![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That's actually two separate things.
I got an interesting piece of mail earlier this week. It was the proxy voting materials for the upcoming shareholder's meeting of Fidelity Investments. (A booklet about the issues that will be discussed at the meeting, and information on how to cast your votes if you can't physically make it there.) Which... okay. Not generally that interesting.
Except, this time, there's a rather interesting shareholder proposal on the docket. It seems there's a company based in China which is suspected of helping to fund genocide in Darfur. And Fidelity is investing mutual fund money in one of its subsidiaries. A lot of money. Which means that if you invest with Fidelity, entrusting your money to them so they can invest it for you, there's a chance that some if it is indirectly helping to fund genocide. (Fortunately, the Fidelity funds I own are not among the funds that do this.)
So some shareholders proposed a new rule, which boils down to this: If a company is involved in genocide or gross human rights violations, don't invest in them.
The board of directors is against this proposal. (In every shareholder booklet I've ever seen, the board is against every shareholder proposal. Though they claim that they sometimes quietly adopt the proposals they like. And maybe if a vote is necessary and they like the idea, they list it as a board proposal rather than shareholder?)
Now, there are things they could have said to justify this. They could have said that the genocide link is only suspected, and they can't very well go pulling money out of companies every time someone thinks they might be misusing their resources. They could have pointed out that the company they're investing in has ties to the parent company but is actually a seperate entity. They could have talked about how buying shares of a company doesn't actually directly give them any money. They could have said that owning a significant portion of the company gives them leverage to change company policy, and thus help avert genocide. There are plenty of things they could have said. I still would have been in favor of the rule and not happy that they didn't want to adopt it, but at least it would have been kind of understandable. Maybe. But that's all moot, because they didn't say any of those things. I'll summarize below, but here are their own words:
In short: We're in the business of making money, and we don't want our hands tied by moral concerns, even in cases as extreme as genocide. There's nothing illegal about investing in this company. If you don't like the way we invest your money, you're welcome to take it elsewhere.
Now, there is such a thing as socially responsible investing. Companies like Parnassus are set up specifically to do it. They take the time to do the research and find out what's actually going on in the companies they're considering investing in before they go ahead and buy the shares. (You can find out more here, here, and here, among other places.)
But doing all that screening takes time and effort, resulting in higher expenses. And the limitations thus created can significantly hamper the funds' ability to make money. It's exactly that sort of thing which Fidelity is trying to avoid. (And, looking at the aforementioned Investors Against Genocide website, it seems that Vanguard and American Funds, two other companies I invest in, are also major investors in the Chinese company in question. But, again, not with the funds I hold, as far as I can tell. ... No, wait. This screener says that American Funds does own stock in two of those companies. Crap. And I was looking to increase my holdings with them.) It can be a slippery slope. Where, exactly, do you draw the line? What constitutes good moral reason to not invest in a company?
But we're talking about genocide here. I think it's pretty clear which side of the line that falls on. And the fact that Fidelity, as a general policy, expressly doesn't care... that troubles me deeply. For now, it's good to know that the funds I own don't invest in the companies named by the group, but that could change. I don't want my money being invested by companies who think it's okay to invest in stuff like this.
I do already own some shares of a Parnassus fund. It hasn't done very well since I bought it, but then, I bought it at a bad time. Everything's been going down lately. (The major Fidelity fund I own, as it happens, went down more than just about anything I've got. And I got it because I thought it'd do relatively well in the expected market drop.)
So now I have to figure out what to do. Selling shares now, when the market is down, means losing money. (And the transaction is taxable.) But, with the market down, it's also a good time to buy.
Meantime, T Rowe Price, another mutual fund company I invest in (one of my top 3), is listed by the group as being one of the few to move away from the Chinese company. But... in looking into what stocks I actually own, I found that they were one of the major ones investing in other things I didn't like. ExxonMobil, WalMart, tobacco companies...
I've got research to do and decisions to make. I don't want to lose money, but I don't want to make it by supporting immoral actions up to and including genocide.
In other, completely unrelated news...
