"Without policies such as regulations or taxes on very polluting investments, it's unlikely that wealthy individuals making a lot of money from fossil fuel investments will stop investing in them," says one economist.
But that’s not how it works. People buying the goods and services from those companies are the reason for the emissions, not someone that throws some money into the S&P.
I could own BP stock, but drive an electric car. If I sell my stock, there is 0 change to the emissions of BP.
It seems like they are grasping at straws for more ways to attack those with money, and at this point, not even a lot of money, as most companies offer a 401k. The last thing we should be doing is discouraging people from using those, as they will just be screwing their future self, especially if they have a company match.
But paying stock owners their share of the profits is, when you get right down to it, the reason BP exists. Maximum profit for a company like BP, and their shateholds, means minimizing their expenses and maximizing revenue. So sell as much gas as possible, and pay as little to offset the CO2 as possible. I don’t think it’s grasping at straws.
Owning the stock doesn’t impact profits. If I don’t own it, someone else will own it. Even if no one owns it and BP buys back the stock… the profits still exist.
BP isn’t sitting there saying, “FunderPants sold their mutual fund, cut back production by 10 barrels.” They’re producing to meet demand from the market. Profit is a byproduct of those sales. It has nothing to do with stock price.
Companies you invest in benefit from your investment in a variety of ways. Your investment provides the financial resources needed for the company to grow and expand. Your investment helps companies develop new products, hire more talent, expand into new markets, and improve their overall operations. Your investment essentially contributes to the company’s success.
When a company goes public it is done to raise money. In that initial public offering the company makes shares available to be purchased by the public. Sales of those shares generate money for the company. After that’s done, the company isn’t getting more money. They can decide to sell more stock at some point, but it’s not an everyday thing.
If I go out and buy a share of a company today, that company isn’t getting money from me. I’d be buying from some current owner who is looking to sell (or some market maker, but we don’t need to get too technical).
Not really. Share price has no bearing on financial health. Sometimes share prices have no connection with reality. Tesla is a perfect example. It has a market capitalization of 720 billion. Market cap. Is just the number of all classes of stock multiplied by their respective number of shares. I.e. how much it would cost to buy the company in it’s entirety. General motors has a market cap of 45 billion. Toyota, the world’s largest auto maker by sales, costs 264 billion. Without getting into P/E ratios and book values, stop to think about this. Tesla would have to sell more cars than Toyota, Volkswagen, GM, and Ford, COMBINED to be worth 720 billion. That is after a substantial drop in share price.
The way security analysts and prudent investors evaluate a company’s financial health is by looking at the financial statements they have to file every quarter with the SEC and make publicly available, calculating ratios, and comparing them to prior reporting periods, other companies in the same industry, and the overall market of the industry they are in.
As far as reputation, it probably doesn’t matter. The only shareholders anyone cares about are insiders and large shareholders (big enough to file a form 4) actively managed funds, and super Investors like Warren Buffett.
A 401k is simply an example that most people are aware of. It is really irrelevant as we could be talking about IRAs, investing your HSA, or even your basic taxable brokerage account.
Well 401k’s specifically replaced Pensions that were a much better bet for workers and required companies to fund them etc. Now all those other things exist so that people rich enough to leverage them all can minimize their tax burden. They are just Tax Shelters.
Pensions did go insolvent and laws were changed so that companies could include their pension fund as assets and leverage against them, also other companies could come and buy the fund and then claim that since they don’t offer a pension to their employees none of those pension protections applied.
Those situations could have been resolved in a way that was pro-worker, instead pensions were dissolved and all workers are encouraged to tithe to wall street since that is the “right way” to do things in our shitty society.
But that’s not how it works. People buying the goods and services from those companies are the reason for the emissions, not someone that throws some money into the S&P.
I could own BP stock, but drive an electric car. If I sell my stock, there is 0 change to the emissions of BP.
It seems like they are grasping at straws for more ways to attack those with money, and at this point, not even a lot of money, as most companies offer a 401k. The last thing we should be doing is discouraging people from using those, as they will just be screwing their future self, especially if they have a company match.
But paying stock owners their share of the profits is, when you get right down to it, the reason BP exists. Maximum profit for a company like BP, and their shateholds, means minimizing their expenses and maximizing revenue. So sell as much gas as possible, and pay as little to offset the CO2 as possible. I don’t think it’s grasping at straws.
Owning the stock doesn’t impact profits. If I don’t own it, someone else will own it. Even if no one owns it and BP buys back the stock… the profits still exist.
BP isn’t sitting there saying, “FunderPants sold their mutual fund, cut back production by 10 barrels.” They’re producing to meet demand from the market. Profit is a byproduct of those sales. It has nothing to do with stock price.
Companies you invest in benefit from your investment in a variety of ways. Your investment provides the financial resources needed for the company to grow and expand. Your investment helps companies develop new products, hire more talent, expand into new markets, and improve their overall operations. Your investment essentially contributes to the company’s success.
This is only true if buying an IPO.
When a company goes public it is done to raise money. In that initial public offering the company makes shares available to be purchased by the public. Sales of those shares generate money for the company. After that’s done, the company isn’t getting more money. They can decide to sell more stock at some point, but it’s not an everyday thing.
If I go out and buy a share of a company today, that company isn’t getting money from me. I’d be buying from some current owner who is looking to sell (or some market maker, but we don’t need to get too technical).
TIL, thanks
Still, they do benefit from my owning stock, even if it’s just their reputation and indicator of financial health.
Not really. Share price has no bearing on financial health. Sometimes share prices have no connection with reality. Tesla is a perfect example. It has a market capitalization of 720 billion. Market cap. Is just the number of all classes of stock multiplied by their respective number of shares. I.e. how much it would cost to buy the company in it’s entirety. General motors has a market cap of 45 billion. Toyota, the world’s largest auto maker by sales, costs 264 billion. Without getting into P/E ratios and book values, stop to think about this. Tesla would have to sell more cars than Toyota, Volkswagen, GM, and Ford, COMBINED to be worth 720 billion. That is after a substantial drop in share price.
The way security analysts and prudent investors evaluate a company’s financial health is by looking at the financial statements they have to file every quarter with the SEC and make publicly available, calculating ratios, and comparing them to prior reporting periods, other companies in the same industry, and the overall market of the industry they are in.
As far as reputation, it probably doesn’t matter. The only shareholders anyone cares about are insiders and large shareholders (big enough to file a form 4) actively managed funds, and super Investors like Warren Buffett.
401k’s were the scam to begin with.
A 401k is simply an example that most people are aware of. It is really irrelevant as we could be talking about IRAs, investing your HSA, or even your basic taxable brokerage account.
Well 401k’s specifically replaced Pensions that were a much better bet for workers and required companies to fund them etc. Now all those other things exist so that people rich enough to leverage them all can minimize their tax burden. They are just Tax Shelters.
Yes and no…
Lol, as if pension funds never go insolvent and companies never played games reducing benefits (or other shenanigans so they don’t have to pay out).
At least with a 401k they can’t take the money back once it is deposited.
Pensions did go insolvent and laws were changed so that companies could include their pension fund as assets and leverage against them, also other companies could come and buy the fund and then claim that since they don’t offer a pension to their employees none of those pension protections applied.
Those situations could have been resolved in a way that was pro-worker, instead pensions were dissolved and all workers are encouraged to tithe to wall street since that is the “right way” to do things in our shitty society.
Yes and no…