Greens moving to legislate ethical investment

It is possible to set up an ethical investment ‘screen’ or preference and make good returns. I used to invest with Australian Ethical Investment until sucked into the mortgage pit and consistently brought in high returns.

Personally, I don’t agree with including companies producing alcohol in an ethical negative-screen, but don’t mind at all the idea of the ACT Govt having a sensible, public discussion about lining up its public policy and investment principles.

And before people mount their own ignorance some more, you may want to have a look at how your own superannuation and other managed investment providers already include ethical or socially responsible investment principles in their operations. It’s pretty common these days, and is compatible with excellent returns.

And some evidence? Lots out there, but 2009 data from Australia’s annual benchmarking of responsible investment: “the average responsible investor in Australia is getting better returns for almost all periods from one to seven years across the three major investment categories in which RI products are available”

I can’t seem to past the key table into here, but you can find it via googling Responsible Investment 2009 (research conducted by Corporate Monitor).

Didn’t the Greens once accept money from the CFMEU, an organisation which makes money from pokies in the Tradies Club?

Pommy bastard said :

Vote ’em out.

+1

They are Greens “Solidarity”, they are a religion to most middle class hippies, for whom traditional belief systems are too untrendy.

Like any cult or religion their beliefs overide the need for explaination, or sense even, and again like religions, they feel it it their duty to impose their belief sytems on others.

Vote ’em out.

Who are the Greens to tell me what is ethical and what is not?

Pommy bastard said :

I wonder which companys which “manufacture land mines” the ACT govt has any investment in?

Probably Raytheon, which is based out at Canberra Airport. When this issue first caused a stink a few years back, the company was angry it was accused of making cluster bombs when it only makes the missiles that deliver the bombs.

or even how do we plan for dealing with general Govt investment return not growing in line with the rest of the market?
Personally I prefer the passive method of fire-and-forget index funds for Government, it provides growth, and if the Govt du jour or the public has concerns about social outcomes, then they can fund them directly at the time with their excess cash.

So, where do ACT Government workers queue up to seek compensation for being deliberately disadvantaged relative to the rest of the country (whose super fund managers are compelled to maximise financial gain) by this policy?

Also, which sample-group’s ethics do they pander to (“environmental harm” is a pretty huge umbrella…), and exactly how much of a return on campaign contribution will this provide for Australian Ethical Investment?

Wow what an amazing show of not understanding how investment including government investment works. This has been explained hundreds of times but here goes…

In large part the Government invests in what are generally known as indexed funds which buy up shares across the entire sharemarket such as for example the ASX 200 (top 200 companies on the stock exchange), or ASX 100 (top 100 companies). These funds are very simple to create there are hundreds of them with various institutions and over the long term may been the best demonstratable way to make returns on invested capital, ask Mr Buffet if you’re unsure. By buying into these funds the Government does not have to micro manage its investments on a daily basis and uses various fund managers to do all the trading, analysis, research, bargaining etc on your behalf. It is therefore very cheap and provides significant diversity across many many portfolios with steady(ish) rates of return for minimal effort and minimal risk.

Yours and my superannuation portfolios do exactly the same thing. And then any company you invest in which also makes investments does exactly the same thing or any company they invest in that makes investments does the same thing or indeed any company that that company of that previous company which trades in managed funds then does the same thing.

To try do otherwise becomes extremely complicated, convoluted, increases risk due to lack of diversity and increases costs forcing the returns needed to be higher which again increases risk and would expose the Government to speculative investment strategies. It has been reviewed and looked at 100s of times by every institution that invests widely and the results are still the same no matter how many people make hysterical arguments about land mines and cluster bombs and tobacco companies. I’d ask for the direct linkage that demonstrates the Government actively invests in land mines and cluster bombs before questioning the entire investment strategy of using indexed managed funds as a passive investment vehicle.

I wonder which companys which “manufacture land mines” the ACT govt has any investment in?

Anyone know?

Anyone?

Cluster bombs don’t kill people, people kill people

Is there a company in the world that does not ‘harm the environment’?

Would you like me to hum the soundtrack to Top Gun to accompany the roar of the point whooshing over your head? What’s your claim, exactly? “The employees of Company A eat food and have a photocopier, so we may as well throw our lot in with Company X, who sells land mines”?

http://tinyurl.com/37bn9fq

Ethical by whose standard? For once, I have to have to agree with a tory – oil and coal make my world enjoyable, I find them ethical. Weapons are OK, too, but only if sold to the good guys. So no investing in French weapons companies.

Is there a company in the world that does not ‘harm the environment’? Does that include paper use, electricity, forcing employees to drive to work, allowing them to eat food and breath out carbon etc?

And what about manufacturers of, say, military helicopters that are also used for peacekeeping and/or humanitarian activities?

Still, I agree with tobacco companies. No redeeming features there.

It is possible to be professional and take pride in one’s appearance without wearing bucketloads of make-up and a suit.

That’s right. You just roll out of bed in the morning, reeking of stale desperation, then choose something blue off the rack.

Jim Jones said :

It is possible to be professional and take pride in one’s appearance without wearing bucketloads of make-up and a suit.

Show off. For some of us it’s not even possible with…

And if the loony toons Greens think that we can make a reasonable return by fencing off any investment in firms which have any “involvement” with anything they dislike (ie everything,) and by only investing in “lentil-flavoured, save-the-lesbian-single-mother-disabled-whale” funds, it just goes to show what a joke these people are.

Vote ’em out!

This doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that Caroline Le Couteur was once an Exectutive Director of Australian Ethical Investment Limited.

And once, and possibly still is, a major shareholder.

Does it?

It is possible to be professional and take pride in one’s appearance without wearing bucketloads of make-up and a suit.

chewy14 said :

weapons manufacture, gambling, tobacco and alcohol, breach international labour laws or harm the environment or animals.

These are a few of my favourite things.

And without these there would be a bunch of naked hippies sitting under a tree, smelling badly with nothing to wear, smoke or drink. And without weapons they would resort to flinging poo at eachother. So if we take away those things, that is what might happen.

Maximise returns ppl!

weapons manufacture, gambling, tobacco and alcohol, breach international labour laws or harm the environment or animals.

These are a few of my favourite things.

vg said :

Define ‘involved’ Greens.

On another note, why does every female Greens politician look as if they’ve gone to minimal if in fact any trouble to make themselves look presentable. And before anyone rails against that as sexist, its actually about professionalism and pride in appearance, not personifying a green stereotype

I won’t rail against it as sexist, just a stupid and ill-informed.

Define ‘involved’ Greens.

On another note, why does every female Greens politician look as if they’ve gone to minimal if in fact any trouble to make themselves look presentable. And before anyone rails against that as sexist, its actually about professionalism and pride in appearance, not personifying a green stereotype