There's this Dunkin Donuts ad I've been seeing on TV lately. It shows a line of befuddled customers in a coffee shop which is clearly Not Starbucks, staring at a comically incomprehensible menu. They're saying/singing, "My mind can't form these words. My mouth can't form these words. Is it French? Or is it Italian? Or is it Fritalian?" And then, outside the store, a happy guy walks down the sidewalk, drinking a cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee. And the announcer tells you that, at Dunkin Donuts, unlike some other places, you can order a latte in English.
Now, I have my reasons for hating Starbucks. They're a giant evil corporation putting other coffee chains out of business (and/or buying them up), their coffee tastes awful, it's hideously overpriced... I could go on. And yeah, there's something about their inability to use words like "small," "medium," and "large" that's a little off-putting.
But I don't think you can really attack them for offering a wide variety of coffee options. And I'm not so happy with Dunkin Donuts' apparant xenophobia. Because, yeah, French and Italian are so incomprehensible and... *dun, dun, dun* foreign. And... hello? "Latte" is English? If you're going to say that it is, then what's wrong with the other coffee names?
*sigh*
In more personal news, I'm on a very night-shifted schedule. So today I'm spending the night (my awake time) at my sister's place. If the baby wakes up (which could happen anytime... probably should have happened by now...), I'll feed him and change him and whatever so they can get some sleep. Meantime, I've got Jimmy (aka "The HatComputer") here to keep me company. And a long, rambly LJ post with which to busy myself.
I got an interesting piece of mail earlier this week. It was the proxy voting materials for the upcoming shareholder's meeting of Fidelity Investments. (A booklet about the issues that will be discussed at the meeting, and information on how to cast your votes if you can't physically make it there.) Which... okay. Not generally that interesting.
Except, this time, there's a rather interesting shareholder proposal on the docket. It seems there's a company based in China which is suspected of helping to fund genocide in Darfur. And Fidelity is investing mutual fund money in one of its subsidiaries. A lot of money. Which means that if you invest with Fidelity, entrusting your money to them so they can invest it for you, there's a chance that some if it is indirectly helping to fund genocide. (Fortunately, the Fidelity funds I own are not among the funds that do this.)
So some shareholders proposed a new rule, which boils down to this: If a company is involved in genocide or gross human rights violations, don't invest in them.
The board of directors is against this proposal. (In every shareholder booklet I've ever seen, the board is against every shareholder proposal. Though they claim that they sometimes quietly adopt the proposals they like. And maybe if a vote is necessary and they like the idea, they list it as a board proposal rather than shareholder?)
Now, there are things they could have said to justify this. They could have said that the genocide link is only suspected, and they can't very well go pulling money out of companies every time someone thinks they might be misusing their resources. They could have pointed out that the company they're investing in has ties to the parent company but is actually a seperate entity. They could have talked about how buying shares of a company doesn't actually directly give them any money. They could have said that owning a significant portion of the company gives them leverage to change company policy, and thus help avert genocide. There are plenty of things they could have said. I still would have been in favor of the rule and not happy that they didn't want to adopt it, but at least it would have been kind of understandable. Maybe. But that's all moot, because they didn't say any of those things. I'll summarize below, but here are their own words:
Statement of Opposition
The Fidelity Funds Board of Trustees recommends that you vote "AGAINST" this proposal.
Fidelity, as investment adviser to the Fund, seeks to achieve the best investment results for the Fund consistent with the stated investment policies of the Fund. In doing so, Fidelity is obligated to limit the Fund's investments to holdings that are lawful under the laws of the United States. The Fidelity Funds Board of Trustees has procedures in place to review Fidelity's performance as investment adviser to the Fund, including the Fund's compliance with all applicable laws.
United States law prohibits investments in companies owned or controlled by the government of Sudan. FMR is committed to complying fully with these investment sanctions and any additional investment sanctions that the United States government might enact with respect to companies doing business in Sudan or any other country.
The Fidelity Funds Board of Trustees recognizes and respects that investors, including those investing in this Fund, have other investment opportunities open to them should they wish to avoid investments in certain companies or countries. Shareholders of the Fund, however, have chosen to invest in this Fund based on its specific stated investment policies. If adopted, this proposal would limit investments by the Fund that would be lawful under the laws of the United States. For this reason, the Board of Trustees recommends that you vote "AGAINST" this proposal.
