Larry Fink exposes the state’s resources to significant financial risks.
Among other issues, officials in the conservative-leaning states expressed concern that the ESG movement may present obstacles to state pension funds and other entities seeking access to capital markets as ratings agencies downgrade bond ratings linked to cultural matters unrelated to financial health. ESG activists have pushed stockholders for companies such as Walmart and Lowe’s to consider abortion-related proposals ahead of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“Those decisions really have nothing to do with the underlying credit quality of a state government or of a corporation that is operating in that state,” Missouri State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick said during an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/wall-street-is-trying-to-punish-middle-america-for-religious-and-cultural-views-through-woke-investing-republican-state-treasurers-warn" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> with The Daily Wire earlier this year. “It’s going to drive up the cost for taxpayers in states that don’t subscribe to this ideology.”
Critics of the ESG movement say that the philosophy mingles political causes in a manner that exposes investors to risks. ESG investments have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/virtue-signaling-isnt-free-how-woke-investing-fell-apart-once-the-economy-got-bad" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suffered</a> over the past year as languishing technology stocks, which rank highly in ESG ratings due to the underlying companies’ involvement in social issues, fall behind outsized profitability from energy stocks, which rank poorly due to worries regarding carbon emissions.
As the debate over the ESG movement continues to make national headlines, Fink <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/blackrock-makes-major-change-after-backlash-against-woke-investing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> last month that institutional clients would be permitted to vote their own shares rather than allow the company to act as a proxy, offering a measure of freedom to investors who desire to recuse themselves from ESG efforts. BlackRock has taken “voting action on climate issues” against dozens of portfolio companies, according to a stewardship <a href="https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/publication/our-commitment-to-sustainability-full-report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> published two years ago.
Indeed, an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/poll-by-two-to-one-margin-investors-reject-woke-companies-pushing-political-causes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exclusive poll</a> from The Daily Wire conducted in May showed that 64% of respondents believe the “individual investors whose savings are being invested” should decide whether retirement and pension funds are allocated according to ESG standards, while a mere 20% believe that “Wall Street asset managers” should make such decisions.
Officials have also taken action against Vanguard and State Street, which have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/esg-the-invisible-fist-of-the-economy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">coordinated their efforts</a> with BlackRock on ESG proposals. Vanguard will <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/vanguard-drops-out-of-climate-initiative-as-reaction-against-woke-investing-continues" target="_blank" rel="noopener">no longer participate</a> in the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, through which members <a href="https://www.netzeroassetmanagers.org/commitment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">promise</a> to move portfolio companies closer to eliminating net carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner, after multiple attorneys general <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-attorneys-general-move-to-block-vanguards-climate-crusade-from-impacting-public-power-grids" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed motions</a> seeking to prevent Vanguard from purchasing shares in publicly traded utilities out of a concern that the company’s climate efforts would decrease nationwide grid reliability.

Coal Workers Union Pickets Outside BlackRock Investors In New York City

States Have Pulled Nearly $12 Billion From BlackRock This Year

BlackRock

Money

Readers Pass

U.S.

