Socially responsible investing
Socially responsible investing
Does any one have any information on how socially responsible investing returns compares to it's non-socially responsible counterparts? Are there socially responsible index funds? And how have people made decisions regarding whether or not to invest in this class of funds?
Re: Socially responsible investing
I have not, but there was an article several years ago that didn't have a great return. The costs were quite high and the options were limited.
Today, it's quite different. There are low cost ETF's as well as funds.
Some articles:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/feeonlyplan ... d-to-know/
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/your- ... sites-list
http://seekingalpha.com/article/899891- ... mainstream
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investi ... ing-1.aspx
Today, it's quite different. There are low cost ETF's as well as funds.
Some articles:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/feeonlyplan ... d-to-know/
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/your- ... sites-list
http://seekingalpha.com/article/899891- ... mainstream
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investi ... ing-1.aspx
- bottomfisher
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:03 am
Re: Socially responsible investing
Vanguard has a fund FTSE Social Index:
FTSE Social Index VFTSX Stock - expense ratio 0.29%; 10 year return 5.97%.
Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares VTSAX Stock - expense ratio - 0.05%; 10 yr return 8.35%
Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.
FTSE Social Index VFTSX Stock - expense ratio 0.29%; 10 year return 5.97%.
Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares VTSAX Stock - expense ratio - 0.05%; 10 yr return 8.35%
Re: Socially responsible investing
While I certainly consider myself "socially conscious", I have concluded that (for me, at east) I almost never take that into account. My one exception is tobacco, since (in my view) is a clearly evil product, with no redeeming merit.brak wrote:Does any one have any information on how socially responsible investing returns compares to it's non-socially responsible counterparts? Are there socially responsible index funds? And how have people made decisions regarding whether or not to invest in this class of funds?
I reached my conclusions for the following reasons:
1. Most companies have a wide variety of products and services. If I never invested in any company that I found fault with any of their products and services, then I could almost never invest.
2. Without getting into the specifics of my views, I found that there is no list of "socially conscious" products and services that I find great agreement with.
3. There are often two sides to whether something is socially conscious: Some examples - Nuclear power is environmental risks, but does not increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Aerospace companies make warplanes as well as commercial airliners. "Pro-family" companies might be "anti' something that some consider important. ... and the list goes on.
- Aptenodytes
- Posts: 3786
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:39 pm
Re: Socially responsible investing
@dm200, what equity funds do you use to avoid tobacco companies?
Re: Socially responsible investing
The wiki can answer a few of your questions: Social responsibility indices Be sure to check the references.
Re: Socially responsible investing
brak wrote:Does any one have any information on how socially responsible investing returns compares to it's non-socially responsible counterparts?
VICE Fund VICEX - expense ratio 1.73%; 10 year return 12.55%bottomfisher wrote:Vanguard has a fund FTSE Social Index:
FTSE Social Index VFTSX Stock - expense ratio 0.29%; 10 year return 5.97%.
Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares VTSAX Stock - expense ratio - 0.05%; 10 yr return 8.35%
The Vice Fund (VICEX: Investor Class) is designed to deliver better risk-adjusted returns than the S&P 500
Index. It invests primarily in stocks in the tobacco, alcohol, gaming and defense industries. We believe these
industries tend to thrive regardless of the economy as a whole.
70/30 AA for life, Global market cap equity. Rebalance if fixed income <25% or >35%. Weighted ER< .10%. 5% of annual portfolio balance SWR, Proportional (to AA) withdrawals.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Capitalism in not socially responsible. If one has such moral impediments, then he/she shouldn't be investing in the stock market at all.
Don't they know where their profits come from ?
Don't they know where their profits come from ?
Re: Socially responsible investing
Invest in the total stock market. Spend the proceeds in a socially responsible manner.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52105
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Socially responsible investing
I used to invest in socially responsible mutual funds. NOT NOT NOT a recommendation, but the specific funds I invested in at various times included Pax World Fund, Domini Social Index Fund (once but no longer an index fund), Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund, and CREF Social Choice. It was never much more than a token amount, and as retirement approached I decided I had to get serious and quit fooling around.
