Any Biblically Responsible investors out there?

[Chuckanut]

There is nothing wrong with capitalism as long as we have a true free market. And as long as it is not the sole motive that drives a person.

 

[razztazz]

?!?!?!?!

I must disagree. Parents should teach morals. If you leave it to the schools there will be huge arguments over just whose morals should be taught.

ADAM SMITH! Not me

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Israeli war bonds? (ducking)

 

[eastnortheast]

Assuming the sentiment is sincere in the OP, it begs a larger question in my mind.

Is the unbridled drive for profit over all other considerations ethical?

What's wrong with the old-fashioned concept of a "company" being a group of people serving some higher purpose than each could achieve on their own? What's wrong with making a respectable and steady profit instead of growth at all cost?

When I first started at MegaCorp #1, the word "stakeholders" was tossed around a lot. This was understood to include not only stockholders, but also customers, employees and society in general.

After several M&A's, those days are gone.

I'm not claiming to be following any particular religion or God in this belief, but my gut feeling is that the current system is ethically flawed. One could, by extension, cast aspersions on anyone who participates in it.

On the other hand, we all play the hand we are dealt to the best of our ability. We take care of ourselves and our families, and try to do as much good as we can beyond that.

I like to think that's sufficient.

There was an article I read recently (did a search but cannot put my finger on it). Basically, it said that public companies generally answer to three broad constituents - shareholders, customers, and employees. The old model (up through roughly the 1980's), focused more on customers and employees. The thought being that if you took care of these two, shareholders would ultimately benefit. The drive to create shareholder wealth was not the overriding desire or goal of the company. This was the old "IBM" style company.

Beginning in the mid 1980's or so, the mantra became "shareholder wealth creation" and with this, the focus shifted away from employees (and customers) to the shareholders.

Basically, what CaptTom says above.

 

[CaptTom]

...Beginning in the mid 1980's or so, the mantra became "shareholder wealth creation" and with this, the focus shifted away from employees (and customers) to the shareholders...

Definitely what I've observed.

Still, I come back to the whole purpose of a "company." In theory (or in my head, anyway) a company exists to produce a product, perform a service or otherwise produce something that one individual can't do alone, but has some value to society at large.

Stockholders only come into the picture as a way for that company to raise capital, for example, to expand and do more of whatever it is they do.

Putting stockholders above all else seems backward, and doomed to failure. It erodes the whole purpose of a company. Without focusing on the goods or services the company produces, the employees who produce them, or the customers who value them, what's the point of even having a company?

At some point it has no intrinsic value. It becomes a poker chip; a square on some vast monopoly board of speculators trading worthless paper with each other. A tulip bulb.

 

[Gumby]

My view, admittedly jaundiced from many years as a bankruptcy lawyer (creditor side) in a large NYC law firm, is that large public companies are run primarily for the benefit of incumbent management. Shareholders are an inconvenience at best.

 

[CaptTom]

My view, admittedly jaundiced from many years as a bankruptcy lawyer (creditor side) in a large NYC law firm, is that large public companies are run primarily for the benefit of incumbent management. Shareholders are an inconvenience at best.

Jaundiced maybe, but I think you're correct.

You only have to look at the compensation gap between the highest- and lowest-paid at any MegaCorp, and how it's changed over time.

We basically live in a kleptocracy. The tiny fraction at the top continue to scoop up more and more, leaving only enough crumbs so that the masses don't rise up and lynch them.

Now I need to square your theory with mine (focus on share value growth at all costs.)

Not to disparage the OP, but I suspect it's like an extremist religion. The few at the top profit (no pun intended) immensely by claiming to be doing everything in the name of some external power (Stockholders, Gods, whatever.) While in reality, they (evangelists, boards of directors) are in it for themselves.

This implies some collusion between the boards of directors and the upper management. I take that as a given.

As I get farther from the rat race, I'm starting to see the whole system with better perspective.

I understand that I'm making generalizations, and there are plenty of managers and religious leaders who are trying to do the right thing. Or just trying to find their place in the system. Please don't take offense if you're one of them.

 

[Hermit]

Two organizations that at least used to work hard at maintaining a Christian perspective while running major corporations were Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby. With laws on the books that contradict religious law, there have been problems. I have not kept track of these companies, so I don't know where they are financially or even if the continue to succeed in our non-religious society financial society.

 

[travelover]

.............With laws on the books that contradict religious law, there have been problems......... .

I know, I can't believe they banned stoning and slavery, just for starters.

 

[Hermit]

I know, I can't believe they banned stoning and slavery, just for starters.

I may be wrong, I'm not much of a historian, but I think stoning was a Jewish punishment. Slavery was more a societal norm and not the same definition as slavery today (they didn't have "wage slaves" back then either) not really a tenet of the Christian religion.

I'm just trying to keep the "facts" straight for ya, travelover!

 

[travelover]

I may be wrong, I'm not much of a historian, but I think stoning was a Jewish punishment. Slavery was more a societal norm and not the same definition as slavery today (they didn't have "wage slaves" back then either) not really a tenet of the Christian religion.

I'm just trying to keep the "facts" straight for ya, travelover!

I'm not going to stray into a religious discussion, but I'll just say I'm grateful that the government is here to protected us from those that know the "one and only true way".

 

[Surewhitey]

I personally keep out of tobacco and majority war machine companies...there's plenty of other investments to be made...can't control S&P minor holdings, just not direct choices.

 

[Backdraft57]

Widows Mite Small Cap Index Fund

Sent from my SM-G935V using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[Nemo2]

Widows Mite Small Cap Index Fund

 

[mh]

I may be wrong, I'm not much of a historian, but I think stoning was a Jewish punishment. Slavery was more a societal norm and not the same definition as slavery today (they didn't have "wage slaves" back then either) not really a tenet of the Christian religion.



I'm just trying to keep the "facts" straight for ya, travelover!

So slavery was "not so bad" back in the old days? yeah .. just keep telling yourself that. [emoji849]

 

[MichaelB]

Thanks for an interesting discussion
.
.