Strive founder Vivek Ramaswamy celebrated BlackRock backing down on Tuesday from supporting certain climate change proposals that “micromanage” companies, calling it an “early impact” of his new firm.
The new asset management company — which will <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/entrepreneur-who-launched-anti-woke-asset-management-fund-reports-flood-of-job-applicants">prioritize</a> “excellence capitalism” over the progressive “stakeholder capitalism” model favored by large competitors like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street — encourages portfolio companies to pursue maximizing profits for shareholders. 
“Last night: we launch Strive to compete with BlackRock by focusing companies on excellence over politics. Tonight: BlackRock announces it won’t support climate change shareholder proposals that ‘micromanage companies,’” Ramaswamy, a former pharmaceutical CEO, tweeted on Tuesday. “Glad to see the early impact.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Last night: we launch Strive to compete with BlackRock by focusing companies on excellence over politics.
Tonight: BlackRock announces it won’t support climate change shareholder proposals that “micromanage companies.”
Glad to see the early impact.<a href="https://t.co/AnFZv7xjSl">https://t.co/AnFZv7xjSl</a>
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) <a href="https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1524183636811161600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Indeed, BlackRock — the world’s largest asset manager — is “likely to support proportionately fewer” environmental and social shareholder proposals “this proxy season than in 2021, as we do not consider them to be consistent with our clients’ long-term financial interests,” according to a note from BlackRock’s Investment Stewardship team, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/11/blackrock-to-vote-for-fewer-climate-provisions-in-2022-than-2021.html">CNBC</a> reported.
“This includes those that are unduly prescriptive and constraining on the decision-making of the board or management, call for changes to a company’s strategy or business model, or address matters that are not material to how a company delivers long-term shareholder value,” the note explained.
“It’s going to be hard for BlackRock to put the toothpaste back in the tube,” Ramaswamy commented on Twitter. 
In an interview with <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/upstart-money-manager-gets-billionaires-to-back-the-anti-blackrock-11652134919?mod=mhp">The Wall Street Journal</a> earlier this week, Ramaswamy explained Strive’s approach by saying, “We will tell oil companies to be excellent oil companies and coal companies to be excellent coal companies and solar companies to be excellent solar companies.”
Ramaswamy said that he has secured $20 million in financial backing. The Journal reported that PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and Pershing Square Capital Management CEO Bill Ackman are among the financiers.
“A majority of Americans want companies to stay out of politics,” Ramaswamy continued. “They want to have a separate space for where they shop, where they work, and where they invest from the places where they cast their ballots or engage in their political debates.”
BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard — which handle a combined $21 trillion in assets and hold, on average, a 20% stake in every Fortune 500 company — run on the model of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/entrepreneur-who-launched-anti-woke-asset-management-fund-reports-flood-of-job-applicants">stakeholder capitalism</a>, which claims that everyone in the “community” has a say in how a company’s activities impact issues such as climate change and minority board seats. The approach argues that for the sake of a greater social good, corporations must be involved in causes that may have nothing to do with their businesses — whether it benefits their shareholders or not. 
However, Ramaswamy said in a recent CNBC <a href="https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1524188070475673603?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1524188070475673603%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fentrepreneur-who-launched-anti-woke-asset-management-fund-reports-flood-of-job-applicants">interview</a> that ESG — one of the progressive investment philosophies that pushes “social responsibility” in addition to profits — has no track record of success. “There’s no evidence that ESG outperforms, despite the claims made by some of the world’s largest asset managers and their CEOs,” he argued.
Ramaswamy, the author of “Woke, Inc: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam,” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-losers-of-this-game-are-the-american-people-young-medical-entrepreneur-is-defecting-from-leftist-corporate-america">explained</a> in an op-ed last year that both liberals and conservatives are duped by large firms’ tactics — the former by their “love of woke causes,” and the latter by their belief that “the market can do no wrong.”
“This new woke-industrial Leviathan gains its power by dividing us as a people. When corporations tell us what social values we’re supposed to adopt, they take America as a whole and divide us into tribes,” Ramaswamy wrote. “That makes it easier for them to make a buck, but it also coaxes us into adopting new identities based on skin-deep characteristics and flimsy social causes that supplant our deeper shared identity as Americans.”

Vivek Ramaswamy

Entrepreneur Behind Anti-Woke Asset Management Fund Celebrates BlackRock Ending Support For Certain Climate Change Proposals That ‘Micromanage’ Its Portfolio Companies

Entrepreneur Behind New Anti-Woke Asset Management Fund Lauds BlackRock Ending Support For Certain Environmental Proposals That ‘Micromanage’ Its Portfolio Companies

Capitalism

Former Twitter CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey slammed the company&#8217;s board of directors in a tweet over the weekend which comes as entrepreneur Elon Musk, the world&#8217;s richest man, offered $43 billion to buy the company outright last week.
Dorsey was responding to the following tweet when he made his remark, &#8220;If look into the history of Twitter board, it’s intriguing as I was a witness on its early beginnings, mired in plots and coups, and particularly amongst Twitter’s founding members. I wish if it could be made into a Hollywood thriller one day.&#8221;
Dorsey responded, &#8220;It’s consistently been the dysfunction of the company.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
it’s consistently been the dysfunction of the company
&mdash; jack (@jack) <a href="https://twitter.com/jack/status/1515549577352564740?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 17, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Dorsey also <a href="https://twitter.com/jack/status/1515536972995088385">said</a> &#8220;big facts&#8221; in response to the following statement from venture capitalist Fred Destin: “What I do know for sure is that this old Silicon Valley proverb is grounded in age-old wisdom that still applies today: Good boards don’t create good companies, but a bad board will kill a company every time.”
When later asked if he was allowed to speak like this publicly given the fact that he is still on the company&#8217;s board, Dorsey responded, &#8220;No.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
no
&mdash; jack (@jack) <a href="https://twitter.com/jack/status/1515559905499009025?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 17, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Twitter has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/twitters-poison-pill-plan-to-block-elon-musk-from-buying-the-company-may-not-be-enough-to-stop-him">attempted</a> to stop Musk from taking over the company by adopting a so-called “poison pill” that effectively allows all shareholders, except those trying to buy out the company, to purchase newly offered shares at a discounted price.
Musk would have to purchase the new shares at a higher price, which could end up being too much for him to afford, if he wanted to take over the company. Despite throwing a massive roadblock in Musk’s way, the adoption of the poison pill would not bar Musk from being able to buy the company, it would only make it harder.
“A poison pill is a way to stave off someone until you can get a higher price. It makes it outrageously expensive for the person to buy it,” said Charles Elson, the founding director of the University of Delaware’s Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance. “It’s a doomsday machine, it’s the atomic bomb, everyone gets wiped out — that’s the key.”
Musk <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/musk-reveals-during-ted-talk-that-there-is-a-plan-b-if-twitter-rejects-his-offer-to-buy-the-company">revealed</a> during a TED Talk last week that he had a plan in place if Twitter blocked his attempt to buy the company.
“If in this case you are not successful in that the board does not accept your offer, you’ve said you won’t go higher, is there a plan B?” Musk was asked.
“There is,” Musk responded while smiling.
When asked what his backup plan is, Musk said he would discuss that at another time.
Related:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/musk-blasts-twitter-amid-reports-they-may-reject-his-offer-posts-goldman-sachs-rating-for-company">Musk Blasts Twitter Amid Reports They May Reject His Offer, Posts Goldman Sachs’ Rating For Company</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-no-longer-twitters-largest-shareholder-after-another-buyer-ups-its-stake-in-the-company">Elon Musk No Longer Twitter’s Largest Shareholder After Another Buyer Ups Its Stake In The Company</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/saudi-prince-rejects-elon-musk-offer-to-buy-twitter-musk-grills-him-in-tweet">Saudi Prince Rejects Elon Musk Offer To Buy Twitter; Musk Grills Him In Tweet</a></li>
</ul>