The first question that needs to be asked is whether SRI investing affects corporate practice? This is debatable. SRI mutual fund companies and index providers say that they have enough visibility and clout that they are able to meet with corporate management and jawbone on governance issues, and certainly companies think it is good PR and issue press releases to announce with pride that they have been added to an SRI index.
Depending on your level of personal commitment, one advantage to owning individual stocks rather than a mutual fund is that, as a direct shareholder, one can then attend a shareholder's meeting and submit a shareholder's proposal, which you cannot do as a mutual fund owner. Apparently one must now own $2,000 worth of stock, not just a single share. The chances of such a proposal actually passing are nil, so one must judge the possible value of symbolism, publicity, and bearing witness.
Larry Swedroe and Jared Kizer's book, The Only Guide to Alternative Investments You Will Ever Need: The Good, the Flawed, the Bad and the Ugly has a chapter on SRI; I'm afraid I don't remember the details, but you should read it. What I do remember is that it is classified under "flawed."
My own judgement is that they are meh mediocre investments (like various actively managed funds). Judging performance is always difficult because any departure from the total market will result in sometimes underperforming and sometimes outperforming the total market, providing endless opportunities for debate, and any kind of systematic screen changes the composition of the kinds of companies in the fund and raises questions of what it should be benchmarked to. I don't think it is possible to come up with some simple number, to say that SRI investing reduces performance by so many basis points per year or anything like that.
For example, during 1990-2000, screening out polluters had the effect of tilting SRI funds toward technology companies, which produced outperformance that had nothing to do with social responsibility as such, but gave a temporary impression that SRI funds were beating the market. I was sort of fooled by PAX World Fund, an actively managed 60/40 balanced fund, which seemed to be beating the benchmark on the way up, but it was basically by taking moderately more risk--it had substantial international and mid-cap exposure. These were not at all a bad thing to do, but the point is that the outperformance could be explained by its pattern of holdings--and other portfolios with similar holdings that weren't compromising by using a social screen would likely have done better.
I think it is unrealistic to imagine that socially responsible companies are more profitable, and unrealistic to suppose that the market wouldn't have priced that in even if they were. It seems likely that introducing financially irrelevant screens aren't going to do much good or harm, but will probably reduce diversification and thus subtly increase risk without increasing reward.
I think it is hard to argue that PAX World was a terrible choice compared to e.g. Vanguard Balanced Index Fund:
Vanguard Growth Index, VGEQX: expense ratio 0.54%; 10 year return 5.86%
FTSE Social index had lower expenses, and about the same 10-year return. Other time periods of course give other results.
Overall, it does not look bad compared to Vanguard [Large] Growth Index. Now, if you don't want to touch large growth with a 10-foot pole, then, of course, you don't want to touch Vanguard FTSE Social Index with a 10-foot pole, but that's because it's large growth, not because it's socially responsible.
The first question that needs to be asked is whether SRI investing affects corporate practice? This is debatable. SRI mutual fund companies and index providers say that they have enough visibility and clout that they are able to meet with corporate management and jawbone on governance issues, and certainly companies think it is good PR and issue press releases to announce with pride that they have been added to an SRI index.
Depending on your level of personal commitment, one advantage to owning individual stocks rather than a mutual fund is that, as a direct shareholder, one can then attend a shareholder's meeting and submit a shareholder's proposal, which you cannot do as a mutual fund owner. Apparently one must now own $2,000 worth of stock, not just a single share. The chances of such a proposal actually passing are nil, so one must judge the possible value of symbolism, publicity, and bearing witness.
Larry Swedroe and Jared Kizer's book, The Only Guide to Alternative Investments You Will Ever Need: The Good, the Flawed, the Bad and the Ugly has a chapter on SRI; I'm afraid I don't remember the details, but you should read it. What I do remember is that it is classified under "flawed."
