"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.
By contributing to demand for a stock you increase the valuation of that stock. Securities Based Lending is often how companies and executives secure loans and avoid taxable events. By contributing to demand for a stock we facilitate additional funding for the issuer of the stock and it’s largest shareholders.
I absolutely agree, cash flow is a much more immediate concern to any company, but one wealthy shareholder divesting can have the same financial impact as ten thousand average citizens boycotting. Local investing is more difficult and risky, but also more rewarding and necessary. It is not just about a monetary return, it is about building social capital and local resiliency.
You’re arguing that people should give no consideration to the long-term social and ecological harms of their investments beyond what will make them the most money. By directing our actions in that purely incentivized way we sacrifice everything unprofitable, and that alienation is exactly what causes so many chronic societal issues. I agree that an individual can have very little impact alone, but capitalism places this burden at the individual level.
We’re not talking about people trying to pull some kind of GME thing to manipulate a stock and artificially inflate its value. We’re talking about people investing in retirement accounts primarily. Someone’s ETF/mutual fund choice in their retirement account is not going to have those kinds of targeting impact on individual stocks in that fund.
When investing in something like the S&P 500, it’s not saying, “I believe and support these 500 specific companies,” it’s saying you believe in the American economy. An emerging market fund would similarly be a diversified bet on that sector. A fund keyed in on a particular market sector, like energy, retail, or home builders, would show belief in that industry.
I think the average person investing in their 401k should seek diversity above all else, because a retirement fund is a retirement fund, not a political or social statement. I’m not saying to invest in, or not to invest in, an oil company. I’m saying to invest in funds that give exposure to a broad cross section of the market and if there is an oil company in there, oh well, it’s just part of the economy.
Let your actions, what you buy from companies, dictate their success failure. If/when renewable energy hits its tipping point, the index will likely include those renewable energy companies in the fund, and maybe even one day remove the oil companies if they are on their way out. And if/when that happens, great, you’re already invested and have nothing extra to do.
Investing in some kind of broad market index is not the same as being a big investor showing support for a company by giving a direct investment and being invested in the success of that individual company. I don’t care what happens to any individual stock in the S&P, as long as the overall market is moving in the right direction. And for 99.99999% of investors, they shouldn’t either.
If someone has some funds to invest beyond their retirement fund, and they want to help promising local businesses and invest directly with them. I think that’s great, but that’s not a retirement fund, it’s an expensive lottery ticket in most cases.
By contributing to demand for a stock you increase the valuation of that stock. Securities Based Lending is often how companies and executives secure loans and avoid taxable events. By contributing to demand for a stock we facilitate additional funding for the issuer of the stock and it’s largest shareholders.
I absolutely agree, cash flow is a much more immediate concern to any company, but one wealthy shareholder divesting can have the same financial impact as ten thousand average citizens boycotting. Local investing is more difficult and risky, but also more rewarding and necessary. It is not just about a monetary return, it is about building social capital and local resiliency.
You’re arguing that people should give no consideration to the long-term social and ecological harms of their investments beyond what will make them the most money. By directing our actions in that purely incentivized way we sacrifice everything unprofitable, and that alienation is exactly what causes so many chronic societal issues. I agree that an individual can have very little impact alone, but capitalism places this burden at the individual level.
We’re not talking about people trying to pull some kind of GME thing to manipulate a stock and artificially inflate its value. We’re talking about people investing in retirement accounts primarily. Someone’s ETF/mutual fund choice in their retirement account is not going to have those kinds of targeting impact on individual stocks in that fund.
When investing in something like the S&P 500, it’s not saying, “I believe and support these 500 specific companies,” it’s saying you believe in the American economy. An emerging market fund would similarly be a diversified bet on that sector. A fund keyed in on a particular market sector, like energy, retail, or home builders, would show belief in that industry.
I think the average person investing in their 401k should seek diversity above all else, because a retirement fund is a retirement fund, not a political or social statement. I’m not saying to invest in, or not to invest in, an oil company. I’m saying to invest in funds that give exposure to a broad cross section of the market and if there is an oil company in there, oh well, it’s just part of the economy.
Let your actions, what you buy from companies, dictate their success failure. If/when renewable energy hits its tipping point, the index will likely include those renewable energy companies in the fund, and maybe even one day remove the oil companies if they are on their way out. And if/when that happens, great, you’re already invested and have nothing extra to do.
Investing in some kind of broad market index is not the same as being a big investor showing support for a company by giving a direct investment and being invested in the success of that individual company. I don’t care what happens to any individual stock in the S&P, as long as the overall market is moving in the right direction. And for 99.99999% of investors, they shouldn’t either.
If someone has some funds to invest beyond their retirement fund, and they want to help promising local businesses and invest directly with them. I think that’s great, but that’s not a retirement fund, it’s an expensive lottery ticket in most cases.