Change by Dod in his portfolio

[Dod101]

I would never hold gambling or weapons companies. Alcohol seems to me a bit different although I can see the moral argument. As a modest participator in its evils, I can be a bit more sympathetic to that industry.

Fair enough, but an obvious problem with making statements like this is that it does sometimes open up rabbit holes of hypocrisy.

Are you still holding any investment trusts that invest in these companies ?

Quite possibly but I am not fanatical about this. nor am I a Green. maybe I should have said I would never directly hold ............But I will certainly never go searching through the holdings of every IT that I hold for these shares.

Dod

[SalvorHardin]

A great example of an unethical company that is thought by many to be ethical is Unilever.

Unilever has had numerous scandals involving palm oil production including child labour and slavery. Ben & Jerry's openly supported Russia against Ukraine. Ben & Jerry's also supports Hamas and applauded the October 7th massacre. Unilever continues to operate in Russia, claiming that it is essential to provide "necessary" foodstuffs such as Magnum Ice Cream.

Meanwhile on the "unethical" side, I present the French defence company Thales (I own shares).

Britain sent 2,000 of Thales' NLAW anti-tank missiles (made in Belfast) to Ukraine in January 2022. These turned the tide in the Battle of Kyiv, which stopped Russia from taking control of the country and for starters marching several million Ukrainians off to extermination camps. Putin would have been emboldened by this and it's likely that we would have seen the Baltic States attacked in the next few years.

Meanwhile Unilever paid loads of tax to Putin for which Ben & Jerry's acted as a cheerleader.

[Tara]

Looking at the sequence of comments from Dod, you are probably correct. It was more to do with a dying industry and the poor culture. But the moral argument (especially about vaping advertising, I suspect) was the icing which enabled him to regard the loss of income as worthwhile.


Arb.

These comments are pretty much how I feel. I have never been all that keen on tobacco shares because the product no doubt kills people. I have just spent some weeks in hospital and it is amazing the number of patients, recovering from operations, who need to be hooked up to oxygen. Mostly that is because of a history of smoking either current or in the past.

But my comments following the huge write off by BAT and then the disclosure that the tobacco companies are doing all they can to hook young people on to vaping was the last straw.

It is a wrench to lose the dividends but sometimes you need to do what you need to do.

Dod

Is there any price where you might consider investing in BAT again?

What if BAT shares fell to £2 or £1 for example?

[Dod101]

Nope. Once I have sold them all that is it.

Dod

[moorfield]

A great example of an unethical company that is thought by many to be ethical is Unilever.

Every company presents moral or ethical questions if one looks hard enough. Over the years I hold/have held, not naming names:

Large scale environmental polluter
Animal tester
Peddler of derivative finance to small businesses
Manufacturer of tobacco products
Manufacturer of weapons
Exploiter of zero-contract employees
Exploiter of third world employees including children
Exploiter of indigenous rainforest
Government briber/palm-greaser

[Dod101]

I would never hold gambling or weapons companies. Alcohol seems to me a bit different although I can see the moral argument. As a modest participator in its evils, I can be a bit more sympathetic to that industry.

Fair enough, but an obvious problem with making statements like this is that it does sometimes open up rabbit holes of hypocrisy.

Are you still holding any investment trusts that invest in these companies ?

I thought that I had responded but never mind. For all I know some of my ITs might hold tobacco shares but I have not checked. If they do, too bad. They will be almost incidental holdings. I might check sometime if I have nothing else to do.

Dod

[richfool]

For all I know some of my ITs might hold tobacco shares but I have not checked. If they do, too bad. They will be almost incidental holdings. I might check sometime if I have nothing else to do.

Dod

FWIW, I note Murray International (MYI) holds some Philip Morris International (3.26% according to HL).

[Arborbridge]

For all I know some of my ITs might hold tobacco shares but I have not checked. If they do, too bad. They will be almost incidental holdings. I might check sometime if I have nothing else to do.

Dod

FWIW, I note Murray International (MYI) holds some Philip Morris International (3.26% according to HL).