My own judgement is that they are meh mediocre investments (like various actively managed funds). Judging performance is always difficult because any departure from the total market will result in sometimes underperforming and sometimes outperforming the total market, providing endless opportunities for debate, and any kind of systematic screen changes the composition of the kinds of companies in the fund and raises questions of what it should be benchmarked to. I don't think it is possible to come up with some simple number, to say that SRI investing reduces performance by so many basis points per year or anything like that.
For example, during 1990-2000, screening out polluters had the effect of tilting SRI funds toward technology companies, which produced outperformance that had nothing to do with social responsibility as such, but gave a temporary impression that SRI funds were beating the market. I was sort of fooled by PAX World Fund, an actively managed 60/40 balanced fund, which seemed to be beating the benchmark on the way up, but it was basically by taking moderately more risk--it had substantial international and mid-cap exposure. These were not at all a bad thing to do, but the point is that the outperformance could be explained by its pattern of holdings--and other portfolios with similar holdings that weren't compromising by using a social screen would likely have done better.
I think it is unrealistic to imagine that socially responsible companies are more profitable, and unrealistic to suppose that the market wouldn't have priced that in even if they were. It seems likely that introducing financially irrelevant screens aren't going to do much good or harm, but will probably reduce diversification and thus subtly increase risk without increasing reward.
I think it is hard to argue that PAX World was a terrible choice compared to e.g. Vanguard Balanced Index Fund:
But it is a large growth fund and should not be compared with Total Stock. A more appropriate comparison is Vanguard [Large] Growth Index.bottomfisher wrote:FTSE Social Index VFTSX Stock - expense ratio 0.29%; 10 year return 5.97%.
Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares VTSAX Stock - expense ratio - 0.05%; 10 yr return 8.35%
Vanguard Growth Index, VGEQX: expense ratio 0.54%; 10 year return 5.86%
FTSE Social index had lower expenses, and about the same 10-year return. Other time periods of course give other results.
Overall, it does not look bad compared to Vanguard [Large] Growth Index. Now, if you don't want to touch large growth with a 10-foot pole, then, of course, you don't want to touch Vanguard FTSE Social Index with a 10-foot pole, but that's because it's large growth, not because it's socially responsible.
Last edited by nisiprius on Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Socially responsible investing
That's the problem. It is not practical to avoid these companies. My point about tobacco is that, unlike so many other products/services (such as aerospace, nuclear power, alcoholic beverages, gun makers) that may have (in my opinion anyway) some degree of value to society, I see absolutely none with tobacco.Aptenodytes wrote:@dm200, what equity funds do you use to avoid tobacco companies?
Re: Socially responsible investing
An example of my point about my disagreement with what is often believed or commonly assumed about what is "socially responsible".Frengo wrote:Capitalism in not socially responsible. If one has such moral impediments, then he/she shouldn't be investing in the stock market at all.
Don't they know where their profits come from ?
- Optimistic
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:05 pm
Re: Socially responsible investing
From mutually beneficial exchanges.Frengo wrote:Capitalism in not socially responsible. If one has such moral impediments, then he/she shouldn't be investing in the stock market at all.
Don't they know where their profits come from ?
Re: Socially responsible investing
Those are only possible due to listed companies making a profit. Where do those profits come from ?Optimistic wrote: From mutually beneficial exchanges.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Exchange as in "you give me this, I give you that". Not stock exchanges.Frengo wrote:Those are only possible due to listed companies making a profit. Where do those profits come from ?Optimistic wrote: From mutually beneficial exchanges.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Then I'd go easy on the "mutually beneficial". Beggars can't be choosers.
- Optimistic
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:05 pm
Re: Socially responsible investing
If they weren't mutually beneficial, the exchange wouldn't exist (unless coerced by law).Frengo wrote:Then I'd go easy on the "mutually beneficial". Beggars can't be choosers.
