In a statement to Yahoo Finance, a Vanguard spokesperson said the firm “shares many individuals’ concerns about public safety and firearm access and hopes that policymakers take appropriate action to protect Americans from gun violence. Schools, churches and public spaces should always be safe places for all individuals.”
“Vanguard is taking action, meeting with the leaders of gun manufacturers and distributors. We want to know how they will mitigate the risks that their products pose and how they plan to help prevent such tragedies from happening again. We believe that boards and managements of gun manufacturers should disclose and reduce the risks associated with gun violence and the ongoing national debate on gun safety and control. We believe that when a business poses a risk to society, it can also pose a risk to investors. We are expressing this viewpoint directly with company leaders because we believe greater focus and transparency on these issues will ultimately benefit society and investors alike,” she added.
These protests/boycotts against companies and advertisers, etc seem ludicrous to me and I am surprised at those that give in to these demands. What would happen if the other side of the story started protesting/boycotting?
These protests/boycotts against companies and advertisers, etc seem ludicrous to me and I am surprised at those that give in to these demands. What would happen if the other side of the story started protesting/boycotting?
But that money you put into savings accounts and CDs gets loaned out, often to businesses. How could you be sure that you aren't helping to fund a "bad" thing?If shoving the entirety of our retirement $$ in traditional savings accounts, CD's, or, even better yet a mattress could sustain us, we'd do it.
I agree. I think a "socially conscious" individual can do the most practical good by investing in low-cost index funds and using the returns to directly support the good causes in which they believe. Yes, you'll own stock in some companies you might not like, but somebody was going to own those stocks anyway (it might be me!), and by shunning them you do very little to "hurt" the company.The expense fees and returns of the more "socially responsible" funds could end up undermining our retirements.
But that money you put into savings accounts and CDs gets loaned out, often to businesses. How could you be sure that you aren't helping to fund a "bad" thing?
I agree. I think a "socially conscious" individual can do the most practical good by investing in low-cost index funds and using the returns to directly support the good causes in which they believe. Yes, you'll own stock in some companies you might not like, but somebody was going to own those stocks anyway (it might be me!), and by shunning them you do very little to "hurt" the company.
And boycotting Vanguard? There are >very< few companies that have done more to benefit average people than Vanguard.
Like people, causes get 15 minutes of fame and then "the next big event" comes to the forefront and your cause becomes yesterday's news. Then you need to do something to reset that 15 minute clock. Hence today's announcement.
.................If shoving the entirety of our retirement $$ in traditional savings accounts, CD's, or, even better yet a mattress could sustain us, we'd do it.
I am evaluating the "bury money in a can in the back yard" strategy. But I can't come up with a socially responsible can manufacturer. Apparently they use a can liner that some find objectionable.
Looks to me like a marketing campaign for his new book: Parkland survivors David Hogg and Lauren Hogg to publish book #NeverAgain | EW.com
Regardless of the merits of this particular issue, I have always wondered about the efficacy of such a boycott. It seems to me that once a company issues stock in the primary market, it is largely indifferent to trading on the subsequent secondary market (unless it is Enron), as it has received the proceeds of its issuance. If the protesters are successful and Vanguard does not own the boycotted stock, someone else will. The trading effects thus will be felt by the traders in the secondary market, but not by the "bad" company who originally issued the stock. I am uncertain what those who support such a boycott ever hope to accomplish.
Maybe bury it an empty coffee can? A Fair Trade one, of course.
While I think boycotts like this have little direct effect, they can have more of an impact in the long run. They are like a slow-burning negative PR campaign. I believe the fossil fuel divestment campaign is a good example of this. It certainly hasn't taken down any companies, but it has helped foster a negative sentiment toward them. Hundreds of funds have begun divestment.
These kids sure have a lot of PR folks hopping, trying to distance themselves from the NRA. Whether it results in lasting change remains to be seen.
i do not even have cable TV so do not watch her show but i did read that after the initial dip her viewership went up from its previous high of 2.5 M to 3.0M and advertisers are reconsidering, with one Ace already returning I do not like bullying even when the bully thinks his cause is virtuous ( what bully doesn't if you think about it)
Please stop! Say what ever you want pro or con, but please do not bash or ridicule these kids in ANY way. They have been through something horrific and trying to make an impact. The insults and jabs at them are very difficult to hear. Thank you.