3 ms·
>a signal that a particular industry is morally unappealing to a society, so much so that it's days are numbered. So what you are saying that if Gates foundati
by vlehto 11y ago
>a signal that a particular industry is morally unappealing to a society, so much so that it's days are numbered.
So what you are saying that if Gates foundation stops investing in McDonalds, then in the long run people will stop eating fast food?
Because the idea that Gates foundation starting some kind of "movement of divestment" would have to be executed in secrecy form all of the "evil" investors who currently operate in the market. Otherwise these "evil" guys will reap profits of the obviously devalued stock and grow. And then they have bigger market share of all investment.
- Retric 11y agoIf McDonalds needed to raise there prices because they had trouble accessing capital then people would eat there less. Which starts a downward spiral for the company.
- vlehto 11y agoSlight increase in capital cost, should show as slower expansion to foreign markets. Self destructive rise of burger price is unlikely, as McDonalds executives are likely not idiots.
- Retric 11y agoAt first it's not a problem. However, any disruption is going to have a magnified impact without free access to capital. ex: A short term fad, supply chain issue etc. Further, economies of scale often cause local optima which don't exist for smaller companies. (Advertising, infrastructure, price) So, large but lean companies can easily hit downward spirals. That said, this is really an edge case. A more common cause is conglomerates selling off lines of business which are then less stable on their own.