In short: We're in the business of making money, and we don't want our hands tied by moral concerns, even in cases as extreme as genocide. There's nothing illegal about investing in this company. If you don't like the way we invest your money, you're welcome to take it elsewhere.
Now, there is such a thing as socially responsible investing. Companies like Parnassus are set up specifically to do it. They take the time to do the research and find out what's actually going on in the companies they're considering investing in before they go ahead and buy the shares. (You can find out more here, here, and here, among other places.)
But doing all that screening takes time and effort, resulting in higher expenses. And the limitations thus created can significantly hamper the funds' ability to make money. It's exactly that sort of thing which Fidelity is trying to avoid. (And, looking at the aforementioned Investors Against Genocide website, it seems that Vanguard and American Funds, two other companies I invest in, are also major investors in the Chinese company in question. But, again, not with the funds I hold, as far as I can tell. ... No, wait. This screener says that American Funds does own stock in two of those companies. Crap. And I was looking to increase my holdings with them.) It can be a slippery slope. Where, exactly, do you draw the line? What constitutes good moral reason to not invest in a company?
But we're talking about genocide here. I think it's pretty clear which side of the line that falls on. And the fact that Fidelity, as a general policy, expressly doesn't care... that troubles me deeply. For now, it's good to know that the funds I own don't invest in the companies named by the group, but that could change. I don't want my money being invested by companies who think it's okay to invest in stuff like this.
I do already own some shares of a Parnassus fund. It hasn't done very well since I bought it, but then, I bought it at a bad time. Everything's been going down lately. (The major Fidelity fund I own, as it happens, went down more than just about anything I've got. And I got it because I thought it'd do relatively well in the expected market drop.)
So now I have to figure out what to do. Selling shares now, when the market is down, means losing money. (And the transaction is taxable.) But, with the market down, it's also a good time to buy.
Meantime, T Rowe Price, another mutual fund company I invest in (one of my top 3), is listed by the group as being one of the few to move away from the Chinese company. But... in looking into what stocks I actually own, I found that they were one of the major ones investing in other things I didn't like. ExxonMobil, WalMart, tobacco companies...
I've got research to do and decisions to make. I don't want to lose money, but I don't want to make it by supporting immoral actions up to and including genocide.
In other, completely unrelated news...
There's this Dunkin Donuts ad I've been seeing on TV lately. It shows a line of befuddled customers in a coffee shop which is clearly Not Starbucks, staring at a comically incomprehensible menu. They're saying/singing, "My mind can't form these words. My mouth can't form these words. Is it French? Or is it Italian? Or is it Fritalian?" And then, outside the store, a happy guy walks down the sidewalk, drinking a cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee. And the announcer tells you that, at Dunkin Donuts, unlike some other places, you can order a latte in English.
Now, I have my reasons for hating Starbucks. They're a giant evil corporation putting other coffee chains out of business (and/or buying them up), their coffee tastes awful, it's hideously overpriced... I could go on. And yeah, there's something about their inability to use words like "small," "medium," and "large" that's a little off-putting.
But I don't think you can really attack them for offering a wide variety of coffee options. And I'm not so happy with Dunkin Donuts' apparant xenophobia. Because, yeah, French and Italian are so incomprehensible and... *dun, dun, dun* foreign. And... hello? "Latte" is English? If you're going to say that it is, then what's wrong with the other coffee names?
*sigh*
In more personal news, I'm on a very night-shifted schedule. So today I'm spending the night (my awake time) at my sister's place. If the baby wakes up (which could happen anytime... probably should have happened by now...), I'll feed him and change him and whatever so they can get some sleep. Meantime, I've got Jimmy (aka "The HatComputer") here to keep me company. And a long, rambly LJ post with which to busy myself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Ironic in the context of this thread, since it started out talking about putting morality over economic expediency.
But... I see. You're okay with grey areas. I guess that makes sense. And you do have to draw a line somewhere. (The socially responsible fund I have invests heavily in Microsoft... I don't get it.)
From:
no subject
Ah, yes, but Wal-Mart isn't genocide-evil. There are varying levels of evilness. Wal-Mart isn't too far up on the scale.
I like grey, ambiguity and rhetoric, but that last has nothing to do with the first two. I use Microsoft products, so...