Poll: Are You a Socially Responsible Investor?

[kyounge1956]

Socially Responsible investing came up on another thread recently. How much, if at all, do you consider social responsibility in choosing what to invest in? My nutshell definition of social responsibility in investing is "not profiting from doing bad things, and/or investing in a way that promotes good things".

 

[rockyj]

Investing primarily in index funds, so socially responsible is not an available screen. Give directly to charities, relief efforts, etc., that we believe are worthwhile.

 

[VaCollector]

How about another choice of "never really thought about it. thanks for bringing it to my attention."

I voted "other".

 

[tinlizzy]

Social responsibility never entered my mind when I bought my little bag of abandoned and abused stocks last Spring. However, it did enter my mind after buying some of them.

The 2 stocks that somewhat bother me are LVS and PCX.

Rocky - I was surprised to learn that Wellington Fund owns a bit of LVS.

Anyone who is interesting in what their index or mutual funds own can find that info here. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP (LVS) | Fundville.com

 

[Steve O]

No

 

[harley]

Since some of my best performing individual stocks are Altria, Diageo, Apple, and In-Bev, I guess I'll say...no. (Option B actually)

 

[ESRwannabe]

Socially Responsible investing came up on another thread recently. How much, if at all, do you consider social responsibility in choosing what to invest in? My nutshell definition of social responsibility in investing is "not profiting from doing bad things, and/or investing in a way that promotes good things".

No, I don't. When it comes to investing I am a "globalist". I try to keep my weightings close to what the market weightings are, i.e. 40% US and 60% foreign as of now. I am also primarily an indexer although I do have some actively managed funds. So, it would be impossible for me to try and invest with a particular social objective. Besides, I have no idea what specific companies I am invested in anyways.

 

[easysurfer]

No..Not at all. I'm an Index investor. Now if I was investing in stocks, I would probablly avoid investing in companies that I morally object to.

 

[ziggy29]

No..Not at all. I'm an Index investor. Now if I was investing in stocks, I would probablly avoid investing in companies that I morally object to.

Agreed. If I invested in individual stocks I would likely avoid ones that do stuff I object to. You can't really do that investing in most mutual funds and ETFs.

 

[Onward]

Investing primarily in index funds, so socially responsible is not an available screen.

Same here.

 

[MichaelB]

Since some of my best performing individual stocks are Altria, Diageo, Apple, and In-Bev, I guess I'll say...no. (Option B actually)

Wasn't it Peter Lynch who said one should invest in companies one knows well? If so, I would have a lot of money in Diageo, In-Bev and a strong past association with Altria...

 

[kcowan]

There have been some screens around that I have seen on ethical investing and green investing. They show underperformance.

I selected option 2.

 

[audreyh1]

Since I invest through mutual funds (and I didn't specifically seek out socially responsible mutual funds) I don't have any say in which stock gets bought or not, so I do not invest in a socially responsible way.

If I bought stocks individually, I probably would because there are a few corporate practices that bother me.

Audrey

 

[akck]

I choose 1, but I do my part to be socially responsible (recycling, limiting waste, volunteering, etc.). Option 2 sounded too much like a guilt trip and I don't feel guilty if the companies I invest in are not considered socially responsive.

 

[FUEGO]

Generally I think "social investment" funds lag the market. Seems like a silly way to invest.

But the last year or so, these funds have done really well, coming in close to the top in year to date and 1 year results. Long term results, not so good. Also of note, FTSE has a social index (tracked by a fund at Vanguard), so even indexers can get in on the feel good action. And I saw a few Christian/Methodist ETF's lately, if that is your poison.

 

[samclem]

"Socially responsible investing"rewards and encourages societal immorality. How?
-1) Assumption: "Socially irresponsible" companies perform as well as companies in general. (Like kcowan, I've seen studies indicating "socially responsible" companies underperform the market, which supports this assumption)
-2) To the degree that these "socially responsible" investors refuse to buy "socially irresponsible" stock, they reduce demand and therefore market price for these stocks.
3) This makes the price of these "socially irresponsible" stocks attractive. Greedy, socially irresponsible investors with no concerns about the nefarious activities of these evil companies can buy these stocks, enriching themselves.