As an example, I desired coffee this morning but had none. A nearby Starbucks was willing to trade some of their coffee for some of my money. I agreed. As a result we both benefited. I had the coffee I desired and Starbucks acquired money (and presumably profit). Surely there are cheaper alternatives than Starbucks for coffee. There was a gas station right next to Starbucks selling coffee for a dollar cheaper per cup than Starbucks. But, the taste is not nearly as good. And, I have a coffeemaker at home, but it isn't as convenient. So, I'm willing to exchange my money for coffee and even pay a premium for the taste and convenience Starbucks offers.
Re: Socially responsible investing
In the long run capitalism is socially responsible. In the short run it can be problematic. Whose standards do we use to accommodate socially responsible investing? I'm not even sure what "socially responsible" means. There was a "socially responsible" fund at one time that wouldn't invest in the United States. In the long run socially irresponsible companies fail or change. What is socially irresponsible today may not have been yesterday, and vice versa. It's a flawed investing strategy.Frengo wrote:Capitalism in not socially responsible.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52105
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Socially responsible investing
Let's see if we can get back on-topic without waiting for a moderator to remind us... I've just read Social Responsibility Indices and thank you, Barry Barnitz. I am pleased to see that it confirms my own impressions. Another random chart that is of interest because it covers a longish span and because the Domini Social Equity Fund was an index fund up to 2006. Notice that it almost tracked the S&P up to 2000, giving the misleading impression that you could be socially responsible for free, or, dare I say it... good for nothing.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Ask your Barista, or the guy growing coffee beans in Guatemala...Optimistic wrote: If they weren't mutually beneficial, the exchange wouldn't exist (unless coerced by law).
Capitalism is founded on human work (the only source of wealth!) being compensated less than the amount of wealth it produces.
If they didn't do that, there wouldn't be anything left for the stockholders.
Re: Socially responsible investing
What is the goal of socially responsible investing? I think the goal is to discourage undesirable behavior by raising the cost of capital for irresponsible firms.
Therefore, if the SRI approach is successful it will provide lower risk adjusted returns (before costs) than the index. This must be the case since cost of capital for the irresponsible firms is driven higher, so the risk-adjusted expected returns for the these firms is higher than the risk-adjusted expected returns for the responsible firms.
However, the degree of "success" (i.e. under-performance) of socially responsible investing will be limited by investors who try to exploit the cost of capital delta by deliberately overweighting "sin" stocks.
The end result may be that socially responsible funds don't underperform by much before fees....but, ironically, I think this means that it likely is ineffective in discouraging bad behavior.
UPDATE: Here is a paper which argues that socially responsible investing does raise the cost of capital for "sin" stocks by a measurable amount. http://www.princeton.edu/~hhong/priceofsin0307.pdf
Therefore, if the SRI approach is successful it will provide lower risk adjusted returns (before costs) than the index. This must be the case since cost of capital for the irresponsible firms is driven higher, so the risk-adjusted expected returns for the these firms is higher than the risk-adjusted expected returns for the responsible firms.
However, the degree of "success" (i.e. under-performance) of socially responsible investing will be limited by investors who try to exploit the cost of capital delta by deliberately overweighting "sin" stocks.
The end result may be that socially responsible funds don't underperform by much before fees....but, ironically, I think this means that it likely is ineffective in discouraging bad behavior.
UPDATE: Here is a paper which argues that socially responsible investing does raise the cost of capital for "sin" stocks by a measurable amount. http://www.princeton.edu/~hhong/priceofsin0307.pdf
Last edited by camontgo on Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." - George E. P Box
Re: Socially responsible investing
The one advantage of SRI that can be counted on is this moral one: "I do not want to get profits from certain activities, I consider it dirty money". That is, if the index criteria match yours closely enough.
I don't think SRI hurts the companies excluded in any way, other market players will step in to cover the perceived inefficiency. If you want to hurt a company, you should deny them business rather than investments.
There is a PR aspect to inclusion in an SRI index, but I'd be surprised if the impact was any greater than that of a few good news stories, social media campaigns, or other ratings like BBB. As I said, the real target is the company's business and it's seldom the case that their customers will check the SRI status.
