|
Grex > Agora46 > #15: Socially REsponsible Investing (long) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 3 of 104:
| 
Jun 23 21:03 UTC 2003 |
Jep, you are obviously not a liberal, nor do you care about the environment,
nor are you antiwar, therefore how could you possibly find a socially
responsible mutual fund that you agree with? They are for people who are not
solely concerned with making more money for themselves, and therefore invest
in companies which treat their employees fairly, which do not profit from
wars, which do not profit from selling drugs (even legal ones). I don't agree
with all their policies either but I am too lazy to choose my own companies
to invest my IRA in so I will put up with them investing in some junk food
companies. I own part of eBay and I forget what else. On average, my mutual
fund (Pax) has done at least as well as its competitors. For some reason,
companies that treat their employees fairly tend to stick around longer.
|
jep
|
|
response 4 of 104:
|
Jun 24 03:29 UTC 2003 |
re resp:2: I disagree that I think like a drug dealer. I don't seek
out someone else to spend my money to promote what they think is the
good of society. If I go to a restaurant, I go there for lunch. If I
go to a financial planner, I go to make money. If I want to promote
the good of society, I am perfectly capable of sending my money myself
to where I think it will do the most good as I define "good".
re resp:3: You don't believe in drugs? I believe the pharmaceutical
industry probably contributed more to the "good of society" (by doing
what would make them money) than just about any other industry in the
20th century. The eradication of polio and smallpox, for two obvious
examples, were enormously beneficial. I'm hoping someone makes
themselves rich by finding a cure for AIDS.
|
tsty
|
|
response 5 of 104:
|
Jun 24 04:03 UTC 2003 |
wow. re #2 .. sure didn't expect that! options are options; all choices
are yurs. thinking for profit is the province of capitalists. is
mary calling capitalism 'drug dealing'?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 6 of 104:
|
Jun 24 06:39 UTC 2003 |
I'm amused that anyone could think that liberals have a monopoly on "social
responsibility."
|
keesan
|
|
response 7 of 104:
|
Jun 24 08:19 UTC 2003 |
My mutual fund has a lot of investments in the pharmaceutical industry and
in the medical industry, but nothing invested in nicotine or alcohol or guns
or airplanes or oil or cars.
I think they have a large investment in UPS. I read a book once about UPS,
which decided to start a training program for people who had trouble keeping
jobs. They bussed them to the location, assigned them each a regular employee
as mentor, gave them all alarm clocks so they would not miss the bus,
encouraged them all to work towards perfect attendance and 100% completion
(they lost one person when her boyfriend dragged her out of state, I think),
had a big graduation party (for people who never finished high school) and
have a very high retention rate for these workers, which in the long run means
more profits for UPS.
|
pvn
|
|
response 8 of 104:
|
Jun 24 08:35 UTC 2003 |
re#3: You invest in ebay? Me to. I think its a pretty good investment
in spite of it being the largest "Fencing Operation" in the world. (By
its own published statistics it has way more criminal operations
(auctions) going on at any given time than even the chicago mob in its
prime and its all "legal". I figure "caveat emptor" for the moment.
re#2: No, he thinks like a free market capitalist. The drug dealer is a
monopolist who not only kills his customers but uses force to prevent
competing vendors. (witness Micro$oft) The difference is merely the
economy of scale. "What is reprehensible in the small scale is
admirable on the large." (Although, I dumped Micro$oft as its business
model was no longer viable in my opinion, too many of the addicts
stopped buying the product or working for future returns instead of real
wages - no complaints on the ROI.)
re#7: and UPS doesn't use airplanes, cars or large vans running on
petrochemicals? What planet you live on? And the story about the alarm
clocks dates from a 1960's novel written about the US automobile
industry as I recall.
|
mary
|
|
response 9 of 104:
|
Jun 24 10:47 UTC 2003 |
Jep, would still feel "money made for me will go to the most socially
responsible end that can be imagined: making me more wealthy" if you
knew your money was funding a company which intentionally targeted
and sold addictive drugs in a carcinogenic package to children
around the world?
|
jep
|
|
response 10 of 104:
|
Jun 24 12:48 UTC 2003 |
re resp:9: I would not choose to support a tobacco company to make
money for myself, if that's what you're asking.