If we seriously go down this road, there will be very little we can invest in that someone won't find immoral. As I say, so would even suggest the whole idea is immoral to start with.

So, let's not carry on this hounding of Dod. Look to our own portfolios before throwing stones.

[richfool]

FWIW, I note Murray International (MYI) holds some Philip Morris International (3.26% according to HL).

If we seriously go down this road, there will be very little we can invest in that someone won't find immoral. As I say, so would even suggest the whole idea is immoral to start with.

So, let's not carry on this hounding of Dod. Look to our own portfolios before throwing stones.

Who is "hounding Dod"? Or "throwing stones"! Certainly not me.

My comment was made in case Dod or anyone was interested, simply as an aside. Note I even said FWIW.

In fact, I hold MYI myself and am conscious of the PM holding.

[kempiejon]

If we seriously go down this road, there will be very little we can invest in that someone won't find immoral.

I can find most things I invest in immoral but I'm not convinced buying or not buying shares is going to make a jot of difference. I have bought tobacco products and nicotine, I do buy beer and make bets so I am contributing to world misery that way.
I do chose not to buy bread or peanut butter with palm oil in, I have reduced my diary and quadruped consumption and I recycle ironically to save the planet...

[Dod101]

FWIW, I note Murray International (MYI) holds some Philip Morris International (3.26% according to HL).

If we seriously go down this road, there will be very little we can invest in that someone won't find immoral. As I say, so would even suggest the whole idea is immoral to start with.

So, let's not carry on this hounding of Dod. Look to our own portfolios before throwing stones.

I certainly do not regard this as any ‘hounding of Dod’. The point made is valid but it is a bit like not using salt and then after examining the contents of some bread say find that they use a gram or two. So what? is my answer.

Dod

[SalvorHardin]

Every company presents moral or ethical questions if one looks hard enough. Over the years I hold/have held, not naming names:

Large scale environmental polluter
Animal tester
Peddler of derivative finance to small businesses
Manufacturer of tobacco products
Manufacturer of weapons
Exploiter of zero-contract employees
Exploiter of third world employees including children
Exploiter of indigenous rainforest
Government briber/palm-greaser

Yes, it is difficult to find a truly ethical company once you look beneath the surface. Ethical beauty products companies are a good example with their claims that they don't test their products on animals. Now and again one of these gets found out as either having farmed off the testing to a third party, or for having done the testing but only on "intermediate products".

Alternatively, just accept that most companies have dirty hands to some extent. That's what I do. I own shares in four companies for which the more determined ethical investors recoil at their mere mention:

1) AeroVironment (military drones, their products can be seen in videos on sites like Reddit, Twitter and Telegram, on a daily basis killing Russian soldiers and armoured vehicles in Ukraine - for me that's a highly ethical use of their products)

2) Smith & Wesson (handguns, including Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum. S&W really riles some people up, more so than major defence companies).

3) Suncor Energy (Canadian oil, including the Athabasca Tar Sands - I think that they're cleaning up a massive oil spill, the environmentalists throw a wobbly whenever the Tar Sands are mentioned)

4) Thales (defence, including those NLAWs that love to incinerate Russian AFVs and tanks)

People should bear in mind that tobacco companies kill more people every year than are killed in wars (declared and undeclared). Rough estimates currently are between 7 and 8 million a year according to the WHO and America's CDC (links below):

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/diseases-and-death.html

[AndyPandy]

Businesses (especially privately owned) are generally amoral.

I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement. The backbone of the UK economy is privately-owned small Businesses. I own (or co-own) 4 of them and defy you to class them as amoral. Mentoring, 2x First Aid Training and 1x Security (Access Control). All UK based, no offshore shenanigans and all taxes paid on time.


Go on to Etsy, or around your local Market. Full of crafters, food producers etc.


Perhaps you can clarify?

[CliffEdge]

Businesses (especially privately owned) are generally amoral.