Finally, there is little reason to expect higher returns from SRI. In the long term, you'd expect about the same as other stocks of the same type. Right now, the indices seem to have higher turnover than normal (VFTNX: 45%), so I'd be concerned with tax costs and front-running by the hedgies, in addition to the higher fees. Maybe as the indices mature they will get more stable.
I don't think SRI hurts the companies excluded in any way, other market players will step in to cover the perceived inefficiency. If you want to hurt a company, you should deny them business rather than investments.
There is a PR aspect to inclusion in an SRI index, but I'd be surprised if the impact was any greater than that of a few good news stories, social media campaigns, or other ratings like BBB. As I said, the real target is the company's business and it's seldom the case that their customers will check the SRI status.
Finally, there is little reason to expect higher returns from SRI. In the long term, you'd expect about the same as other stocks of the same type. Right now, the indices seem to have higher turnover than normal (VFTNX: 45%), so I'd be concerned with tax costs and front-running by the hedgies, in addition to the higher fees. Maybe as the indices mature they will get more stable.
- bertilak
- Posts: 10711
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi
Re: Socially responsible investing
Here's a thought. If SRI has ANY effect on behavior it should depress non-SRI stock prices. That should give them a lower PE ratio and make them pretty good investments! Is there a reverse-SRI index fund? Where do I sign?
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
Re: Socially responsible investing
I was once interested in socially responsible investing, largely because it seemed like it would be...well responsible. But a conversation I had with someone changed my view. Between the generally higher expense ratios, the historic poor performance, I would have a much more powerful impact by not patronizing businesses that I didn't agree with and even using some of the additional gains to directly contribute money to non-profits that are fighting the good fight.
Not to mention, that when you buy mutual fund shares or index shares, very little is going to your hated business and you are only going to be holding shares that someone else is holding. It will be of no real measurable benefit to that tobacco company.
Not to mention, that when you buy mutual fund shares or index shares, very little is going to your hated business and you are only going to be holding shares that someone else is holding. It will be of no real measurable benefit to that tobacco company.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52105
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Socially responsible investing
It is possible that Daniel M. Delen of R. J. Reynolds cares what happens to Reynolds stock on the secondary market, even after it is issued.Middle wrote:Not to mention, that when you buy mutual fund shares or index shares, very little is going to your hated business and you are only going to be holding shares that someone else is holding. It will be of no real measurable benefit to that tobacco company.
Last edited by nisiprius on Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Here you go: http://www.usamutuals.com/vicefund/phil.aspxbertilak wrote:Here's a thought. If SRI has ANY effect on behavior it should depress non-SRI stock prices. That should give them a lower PE ratio and make them pretty good investments! Is there a reverse-SRI index fund? Where do I sign?
Don't assume I know what I'm talking about.
Re: Socially responsible investing
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 01776.htmlFrengo wrote:Ask your Barista, or the guy growing coffee beans in Guatemala...Optimistic wrote: If they weren't mutually beneficial, the exchange wouldn't exist (unless coerced by law).
Capitalism is founded on human work (the only source of wealth!) being compensated less than the amount of wealth it produces.
If they didn't do that, there wouldn't be anything left for the stockholders.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Thanks!
Cuba and Haiti are less than 45 minutes apart, if you measure in flight time, and 15 years, if you measure in life expectancy.
Capitalism is not for everybody. It is actually kind of a luxury.
Re: Socially responsible investing
But how much is my $10,000 investment in a fund that has no more than 1% in R.J. Reynolds moving the market price of the stock that he is cashing in on? And whatever I'm buying, someone else is selling.nisiprius wrote:It is possible that Daniel M. Delen of R. J. Reynolds cares what happens to Reynolds stock on the secondary market, even after it is issued.Middle wrote:Not to mention, that when you buy mutual fund shares or index shares, very little is going to your hated business and you are only going to be holding shares that someone else is holding. It will be of no real measurable benefit to that tobacco company.
I mean I get that for many it doesn't matter, it goes against their morality. My point is more that you would have a larger effect by contributing to non-profits that educate on the dangers of smoking or seek to litigate tobacco companies that are wrong doing. If there is a cause that you believe in, then be active about it.
