To me, investing is NOT just getting the best outcome possible. I simply don't agree with some companies practices and therefore I don't want to invest in them. I believe I am better off if I live in a better society overall than if I have more money in a worse overall society.
> I simply don't agree with some companies practices and therefore I don't want to invest in them.
Understandable, but unless you buy the stock from them at IPO, you're not giving them money. I agree with Cullen Roche's four points on ESG investing; second one:
> 2) The secondary market is a bad place to enact change. The intelligent defense of ESG is “by reducing the demand for a stock we can increase its cost of capital and impact its operating performance.” This is true to some degree, but I think this is dramatically overstated. For instance, the firms in the S&P 500 are all large established firms that have more than enough capital to finance their operations. They aren’t using the secondary equity markets to fund their operations. In fact, most firms have so much capital that they’ve been net buyers of stock in the last 50 years. So, this puts the cart before the horse. The better way to think of public companies is to think of them like horse betting. We can bet on the horses, but secondary market purchases are just private exchanges, not cash issuance to firms. As a result, betting on the horses doesn’t change the outcome of the race. Similarly, our secondary market purchases and sales have a far smaller impact on the firm’s operations than we might think.¹
Roche's point in 'doing good' with investing is to make as much money as you can and then fund the movements and organizations that you wish to succeed (worked for the Koch brothers and others of their ilk).
