4 ms·

This is probably due in part to private investors asking their banks to invest their money for them without regard to environmental issues. Will you blame the

This is probably due in part to private investors asking their banks to invest their money for them without regard to environmental issues. Will you blame the postal office for delivering a bomb if it's properly packaged ? Probably not. The same way, I feel it's stupid to blame the banks for investing their customers' money where the yield is the largest when that is specifically what the customers' expect. Put huge taxes on fossil fuel investment worldwide or give tax breaks for green investments, and money will go to greener areas. But governments don't want that either.

sroussey 7y ago
What yield? 0.002%?
- frenchman99 7y ago
  Investing in stocks has long term yields of like 7% or 8% per year if you invest in an SP500 (or similar) index fund, from what I know. Admittedly I am not an expert, but the documentation I read before investing myself lets me think that 7% or 8% is quite standard for 25 year investments. I'm not sure what you mean with 0.002%. Maybe bonds?
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    > I'm not sure what you mean with 0.002%. Maybe bonds? This is 1000x lower what a standard savings account pays. I wouldn't look for any meaning in the parent comment beyond economic illiteracy
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - sroussey 7y ago
      I was off by a 0, but 100x better than you. Not a fan of the snide remarks. Again, the idea that big banks are chasing returns for their depositors is false. WellsFargo: 0.01% https://www.wellsfargo.com/savings-cds/rates/ https://www.wellsfargo.com/savings-cds/rates/ BofA: 0.02% Citibank: 0.04% I was surprised by Citibank being so high. These are for basic savings with minimum deposits and don’t take into account any fees.
tito 7y ago
Agreed! No need to blame anyone. Let’s solve the problem though, will need to have everyone involved.
mempko 7y ago
> banks for investing their customers' money where the yield is the largest Banks do not invest using deposits. This fiction needs to end. When they make the 1.9T in loans, they are making new money.
yokaze 7y ago
If the package has been labelled "bomb", I would blame them. And that's the point here, they know what it's going to be invested in. Yes, it's commercially imperative to trade, unless it doesn't. And people getting aware of it and complaining is one way, it becomes more of a liability.
- short_sells_poo 7y ago
  It is really a tragedy of the prisoner's dilemma. If a single bank decides to do the right thing and not offer fossil fuel investments to their clients, their market share will diminish. The people who made the right call will be fired by their superiors (ultimately the shareholders), who will see the bank shares decline compared to the competitors who didn't make the moral decision. The end result: the people who made the call for the long term good won't be around to actually see it implemented. The problem needs to be fixed in a broader scope. The entire corporate incentive structure is broken.
consumer451 7y ago
I really want a carbon tax especially on investment, it's the only solution to the investment problem, isn't it? But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. I can also imagine the News Corp/Sinclair spin on it in the USA. It has to be supplemented with other programs to take the load off of average people. A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Doesn't it? What would that entire package look like?
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Fifty four percent of equities are held by households and mutual funds. Add in another 15% for pensions, and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people." Source: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8ce2-750-592.png https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8...
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    I'm afraid that people able to save for retirement are less and less average these days ?
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      This report says that 1 in 5 have saved less than $5000 for retirement, which means that 4 in 5 have a substantial retirement investment. Although there is a big problem brewing (1/5th of all Americans is a huge number of people), those who would stand a lot to lose if something went wrong in the financial world are still the majority. https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-2019 https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-20...
      - BlueTemplar 7y ago
        Hmm, right, I guess that partially paid mortgages still count as savings, as they should ?

sroussey 7y ago

What yield? 0.002%?

frenchman99 7y ago
Investing in stocks has long term yields of like 7% or 8% per year if you invest in an SP500 (or similar) index fund, from what I know. Admittedly I am not an expert, but the documentation I read before investing myself lets me think that 7% or 8% is quite standard for 25 year investments. I'm not sure what you mean with 0.002%. Maybe bonds?
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  > I'm not sure what you mean with 0.002%. Maybe bonds? This is 1000x lower what a standard savings account pays. I wouldn't look for any meaning in the parent comment beyond economic illiteracy
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - sroussey 7y ago
    I was off by a 0, but 100x better than you. Not a fan of the snide remarks. Again, the idea that big banks are chasing returns for their depositors is false. WellsFargo: 0.01% https://www.wellsfargo.com/savings-cds/rates/ https://www.wellsfargo.com/savings-cds/rates/ BofA: 0.02% Citibank: 0.04% I was surprised by Citibank being so high. These are for basic savings with minimum deposits and don’t take into account any fees.

tito 7y ago

Agreed! No need to blame anyone. Let’s solve the problem though, will need to have everyone involved.

mempko 7y ago

> banks for investing their customers' money where the yield is the largest Banks do not invest using deposits. This fiction needs to end. When they make the 1.9T in loans, they are making new money.

yokaze 7y ago

If the package has been labelled "bomb", I would blame them. And that's the point here, they know what it's going to be invested in. Yes, it's commercially imperative to trade, unless it doesn't. And people getting aware of it and complaining is one way, it becomes more of a liability.

short_sells_poo 7y ago
It is really a tragedy of the prisoner's dilemma. If a single bank decides to do the right thing and not offer fossil fuel investments to their clients, their market share will diminish. The people who made the right call will be fired by their superiors (ultimately the shareholders), who will see the bank shares decline compared to the competitors who didn't make the moral decision. The end result: the people who made the call for the long term good won't be around to actually see it implemented. The problem needs to be fixed in a broader scope. The entire corporate incentive structure is broken.

consumer451 7y ago

I really want a carbon tax especially on investment, it's the only solution to the investment problem, isn't it? But imagine the riots in France as the price of gas goes up. I can also imagine the News Corp/Sinclair spin on it in the USA. It has to be supplemented with other programs to take the load off of average people. A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Doesn't it? What would that entire package look like?

whatshisface 7y ago
>A really disproportionate percentage of the burden needs to be taken on by investors. Fifty four percent of equities are held by households and mutual funds. Add in another 15% for pensions, and you arrive at roughly 70% of the stock market belonging to people saving for retirement. Investors are the "average people." Source: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8ce2-750-592.png https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/54aff08969beddb2240a8...
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  I'm afraid that people able to save for retirement are less and less average these days ?
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    This report says that 1 in 5 have saved less than $5000 for retirement, which means that 4 in 5 have a substantial retirement investment. Although there is a big problem brewing (1/5th of all Americans is a huge number of people), those who would stand a lot to lose if something went wrong in the financial world are still the majority. https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-2019 https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-20...
    - BlueTemplar 7y ago
      Hmm, right, I guess that partially paid mortgages still count as savings, as they should ?