If I could have a mutual fund which included a list of companies I am
willing to support, those I am not, those I prefer, etc., then I
wouldn't allow my money to go to any tobacco companies. I wouldn't
pick Coca Cola, either.
The mutual funds from which I can pick don't work that way. A couple
are "socially responsible", which means they say they follow a list of
criteria which sound glowingly pleasant. I don't assume that their
choices are necessarily *my* choices. I imagine they're cheerfully
funding companies which provide abortions in 3rd world countries,
giving preference to companies which fund Greenpeace and PETA, and
generally funding activism which I oppose.
How about you? Would you pick "socially responsible" if you thought
some of the companies were on the list because they did things you
strongly opposed?
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 104:
|
Jun 24 13:43 UTC 2003 |
Re #6: I was wondering about that, too. Are there "socially
responsible" funds that focus on, say, a conservative Christian view of
what's "responsible"? It seems like there would be a demand for such a
thing.
|
scott
|
|
response 12 of 104:
|
Jun 24 14:14 UTC 2003 |
Judging from a quick google on "Christian investment", yes.
|
oval
|
|
response 13 of 104:
|
Jun 24 14:57 UTC 2003 |
funny how "Christian" and "socially responsible" don't seem to be fitting
together.
lmao@#8
|
mary
|
|
response 14 of 104:
|
Jun 24 21:17 UTC 2003 |
Re: #10 Absolutely. I also voted for my U of M retirement
funds to not invest in companies that produce cigarettes.
It's very easy to have a social conscience and invest
in good stocks and bonds. If you want to.
|
mdw
|
|
response 15 of 104:
|
Jun 24 21:31 UTC 2003 |
It ought to be noted that tobacco companies are not doing particularly
well especially domestically, and several are going to interesting
lengths to try to separate their tobacco & non-tobacco operations.
The problem with companies that don't operate in a socially responsible
fashion is that sometimes their sins *do* catch up with them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 16 of 104:
|
Jun 24 23:46 UTC 2003 |
Quite recently tobacco use was overwhelmingly socially acceptable. It
isn't that tobacco companies "sins" have caught up with them, but rather
they have moved into new definitions of "sins".
|
orinoco
|
|
response 17 of 104:
|
Jun 25 00:01 UTC 2003 |
I know some folks who insist on buying their gas from Shell, and have done
so religiously for years, because they consider Shell to be a socially
responsible company. I was startled when they told me that; a lot of
people at the time were boycotting Shell because of their sketchy dealings
with the Nigerian government.
http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.htm
But apparently, Shell was one of the first gas companies to sell unleaded
gasoline, and used to have quite a reputation as a "green" company.
Because we cared about different issues, we had entirely different
impressions of the same company.
|
jep
|
|
response 18 of 104:
|
Jun 25 02:06 UTC 2003 |
re resp:14: I may not have made my question clear. Would you invest
in a "socially responsible" fund which you thought might be picking
companies who favored things you strongly opposed? You know, Domino's
Pizza, Amway, RJR/Nabisco, companies like that?
For me, "socially responsible" means "politically inclined against
me". The people who seem to me to be most likely to pick something
called "socially responsible" are people like you... and, um, I would
imagine, in elections of wide enough scope that we both vote, we
cancel each other's votes most of the time. I very rarely agree with
you on political issues.
It's foolish to pick ways to spend your money that are designed to
oppose what you want. I would rather pick mutual funds that are
neutral, rather than ones selected to go against me.
I imagine my point is understood if it's ever going to be.
|
keesan
|
|
response 19 of 104:
|
Jun 25 02:46 UTC 2003 |
Nabisco is not socially responsible.