I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement. The backbone of the UK economy is privately-owned small Businesses. I own (or co-own) 4 of them and defy you to class them as amoral. Mentoring, 2x First Aid Training and 1x Security (Access Control). All UK based, no offshore shenanigans and all taxes paid on time.


Go on to Etsy, or around your local Market. Full of crafters, food producers etc.


Perhaps you can clarify?

There are many honourable exceptions and yours clearly are very honourable and admirable enterprises for which you should be praised. My point (not very well expressed perhaps - I confess that in my shorthand I often depend on later posters to expand on the details spotlighted in my posts, as you have done and I thank you for that) is that capitalism is about making a profit and that must be its main objective. Look at its history, Victorian times, mill workers, child lace makers etc.

And it is the business of the lawmakers to ensure that capitalism behaves morally.

Unfortunately (as with Brexit) the lawmakers, i.e. the government, often have their own interests at heart and it has required and does require civil disobedience to make actual improvements to the lot of the workers and other weak groups of citizens.

Do you want some examples of present day transgressors? There are many but a few - internet service providers (Virgin e.g.), the water companies, supermarkets, Facebook, Amazon... In whose interest do you believe they act?

If AI brings the huge changes that are predicted, who do you think will benefit?

[AndyPandy]

I think that's a bit of a sweeping statement. The backbone of the UK economy is privately-owned small Businesses. I own (or co-own) 4 of them and defy you to class them as amoral. Mentoring, 2x First Aid Training and 1x Security (Access Control). All UK based, no offshore shenanigans and all taxes paid on time.


Go on to Etsy, or around your local Market. Full of crafters, food producers etc.


Perhaps you can clarify?

There are many honourable exceptions and yours clearly are very honourable and admirable enterprises for which you should be praised. My point (not very well expressed perhaps - I confess that in my shorthand I often depend on later posters to expand on the details spotlighted in my posts, as you have done and I thank you for that) is that capitalism is about making a profit and that must be its main objective. Look at its history, Victorian times, mill workers, child lace makers etc.

And it is the business of the lawmakers to ensure that capitalism behaves morally.

Unfortunately (as with Brexit) the lawmakers, i.e. the government, often have their own interests at heart and it has required and does require civil disobedience to make actual improvements to the lot of the workers and other weak groups of citizens.

Do you want some examples of present day transgressors? There are many but a few - internet service providers (Virgin e.g.), the water companies, supermarkets, Facebook, Amazon... In whose interest do you believe they act?

I don't dispute that some Businesses have amoral moments such as the examples that you provide, but when 99.9% of Businesses employ between 0 and 49 staff, and they are probably genuinely trying to build up an ethical and moral business your sweeping generalisation is simply not true.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... population

Do you want some examples of present day transgressors? There are many but a few - internet service providers (Virgin e.g.), the water companies, supermarkets, Facebook, Amazon... In whose interest do you believe they act?

In their shareholder(s) interest, that's what their constitution says they have to do. That doesn't make them amoral. They can still achieve that and be a moral Business. "Amoral", an indifference to something moral is different to "immoral". Perhaps you mean Immoral? In any case, selective sampling of about a dozen UK based Business that have acted amorally at some point vs 6 Million does not equate to "Businesses are generally amoral".

If AI brings the huge changes that are predicted, who do you think will benefit?

Probably all of us, in ways we can't predict. Just like automation and the Industrial Revolution, self-serve fuel pumps and supermarkets did. New jobs were created to replace the manual labour, that would have otherwise made costs prohibitive.

And it is the business of the lawmakers to ensure that capitalism behaves morally.

Is it? I don't think so. Lawmakes have, for example, always allowed weapons to be made - from bows & arrows to nuclear weapons. If it was their Business to ensure Capitalism is Moral, weapon manufacture would have been banned centuries ago, surely?


Also, why bring Brexit into it? Is that a variant of Godwin's Law?

[SalvorHardin]

Also, why bring Brexit into it? Is that a variant of Godwin's Law?