What I'd like to know is why the socially responsible funds have higher expense ratios. Not investing in R.J. Reynolds does not seem to require additional overhead costs. Instead you just soak the investors who think they are being socially responsible.
Re: Socially responsible investing
That's a straw man argument. Can we please keep politics out of the discussion about socially responsible investing.Frengo wrote:Cuba and Haiti are less than 45 minutes apart, if you measure in flight time, and 15 years, if you measure in life expectancy.
Capitalism is not for everybody. It is actually kind of a luxury.
-
- Posts: 6542
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: Socially responsible investing
I came to the same conclusion years ago.Cash wrote:Invest in the total stock market. Spend the proceeds in a socially responsible manner.
When they first came out, the screens were only for tobacco and/or alcohol.
Then unpopular regimes. Then ...
This just dilutes any power they might have had, ups the management costs, and lessens the
diversity in the fund.
The small amounts involved do not change behavior, other than perhaps the PR. What is
a tobacco company going to do, stop producing their only product?
Much better to control what you can really control, your own spending.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Discussions of economic policy and politics, e.g. socialism vs. capitalism, are off-topic. Please stay on-topic, which is a comparison of investing performance.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Exactly. "Social responsibility" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure there are plenty of people, even in this forum, who would swear on the great social utility of firearms. As I'm concerned, were it not for alcohol, I wouldn't have met my wife...MathWizard wrote: When they first came out, the screens were only for tobacco and/or alcohol.
Then unpopular regimes. Then ....
Evidently there are a few, well established, socially responsible indexes. We can discuss their performance relative to the not-particularly socially responsible indexes, or call a little hypocrisy out, without touching delicate political economy topics.
Re: Socially responsible investing
IMO, a better description, of these is "politically correct" (which is why I do not buy those funds).Frengo wrote:Exactly. "Social responsibility" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure there are plenty of people, even in this forum, who would swear on the great social utility of firearms. As I'm concerned, were it not for alcohol, I wouldn't have met my wife...MathWizard wrote: When they first came out, the screens were only for tobacco and/or alcohol.
Then unpopular regimes. Then ....
Evidently there are a few, well established, socially responsible indexes. We can discuss their performance relative to the not-particularly socially responsible indexes, or call a little hypocrisy out, without touching delicate political economy topics.
Re: Socially responsible investing
I don't use profanities in public, but I'm happy you do.dm200 wrote: IMO, a better description, of these is "politically correct" (which is why I do not buy those funds).
Re: Socially responsible investing
It seems to me, if "socially responsible" companies earned above average returns, that would not be socially responsible.
Far better to suck it up and invest. There's not much option. Then, assuage your conscience with charitable giving.
Keith
Far better to suck it up and invest. There's not much option. Then, assuage your conscience with charitable giving.
Keith
Déjà Vu is not a prediction
Re: Socially responsible investing
Yes! Invest in solar panels, electric car, compost garbage to your garden, shop at local coops/farmers market, recycle, don't waste anything, buy used. Stay the heck away from the big chain corporate retail stores where your money goes to who knows where.Cash wrote:Invest in the total stock market. Spend the proceeds in a socially responsible manner.
Never in the history of market day-traders’ has the obsession with so much massive, sophisticated, & powerful statistical machinery used by the brightest people on earth with such useless results.
Re: Socially responsible investing
Irony intended, I hope.sschullo wrote:Stay the heck away from the big chain corporate retail stores where your money goes to who knows where
Re: Socially responsible investing
This thread has run its course and is locked (gone off-topic). See: Forum Policy
To the OP: If you didn't get the answer you were looking for, please PM me.Locked Topics
Moderators or site admins may lock a topic (set it so no more replies may be added) when a violation of posting policy has occurred. Occasionally, even if there are no overt violations of posting policy, a topic (or thread) will reach a point where the information content of the discussion has been essentially exhausted and further replies are much more likely to cause distress to the community than add anything of value.