The Opponents Aren't Melting

Ben & Jerry's Israel factory (JTA)

The BDS (boycott, divest, sanctions) movement began 15-20 years ago in order to show support for Palestinians and punish companies that did business with Israel. BDS was embraced by left-wing activists as a non-violent method of harming Israel economically and perhaps inducing it to change its policies.

When Ben & Jerry's, the popular ice cream company now owned by Unilever, announced that it will no longer sell its products in the West Bank, it was not a surprise. BDS was just another chapter in Ben & Jerry's' 30+-year history of left-wing activism. BDS, like climate change, Black Lives Matter, and vaccination mandates, has had an easy ride because companies have judged the cost of resistance to be too high.

However, the opposition to BDS is beginning to employ the same tactics on Unilever that BDS has used on companies like Hewlett-Packard, Puma, and Sodastream: [bold added]

Two months after Ben & Jerry’s said it would stop retailing its products in Jewish settlements located in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, several state funds are selling or threatening to sell their investments in Unilever PLC, the ice cream brand’s parent company.

The New Jersey Division of Investment, which manages several state pension funds, said this week it planned to sell $182 million of stocks, bonds and other securities linked to Unilever, accusing the company of breaking state laws that prohibit the boycott of Israel. It didn’t give a time frame for the sale, and Unilever can appeal the decision.

Separately, Arizona said earlier this month that it would sell the last $50 million of its investments in Unilever by Sept. 21 for the same reason. The state said its funds had already sold $93 million worth of investments in Unilever since Ben & Jerry’s announced its decision.

Other states including New York, Florida and Texas have said they are evaluating whether their funds would need to sell their Unilever investments. Unilever declined to comment Friday on the divestments but reiterated its commitment to Israel.

Just as BDS has had little effect on companies with a sizable market cap, the pushback on Unilever will not hurt it directly. However, this episode shows that acquiescing to activism is beginning to carry its own costs.

Better Than What They Paid For

Big Bank stocks' increase in less than two days: Citigroup +7.82%, J.P. Morgan Chase +9.68%,
Bank of America +10.91%, Goldman Sachs +11.60%, Wells Fargo +13.78%

Hillary Clinton was the friend of Wall Street, but the election of Donald Trump, coupled with the Republican retention of both houses of Congress, has powered financial stocks higher probably beyond bankers' wildest hopes if their candidate had won. One reason could be the President-elect's desire to streamline cumbersome Dodd-Frank regulations:

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) last year laid out a blueprint for replacing Dodd​-Frank​, and ​ many observers view ​that ​as a starting point. It is built around a trade-off: Banks can free themselves from various regulations, such as tough stress testing, so long as they maintain capital equal to at least 10% of total assets and high ratings from the regulator.

Republicans should temper their enthusiasm for helping the banks. Sure, get rid of red tape that slows everything down and maybe loosen capital requirements slightly, but be very cautious about letting the financial gunslingers roam free. [bold added]

[Republicans] also risk losing support if they push too far, according to lobbyists and congressional aides.

For instance, some Republicans are split over the idea of removing Title II of Dodd-​Frank, which gives financial regulators authority to take over and unwind huge financial firms as a way of avoiding future bailouts. On the other hand, ​Republicans might need to pick up some Democratic votes to move the bill through the Senate, and that party is almost sure to oppose major changes to core Dodd-Frank provisions, such as the Volcker ​rule barring banks from some forms of proprietary trading.

The wounds from the 2008 financial crisis that ruined millions are still fresh, and folks, your allegiance is to the people who elected you, not the Wall Street elite who will throw you over the side if they can get a better deal from the other guys.

Not All of Us Can

At last, the winnowing:

" Michael Bloomberg is my hero," Mr. Mills said. "He catapulted us out of all this lethargy. He threw out all the drunks, all the hypocrites, all the liars, all the people who were here for a little bit of fun, and brought us down to the people who are smart enough to get things done and really have something invested in this."

1) If you can't police yourselves, how can you police others?

2) Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who is part of the .0001%, "is my hero." No irony there.