Unfortunately there are some posters on TLF who routinely politicise almost everything, as seen with yet another irrelevant anti-Brexit rant appearing in an investment thread. I find that sticking these posters in the foe box works nicely (most of these posters rarely post about investment anyway).

It happens so often that it's a good idea to consider it to be a variant of Godwin's Law.

The main TLF version of Godwin's Law is that as a discussion thread grows longer, it becomes more likely that it will turn into a debate as to what is and is not allowed to be posted in HYP Practical.

[CliffEdge]

There are many honourable exceptions and yours clearly are very honourable and admirable enterprises for which you should be praised. My point (not very well expressed perhaps - I confess that in my shorthand I often depend on later posters to expand on the details spotlighted in my posts, as you have done and I thank you for that) is that capitalism is about making a profit and that must be its main objective. Look at its history, Victorian times, mill workers, child lace makers etc.

And it is the business of the lawmakers to ensure that capitalism behaves morally.

Unfortunately (as with Brexit) the lawmakers, i.e. the government, often have their own interests at heart and it has required and does require civil disobedience to make actual improvements to the lot of the workers and other weak groups of citizens.

Do you want some examples of present day transgressors? There are many but a few - internet service providers (Virgin e.g.), the water companies, supermarkets, Facebook, Amazon... In whose interest do you believe they act?

I don't dispute that some Businesses have amoral moments such as the examples that you provide, but when 99.9% of Businesses employ between 0 and 49 staff, and they are probably genuinely trying to build up an ethical and moral business your sweeping generalisation is simply not true.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... population

Do you want some examples of present day transgressors? There are many but a few - internet service providers (Virgin e.g.), the water companies, supermarkets, Facebook, Amazon... In whose interest do you believe they act?

In their shareholder(s) interest, that's what their constitution says they have to do. That doesn't make them amoral. They can still achieve that and be a moral Business. "Amoral", an indifference to something moral is different to "immoral". Perhaps you mean Immoral? In any case, selective sampling of about a dozen UK based Business that have acted amorally at some point vs 6 Million does not equate to "Businesses are generally amoral".

If AI brings the huge changes that are predicted, who do you think will benefit?

Probably all of us, in ways we can't predict. Just like automation and the Industrial Revolution, self-serve fuel pumps and supermarkets did. New jobs were created to replace the manual labour, that would have otherwise made costs prohibitive.

And it is the business of the lawmakers to ensure that capitalism behaves morally.

Is it? I don't think so. Lawmakes have, for example, always allowed weapons to be made - from bows & arrows to nuclear weapons. If it was their Business to ensure Capitalism is Moral, weapon manufacture would have been banned centuries ago, surely?


Also, why bring Brexit into it? Is that a variant of Godwin's Law?

Well I'll leave it there, except to say amoral is not the same as immoral, but I'm sure that's a given. We could debate whether the leaders of a particular tribe (or nowadays Nation) have a moral responsibility to provide defensive tools for their tribe. And whether they have a moral responsibility to do their best economically for the majority of their tribesmen and women.

[dealtn]

But my comments following the huge write off by BAT ...

... It is a wrench to lose the dividends

It is always odd to me to see comments such as these by way of analysis. We have a juxtaposition of a non cash balance sheet item with a cash item.

It's why my first port of call of financial analysis is always the cashflow statement.

[moorfield]

The main TLF version of Godwin's Law is that as a discussion thread grows longer, it becomes more likely that it will turn into a debate as to what is and is not allowed to be posted in HYP Practical.

I did actually succumb to Godwin's Law last week when comparing the Rwanda Bill to the Enabling Act...

[Dod101]

But my comments following the huge write off by BAT ...

... It is a wrench to lose the dividends

It is always odd to me to see comments such as these by way of analysis. We have a juxtaposition of a non cash balance sheet item with a cash item.

It's why my first port of call of financial analysis is always the cashflow statement.

There is no argument about the cash flow as I have said above. The non cash write off though is huge and indicative of the malaise in the industry. Your purist thinking is for you to sort out; I am clear in my thinking on the matter.

Dod