QED: The actions of "socially responsible" investors serve to reward the least scrupulous in our society, thereby encouraging these irresponsible attitudes.

I, for one, couldn't sleep well if my investment actions served to degrade society.

A truly responsible investor would seek out and buy the sin stocks to prevent the miscreants from profiting.

 

[73ss454]

I was looking at choice #2 with 22 votes. Does this mean that you'd invest in a tobacco company and give to the Cancer Society?

 

[Gumby]

I question the basic premise of "socially responsible" investing. If I don't buy 100 shares of Phillip Morris or Diageo, someone else will. My decision will have no effect on whether the company continues in business or not. At best, the share price is the only thing that is affected (because there is lower demand, at least from me), and I doubt that the effect is even noticeable. Even if it did have a noticeable effect, that just means those with less scruples than me will get earnings at a better price. In my opinion, it is far better to make your money where you can and then donate it to causes you support. i.e. - if the Devil helps fund my efforts to defeat him, so much the better.

 

[Meadbh]

I try not to get emotionally involved with my investments. They are there to make money, period. If there's a socially responsible fund that will do that for me, sure, I'll consider it. In fact, the funds of MD Management, the financial arm of the Canadian Medical Association, stay away from tobacco stocks on principle, and do well. But a decision to invest in those funds is based on their overall performance.

 

[Zathras]

Other, really.

I invest in individual stocks so part of my decision is if I want to support the company.
No, my investment isn't going to make or break a company, however, I won't invest in a company if I am abhorred by their behavior and/or products.
It is a sliding scale, so they have to be pretty bad for me not to invest

 

[haha]

I have always been a socially conscious investor. I try to direct my money toward tobacco, alcohol, armaments, oil and gas, nuclear utilities, miners and other industries that speak to the needs of individuals or the economy at large.

As far as giving it away, I'll think about that when I don't have very attractive uses for at least 200% of my current income.

Ha

 

[73ss454]

I question the basic premise of "socially responsible" investing. If I don't buy 100 shares of Phillip Morris or Diageo, someone else will. My decision will have no effect on whether the company continues in business or not. At best, the share price is the only thing that is affected (because there is lower demand, at least from me), and I doubt that the effect is even noticeable. Even if it did have a noticeable effect, that just means those with less scruples than me will get earnings at a better price. In my opinion, it is far better to make your money where you can and then donate it to causes you support. i.e. - if the Devil helps fund my efforts to defeat him, so much the better.

Sorry Gumby, that's a poor excuse. I'm actually very surprised at some of the comments on this thread.

 

[harley]

I was looking at choice #2 with 22 votes. Does this mean that you'd invest in a tobacco company and give to the Cancer Society?

Sure, why not? If people choose to smoke, that's OK by me. If they get cancer from it, it cuts the costs to the health care system since they don't live as long and use fewer resources, so that's not so bad. If I choose to give to the Cancer society on the off chance that they'll accidently invent a cure and put themselves out of business, that's my choice. I must be pro-choice!

 

[Westernskies]

"Socially responsible investing" smacks of political correctness, subject to the whims of whatever is "in" or "out" at the moment.

I invest for performance, not for whatever social or environmental cause the media and the political hacks tell me I need to be agonizing over this week.

 

[rockyj]

I was looking at choice #2 with 22 votes. Does this mean that you'd invest in a tobacco company and give to the Cancer Society?

Can't speak for all the #2s, but, no, I didn't read the two-part option # 2 as one part being moral compensation for another. I read that as two independent statements. We just don't confound our investing methodology (i.e. primarily an asset allocation / index funds approach) with support for (or witholding support from) causes we like (or don't like). Like others have said, if we were picking specific stocks, it would be a different story. But it *is* entirely possible, if not likely, that we are investing indirectly in a tobacco company in the index while also supporting the cancer society, or a junk food company while supporting the diabetes association, or polluters while supporting an environmental group, etc.