The tobacco companies are now trying to addict people in other countries as
they lose their market here. There was some political deal whereby China was
forced to allow imported American tobacco. I think Korea and Japan are also
victims of the tobacco companies.
|
jep
|
|
response 20 of 104:
|
Jun 25 11:44 UTC 2003 |
Sindi, I don't like the tobacco companies either. I've got kids, and
I hate the idea of them becoming smokers. I'm not exactly in favor of
sending the tobacco companies overseas to attack the children of other
countries, either.
Struggle with this idea for a bit, just to humor me: imagine that
Nabisco does something that really excites those who pick "socially
responsible" companies. I'm not going to specify what because this is
hypothetical, and you might argue with whatever example I made up.
(Nabisco itself is a hypothetical example, and you're arguing with it,
so that's why I think that could happen.) Imagine Nabisco does
something marvelous and exciting. Then you find your "socially
responsible" mutual fund has started buying Nabisco, even though
Nabisco is a tobacco company. What would you do at that point?
I don't play the "socially responsible investing" game because this
sort of thing is pretty likely to happen to me. It's not going to
happen with Nabisco, my hypothetical example, but it seems likely that
a "socially responsible" fund is going to pick things that are as
repugnant to me as Nabisco would be to you.
I don't invest to make social statements. I'm not much interested in
investing and the stock market anyway, which is why I use mutual funds
in the first place. I'd have to get a whole lot more interested than
I am to seek out mutual funds which have the right attitude for my
preferences.
Sigh. I guess as long as someone is willing and able to mis-portray
what I say, I'm willing or compelled to explain myself again and
again, forever. I wonder if this disorder is treatable.
|
mary
|
|
response 21 of 104:
|
Jun 25 12:24 UTC 2003 |
A socially responsible fund will outline its objectives and strategy in
its prospectus. If you agree with these objectives then most of the work
is done. The fund manager takes those goals into account with each
purchase and keeps an eye on how the company is holding to the
funds philosophy.
There are funds out there that are only limited in that they
won't buy tobacco companies. Not controversial at all, I'd think,
to someone who thinks smoking is a bad idea.
To a great extent "socially responsible" comes down to avoiding
investments in US companies that do to other counties what we don't allow
them to do here, at home, for health, safety and environmental reasons.
|
scott
|
|
response 22 of 104:
|
Jun 25 12:31 UTC 2003 |
Actually, I'm just curious what sorts of investments you'd find repugnant,
jep. A quick web search shows that the "socially responsible" investments
avoid tobacco, arms, nuclear issues, gambling, pollution, animal testing
abortion (presumably anti-abortion companies, or perhaps companies that
actually have a position on abortion at all).
I'm not trying to make a point or set you up, I'm just curious.
|
gull
|
|
response 23 of 104:
|
Jun 25 13:24 UTC 2003 |
Not to put words in jep's mouth, but from his other postings I got the
impression that he doesn't see investing as a moral issue, just a way to
make money. So it's possible there are no reasonable investments he'd
find repugnant. (I'm assuming we're not talking about far-fetched
hypothetical cases like 'Bob's Kitten Crushing Machines, Inc.')
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 24 of 104:
|
Jun 25 13:50 UTC 2003 |
Re #22: Actually, if they take an anti-choice position on abortion, I
wouldn't want to support them.
|
mary
|
|
response 25 of 104:
|
Jun 25 13:53 UTC 2003 |
And when you take morality out of making money you're
left with what?
|
keesan
|
|
response 26 of 104:
|
Jun 25 14:26 UTC 2003 |
I have turned down paid work which I considered immoral, but one time I
accidentally accepted a job which turned out to be for a tobacco company.
When they paid me, I donated the money to the American Lung Association. I
told that translation agency I was not going to do any more tobacco
translations. (Previous ones appeared to be anti-tobacco).
|
oval
|
|
response 27 of 104:
|
Jun 25 14:35 UTC 2003 |
thing is, we, as citizens of a capitalist world, can and should decide where
our money goes, no matter what we believe.
i'm not much of a gambler, and dirt poor, but i do refuse to use certain
products and to not spend my money at certain places. it ain't much, but if
everybody gave a shit then it would be.
|