Bitcoin Conference Draws Cryptocurrency Fans To Miami

Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Lashes Out At Twitter’s Board As Elon Musk Tries To Buy Company

Elon Musk

Jack Dorsey

Poison pill

Twitter

Twitter&#8217;s desperate gambit on Friday to stave off Elon Musk&#8217;s bid for a hostile takeover is technically known as a  shareholder rights’ plan, but investors call it a “poison pill.” Here’s how it works, and what might happen next:
A poison pill allows other shareholders &#8211; but not the would-be buyer &#8211; to scoop up newly minted shares at a discount, boosting their investments while forcing the target to swallow &#8220;economic poison&#8221; by having his shares diluted. The move is an unmistakable signal that the board is not interested in the prospective hostile acquiror, despite a potential profit for shareholders. If the maneuver succeeds, shareholders are certain to flood the courts with lawsuits, accusing the directors of Twitter of breaching their fiduciary duties.
There are three possible outcomes now, none of which are ideal for Twitter&#8217;s current board: Musk could win by successfully initiating a proxy contest to remove the directors and nix the poison pill; Musk forces the company to find a &#8220;white knight,&#8221; or alternative buyer, potentially at a higher price, thus making his shares more valuable; Musk walks away and leaves the company and the board facing a pile of lawsuits as shareholders blame them for hurting the value of their stock.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-twitter-board-passes-poison-pill-to-stop-musk-takeover">The Daily Wire</a> reported Friday:
<blockquote>“Twitter, Inc. today announced that its Board of Directors has unanimously adopted a limited duration shareholder rights plan (the ‘Rights Plan’),” a press release from the company <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/twitter-adopts-limited-duration-shareholder-rights-plan-enabling-all-shareholders-to-realize-full-value-of-company-301526627.html">said</a>. “The Board adopted the Rights Plan following an unsolicited, non-binding proposal to acquire Twitter.”
“The Rights Plan is intended to enable all shareholders to realize the full value of their investment in Twitter,” it continued. “The Rights Plan will reduce the likelihood that any entity, person or group gains control of Twitter through open market accumulation without paying all shareholders an appropriate control premium or without providing the Board sufficient time to make informed judgments and take actions that are in the best interests of shareholders.”
“The Rights Plan does not prevent the Board from engaging with parties or accepting an acquisition proposal if the Board believes that it is in the best interests of Twitter and its shareholders,” Twitter said.
“Under the Rights Plan, the rights will become exercisable if an entity, person or group acquires beneficial ownership of 15% or more of Twitter’s outstanding common stock in a transaction not approved by the Board,” the company added. “In the event that the rights become exercisable due to the triggering ownership threshold being crossed, each right will entitle its holder (other than the person, entity or group triggering the Rights Plan, whose rights will become void and will not be exercisable) to purchase, at the then-current exercise price, additional shares of common stock having a then-current market value of twice the exercise price of the right.”</blockquote>

US-AUTOMOBILE-INDUSTRY-TESLA-ECONOMY

Twitter Uses ‘Poison Pill’ To Stop Musk. Here’s How That Works And What Could Happen Next.

Leftism

Menu