Where do you draw the line?

masonic

There are companies I won't buy the goods and services of. This deprives them from earnings. I might indirectly hold an infinitesimal fraction of their shares, but I don't do so intentionally and don't see that it is feasible to do otherwise.

Alexland

aroominyork wrote: »

Whatever happened to supply and demand? Someone else might buy the share but if you are no longer interested the price falls and the company is weaker.

Unless the company needs to raise new capital from the market it's share price is irrelevant to its activities. The company could keep profitably killing the same number of cute fluffy animals and paying dividends. If demand for the shares was lower then shareholders would pay less and get greater yield.

Anyway who am I to judge that Russian companies are unethical when a number of the big US tech companies are bidding to build Uncle Sam an AI doomsday machine?

Alex

darfoc

TheShape wrote: »

I only invest in countries with competent death squads.

TBC15 wrote: »

Can you prove this?

None of the countries I invest in have Death Squads in the news.

MisterMotivated

darfoc wrote: »

None of the countries I invest in have Death Squads in the news.

Perhaps their death squads are on the news in Russia/North Korea/Somewhereistan but the western propaganda machine blocks them from the news here in order to pretend that we are above the use of such death squads...

The_Earl_of_Streatham

My South African Kaffir Exploitation Bonds collapsed in 1990 when Mandela was released, so I've kept a wary eye on my investments since. Japanese Whale Futures look safe for the moment but I'm always ready to move into Canadian Seal Cubs if they wobble.

Voyager2002

Everything is so interlinked...
Personally I have decided against certain Funds because they hold tobacco companies. Back when Provident was highly profitable I decided not to hold an ETF of which it was a major component -- that one turned out to be a good financial choice! I feel very uncomfortable that one of my ETFs has a major holding in British Aerospace...

I have a large holding in Russia (excellent p/e) and my ethical discomfort is more to do with the strength of oil in their economy than the misdeeds of their government: after all, Britain and the USA use drones to bump off people our governments dislike on an almost daily basis, but in parts of the world where reporters seldom venture.


I don't think that I have any exposure to Saudi Arabia (again a good commercial decision -- look at what has just happened to their stock exchange) and that is because of my concerns about oil and climate change.

atush

western propaganda machine blocks them from the news

Thats a laugh. Trying getting them to agree to block anything - you'll have a job.

Cant have a propaganda machine in countries where the press isnt controlled. Because they are in competition with each other and are like sharks. Thy wont agree on pretty much anything.

dont_use_vistaprint

>Should we vote with our portfolios and not prefer to be associated.

If you care yes! In the same way you can choose to buy ethical or from companies that exploit people.

People will often say its too complex/ interlinked to be sure whats good/bad, but I find that's often said to justify not bothering, like saying giving money to charity gets wasted on admin, whereas other people tell the truth and say they dont care.

So If you care you should and if you dont care - go ahead invest in pay day lenders and coral and then buy a smartphone from cash converter :-)

Alz1986

atush wrote: »

Thats a laugh. Trying getting them to agree to block anything - you'll have a job.

Cant have a propaganda machine in countries where the press isnt controlled. Because they are in competition with each other and are like sharks. Thy wont agree on pretty much anything.

Panama Papers - where the editors and journalists of major news corps agreed to hold the information "safely", while they sift through it (over a year) and decide which to put in the public domain. of course they ended up releasing and shedding light on Russian and Pakistani PM which was of no use to us, except for looking at them with suspicion. They buried some story about our Brit PM Cameron.

BBC was found to have colluded with government for the Iraq war.

There are "legal" gagging orders on alot of the on-goings which come to light decades later.

I'm not convinced that our media (state or private) would find it hard to hide things, or to support a certain line. Maybe a tax break for them somewhere too.

atush

The point is the panama papers were eventually released, and if the UK won't publish something, someone else will. And we can read about it.