ethical investments

gozomark

Blah99 wrote: »

I'd keep that IFA because he's got enough of a clue to challenge your beliefs. Have whatever beliefs you want, but investment is about making and growing your money. Disregarding companies, sectors and asset classes because you believe they are "unethical" is madness, and is only a detriment to yourself.

how about an investment in a company that does contract killings, or sells heroin, or a child !!!!!! site - would you invest in them ??

turbobob

Could be an idea for the future, the unethical fund.. :rotfl: No actually, they probably already exist..

Anyway with regards to "i'm a dark green investor, with a strong emphasis on renewables and sustainability. my i.f.a. described my stance as "bonkers".
who's right?"

If you were just going to invest in renewable energy and similar, that would be very speculative (high risk). If you were to put just some of your investment into that, and the rest into something else (different sectors and different asset classes) then it would help to dilute the risk. And if the rest of your investment went into something that didn't clearly go against your principals, all the better. I would guess if you were going to take a very strict ethical approach (e.g. you wouldn't invest in UK Gilts because the government could use money from them to buy nukes or whatever) then its going to get tricky to get a balance.

I wouldn't consider myself an "ethical" investor but I do have a small holding in a renewable energy fund, just because I believe its an area that will grow in the long term.

izzzzythedog

springer712 wrote: »

i'm a dark green investor, with a strong emphasis on renewables and sustainability.
my i.f.a. described my stance as "bonkers".
who's right?

your correct , do what makes you happy , doesnt hurt to buck a trend

jamesd

Hungerdunger wrote: »

So if I could convince you that investing in a new brothel I was about to open would provide you with better returns than you could get anywhere else, can I assume you wouldn't have any qualms about this?

If I was satisfied that the business would be a sensible investment, of course. However you might want to research the market in Canada, particularly in Toronto and Montreal, before assuming that large profits can be made from such businesses. There's a very large supply of competing goods when legal matters don't restrict supply artificially.

As with acting, it appears to be a business where a few products sell very well but most end up poor or making a living in other ways eventually.

gozomark wrote: »

how about an investment in a company that does contract killings, or sells heroin, or a child !!!!!! site - would you invest in them ??

Some of the contract killing companies appear to be profitable at times, so they may have some prospect. However, deregulation would probably result in excessive competition, so the current market where ex-military goods are marketed for export and personal protection seems the most viable option. Great domestic liberalisation would probably lead to unprofitably large levels of competition.

Heroin is an established market with ample capacity from existing drug company suppliers for prescription-based medicinal uses. It seems unlikely that they would have trouble expanding supply if the market was liberalised. Liberalisation seems likely to lead to a large increase in supply from the currently well-established informal supply sector so profitability may be problematic. Market saturation at low profit levels seems likely.

Child !!!!!! has export and import related problems due to differing definitions and the possibility of unauthorised competition. You may recall a UK national newspaper that used to feature those aged 16 and 17 in its daily issues until legislation changed to outlaw the supply of goods featuring those between the age of consent and voting age. Legislative risk to the business appears high and it's probably not worthwhile due to the very broad scope for competition after liberalisation. Still, agencies providing model services do appear to make money so there may be niche opportunities.

Contract killing is already well established for export and I think that there may be some scope for existing hotels to expand the their productivity in this area in a more liberal bordello regime. So I'd probably go with more diversified companies that cater to these markets as part of their broader offerings.

I am, of course, assuming legal investments that may be held in a personal pension or ISA. Many companies selling such things as addictive products like nicotine and caffeine and obviously unacceptable products like pictures of the naked faces of women are already well established in the marketplace in less ethical parts of the world like the West.

dunstonh

The job of the IFA isnt just to agree with you on everything and go for the easy option. The IFA is correct to point out to you the limitations of what you are choosing to do. However, once that has been done and you are aware of that, then it is the job of the IFA to act within those limitations and give best advice on that criteria.

You want an IFA that will challenge you and point out potential issues. You dont want one that will take the easy route to keep you happy as one day they wont be able to do that and you will find out that best advice isnt always comfortable or what you want to do and you will then be irritated that you werent told in the first place.

springer712

very good, jamesd. perhaps i'm just going about this investment approach in completely the wrong way!
i'm fully aware the ethical market is still young, many such companies are going to fall down and the investment risks are going to be higher than other more conventional markets.
Nevertheless Obama appears to be thinking (and talking) big - infrastructure investment with an emphasis on energy alternatives, with less reliance on oil. Should the rhetoric become reality in the US the UK is bound to follow suit (it always does, although isn't it about time the UK started looking for its ideas nearer home, starting with the Scandinavian bloc?), and those aforementioned risks will then be reduced.
The wildest optimism or the logical consequences of an unsustainable form of capitalism?

Blah99

gozomark wrote: »

how about an investment in a company that does contract killings, or sells heroin, or a child !!!!!! site - would you invest in them ??

After jamesd's awesome post there's not much further I can add! Anyway none of your examples are legal in the UK. I like how you threw the incendiary issue of child !!!!!! in there to try and make a point, but I stand by my original assertion - I am open to investing in any company or asset class that stands to make me a return.

Incidentally I'm a very happy shareholder in BAE, who I guess are a short way down the "contract killing" path you mention, in that they produce military hardware for Government contracts.

Ian_W

Of course unethical investing may not be too "all weather" either given the recent performance [-43% over 1 yr] of the USA Mutuals VICE FUND* which has a stated intention to invest at least 80% of net assets in co's involved in alcohol, tobacco, gaming, defence and airospace.

* Ack to JDinho who published a link to the fund in Oct 07 on this board.

springer712

i rest my case...

Blah99

springer712 wrote: »

i rest my case...

For any particular reason?