I appreciate the sentiment but that will not mean much. Ethics rarely figures in Investment decisions, which are made on the basis of excel spreadsheets and quant algorithms. If on the other hand you were to find employment for people who found their employers' tax avoidance to be distasteful and wanted to quit to make a statement, then you might be able to make a difference by starving such companies of talent.
However, it seems to be a "coming thing". I began altering my investments a handful of years ago to include what I found tasteful not just on return, but on ethics//morals as well. I don't see how this is different from "voting with your feet" or "voting with your dollar".
Starving companies of investment and sales are part of the same mixture as starving companies of talent.
i'm sure you know this, but when you invest in a company, you are actually just buying shares off of some other investor - the money doesn't go 'to' to company (except in IPOs and secondary offerings). of course the stock price can affect a company in some pretty important ways.
A significant chunk of investment in the American stock market and real estate is done by foreign investors and funds and hedgefunds etc. These decisions are made primarily based on the spreadsheets ; as a backend software guy in the capital markets and banking sector, I see first hand how automated this decision making has become. I have had score of meeting with Investment and Financial advisors ( for s/w development/testing , not financial advise )and I see first had how hard data oriented these folks are in their decision making.
Cuban's not arguing this from an ethics perspective. He's saying that it may temporarily boost shareholder value, but the trade off is increasing his personal tax liability (he's assuming the tax shortfall will be made up by increased taxes to the remaining taxpayers).
