Socially responsible index funds?

[snowboundobgyn]

Wow, this really touched a nerve. Obviously I already did a bit of googling and searching old posts on this site but I thought somebody else may have taken a deeper dive or already have invested in these products. FWIW I will just go ahead and invest in FITLX and VFTAX as originally planned.

[VentAlarm]

I’ve come to realize that I’m just going to invest in (what I think is) the best way possible, shop at stores and restaurants that provide the best goods and foods at the best prices and donate as I see fit.

Boycotting CFA because they have conservative views or Patagonia because they have liberal views would just take too long and be too exhausting. Chick-fil-A makes a great sandwich and Patagonia makes a great vest and duffle. Every company has things and people I do and don’t agree with, but, in the words of American History X “life’s too short to be pissed off all the time.”

[CordMcNally]

If you really wanted to follow true ESG guidelines then you’d just hold cash under your mattress. The trick would be what kind of currency you’d pick since all governments have done harmful things we don’t agree with.

[Brains428]

VFTSX- apparently it's closed to new investors. But may be worth looking into and finding comparable ETFs.

I do not invest in the above or any "conscious" funds. As said above, probably best to direct money directly to a cause, rather than avoiding investing.

[jacoavlu]

if you really want to know what you're investing in, which is a basket of equities that are selected by a committee, you can read some about their methodology here

https://research.ftserussell.com/products/downloads/FTSE4Good_US_Select_Index_Ground_Rules.pdf

i haven't been able to find out who is on the committee

but the fact that they exclude nuclear power tells me they're captured by woke rules, bc no sane person who truly believes that fossil fuel use needs to be decreased but also understands that the world needs more power, would be opposed to nuclear

[AR]

if you really want to know what you're investing in, which is a basket of equities that are selected by a committee, you can read some about their methodology here

https://research.ftserussell.com/products/downloads/FTSE4Good_US_Select_Index_Ground_Rules.pdf

i haven't been able to find out who is on the committee

but the fact that they exclude nuclear power tells me they're captured by woke rules, bc no sane person who truly believes that fossil fuel use needs to be decreased but also understands that the world needs more power, would be opposed to nuclear

I'd change 'sane' here to 'informed'. Many people just don't understand what the true dangers of nuclear power are and what they aren't. It's not that they have been presented the facts and rejected them, it's that they've literally never seen them. I've had a couple of convos with such people. They are persuadable. So I think they're often sane. Ignorant perhaps, but sane.

[jacoavlu]

I'd change 'sane' here to 'informed'. Many people just don't understand what the true dangers of nuclear power are and what they aren't. It's not that they have been presented the facts and rejected them, it's that they've literally never seen them. I've had a couple of convos with such people. They are persuadable. So I think they're often sane. Ignorant perhaps, but sane.

that’s reasonable. “Ignorant” is being too kind in my opinion. I would say such people may have other motives to remain ignorant - such as fitting into a crowd - but that would be assumptive on my part. But my point still stands.

“Informed” shouldn’t be sitting back and waiting for someone to spoon feed a sane adult what is reality.

[VentAlarm]

that’s reasonable. “Ignorant” is being too kind in my opinion. I would say such people may have other motives to remain ignorant - such as fitting into a crowd - but that would be assumptive on my part. But my point still stands.

“Informed” shouldn’t be sitting back and waiting for someone to spoon feed a sane adult what is reality.

Your condescension aside, most of us have a lot of stuff going on in our lives. I’m ignorant to much of the data regarding energy production. It doesn’t affect my daily life. I’ve got a job, research, a wife I’m trying to love, a family member with cancer and three kids I’m trying to raise well. It’s impossible to be informed on everything and your priorities aren’t mine.

[jacoavlu]

Your condescension aside, most of us have a lot of stuff going on in our lives. I’m ignorant to much of the data regarding energy production. It doesn’t affect my daily life. I’ve got a job, research, a wife I’m trying to love, a family member with cancer and three kids I’m trying to raise well. It’s impossible to be informed on everything and your priorities aren’t mine.

hey man, my post wasn’t targeted at you so not sure why you’re triggered.

In your case, it’s fine to be preoccupied. So then, im sure you personally don’t express strong opinions and or take action against something which you might be too busy to be fully informed about

reasonable?

[Tangler]

1. this is active management
2. increases costs
3. Risks underperforming (like any active management)
4. ESG ratings (scores) vary tremendously depending on who is issuing them and what their focus is.
5. Good bogleheads podcast on this out today:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas...=1000564469511

[Tangler]

“The most common and popular of such funds are those with explicit ESG objectives. But even then, the term means different things to different people, and it is difficult for investors to understand exactly what the ESG portfolios actually achieve. To make matters worse, the ESG scores for different companies published by the professional rating services provided to portfolio managers differ materially. Correlations of ratings between different rating services are as low as 0.42. To put that number in perspective, the correlations between the bond ratings of S&P and Moody’s are more than 0.99. ESG raters cannot even agree when they are considering the same attribute, such as carbon intensity.“
Burton G Malkiel:
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...n-its-promises

”ESG is bs”
Elon Musk

[Tangler]

Rick Ferri seems to echo WCI: invest in index funds which cost less.

Use the cost savings account to enhance returns.

Use the money from enhanced returns to improve the world.

Makes sense to me.

[Lordosis]

I find Facebook way more socially irresponsible than fossil fuels. At least I feel it is worse for humanity.

[Tim]

I find Facebook way more socially irresponsible than fossil fuels. At least I feel it is worse for humanity.

What is Facebook?
There is no law against being “stupid”. Sometimes it is helpful.
My “research” is below:
“Microsoft is thinking in terms of work, while Facebook is more about social media and social interactions.”

That is all I care to know. Call me whatever “label”,
I am content with stupid. It’s legal (at least for now).

[Brains428]

OP was asking about avoid firearm companies.

All productive capacity requires some amount of energy use. We tend to measure the end product, but the build out of a product may actually be the most environmentally harmful. All this is to say that ESG fund categories are simply marketing ideas. An ex-firearm ETF would be the same.