Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Socially responsible index funds?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by AR View Post

    Sure. I mean there is no way this couldn't also be laziness. That's impossible.
    Ok, maybe 90% virtue signaling and 10% laziness.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by jacoavlu View Post

      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?
      Not triggered. You just came off sounding like anyone who doesn’t publicly agree with you is lesser.

      Comment


      • #33
        I'm glad I still own XOM, since it makes me happy every time I go to the pump knowing the skyrocketing oil prices are benefiting shareholders, and since it is in the ESG category, they have so much love to share.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Lordosis View Post
          I find Facebook way more socially irresponsible than fossil fuels. At least I feel it is worse for humanity.
          1000% yes and it’s hilarious we have been bamboozled while big tech basically destroys the social fabric of the country and we tremendously underinvest in energy

          people worship tech ceos like they care about average joe when they could not care less and are just the best salesmen in the world. It is absolutely incredible. We need to reign in big tech so hard but government loves the data collection so they sit on sidelines in a nutshell.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ENT Doc View Post

            Ok, maybe 90% virtue signaling and 10% laziness.
            Maybe reverse the numbers and you're closer.

            Your post is more virtue signaling than hers in as far as you think your view is the correct one to have.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Kamban View Post
              Guns, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, fast food, fossil fuels, etc, etc. There are many social evils. It is difficult to have funds that tease those out and also give good returns.

              I ignore all that and just invest in total stock or S & P 500 or 1000. And individually address the issues with charity.
              Difficult... and stupid.

              I agree to not let individual preferences bias money matter. In investing, the only color that matters is green... not red/white/blue, not blue/yellow, not red, not star of david, not anything else.

              To ride the high horse in market decisions is foolish. Pick what will make money. People are going to drink and smoke and get heart attacks and get diabetes and stab or shoot each other no matter what you buy. Altria was one of the best overall stocks of the late 20th century dividends + growth. I also made a lot on Lorillard until they were bought out.

              One of my biggest holdings now is Novo Nordisk... I'm sure I'm "taking advantage of diabetes and obesity"??? How socially irresponsible of me. Lol.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by AR View Post

                Maybe reverse the numbers and you're closer.

                Your post is more virtue signaling than hers in as far as you think your view is the correct one to have.
                You got me!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by snowboundobgyn View Post
                  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.
                  If investing in funds that hold UnitedHealth Group, Amazon, and bank stocks makes you feel like you are being socially responsible, you just lost your virtue-signaling street cred.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by PHANTASOS View Post
                    If investing in funds that hold UnitedHealth Group, Amazon, and bank stocks makes you feel like you are being socially responsible, you just lost your virtue-signaling street cred.
                    This one wins the day ^^^

                    Clear a bed in the burn unit?

                    This thread has all the makings of an OP who will now disappear for many months or make a new fake account to use until things blow over
                    Last edited by Max Power; 06-01-2022, 08:12 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      If you want to have an impact, refusing to buy the stocks misses the point completely.
                      What you need to do is refuse to buy the products, directly or indirectly. If you cut demand, then there will be less of whatever you object to created and sold.
                      For guns, the first step is easy- don't buy guns. Then it gets harder. Try to convince your local municipality to disarm the police force. Appeal to your Congressional representatives to shut down the DOD. Make the same appeal across the world. Yes, Russia would quickly mop up Ukraine, but we are after bigger goals.

                      If you have fossil fuels on your list of things to which you object, refusing to buy the stock of companies that produce them accomplishes nothing. To have an impact, stop using the fuels. First eliminate oil and gas from your direct personal consumption. Then, refuse to charge your electric vehicle with power generated from fossil fuels. recognize that there are no separate grids for fossil and clean energy. When you charge up, you are using power produced from a mix of fossil and clean sources, even if your electric bill has you paying for 100% clean energy. So just stop using any electricity that you do not produce at home with your solar installation.
                      Then stop buying food or anything else that was produced or transported using fossil power. Don't shop at a grocery store at all. Do not go to farmer's markets unless you have good reason to think that the farmers also do not use fossil fuels in production and used only clean energy vehicles to get to the market.

                      Best just to produce your own food at your own farm where you live.

                      Never, EVER fly in an airplane.

                      The more you pursue this path, the more you are actually reducing the amount of CO2 dumped into the air.

                      Refusing to buy stock in some famous fossil fuel company accomplishes nothing. The level of climate-changing pollution will not decline by a fraction of a gram.

                      Writing a letter to your senator, electronically to avoid the transportation costs, will do very little, but it will do much more than excluding fuel companies from your portfolio.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by snowboundobgyn View Post
                        It is the relentless efforts of the gun lobby to ensure that no reasonable gun control legislation will ever be passed specifically in this country to prevent the massacre of children at an elementary school.
                        OK, I am coming to the defense of the OP since a lot of people seem to piling it on him / her, and some tangentially and ridiculously.

                        The OP believes the gun lobby is trying to oppose even sensible gun controls and wants to do his best to counteract it in his small way. I might believe in giving money to organizations who try to bring about sensible legislation. He believes that socially responsible stock buying is his way, even if leads to lower returns and is willing to accept those returns. There might be other casualties like alcohol and fossil fuels in those funds that he is not opposed to but then that is his right to make the choice.

                        As to not buying guns Vs. not buying stock both decrease the value of the company. The company is valued based on the stock price x number of shares. The less the people want to buy those shares, the lower will be its price and hence the value of the company is less. This will affect its ability to borrow money / float bonds, issue new shares etc.

                        I think this forum needs to be a bit more civil rather than turning into a Sermo. OP, please come back and post and be in this forum.
                        Last edited by Kamban; 06-01-2022, 07:23 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          afan
                          You forgot, do not vote for anyone that refuses to follow all of the steps outlined above. "Rules for thee and not for me. "

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            How does someone not buying a stock, decrease the value of the company ? There are 4 billion people in the world, if someone doesn't want to buy a good company that makes money , some one else will but it and profit from it. The idea that "social responsible" investors will avoid the stock in masses and drive down the price, I don't see any evidence towards this. If a gun manufacturer makes a lot of guns and profits, some one will buy it and profit from it, it just may not be the ESG investor. The ESG investor may actually lose money compared to the non ESG investor.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Random1 View Post
                              How does someone not buying a stock, decrease the value of the company ? There are 4 billion people in the world, if someone doesn't want to buy a good company that makes money , some one else will but it and profit from it.
                              It is supply and demand. For every buyer there has to be a seller and for every seller there has to be a buyer. If there are lot of sellers wanting to unload a stock but there are not enough buyers, the stock price will fall till there are sufficient buyers willing to buy at that price.

                              Now, one buyer who does not want to buy a gun company stock won't make a difference in the stock price. But if there is a significant number like 20 or 50 million people who won't buy the stock, its demand will fall. Not all buyers are buy and hold forever investors.

                              It does not matter if there are 4 billion or 6 billion people in this world. The number of people who invest in stock market, especially those that include gun makers is a tiny fraction of that.

                              BTW, I am not taking a pro or anti gun lobby stance. I am just stating that if sufficient people don't want to buy the stock its price will fall and the company's book value will fall, even if it is doing great and earning a good income.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by PHANTASOS View Post

                                If investing in funds that hold UnitedHealth Group, Amazon, and bank stocks makes you feel like you are being socially responsible, you just lost your virtue-signaling street cred.
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	bingo.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	49.2 KB
ID:	336629

                                Not to mention literally any other company on the public market - there is likely some shady biz going on in one way or another.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X