3 ms·

There are ETFs that don't invest in fossil fuel companies. You can invest in these ETFs to get broad market exposure minus fossil fuel companies.

bamboozled 7y ago
I have done this and they’ve been performing excellently for me.
ryanmercer 7y ago
Not in my 401k plan though. It's great for people earning 6 figures or more that have lots of income to throw at investments, but for the common man that is doing their best to even make the minimum contribution needed for maximum employer match in something like a 401k (if they even have an employer match, or access to a 401k) they are locked in to whatever funds their employer has allowed in the plan. The median household income in the United States is around $63,000 with an average household size of 2.6 people. Unfortunately many of us simply lack the luxury to invest in such ways, we do our best just to invest. At best I could throw 1-2% of my income into an IRA and buy some ETF that invests in renewables which would equate to a drop in a swimming pool and interestingly at 2% it would be about 1% of my gross income less than the amount I spend on gasoline annually at current prices (I pretty much only drive to work and church, I bought my 2013 Impala in 2013 and I'm at like 68k miles).
- icebraining 7y ago
  Portraying the fact that you have the option of tax-sheltered, employer-matched investment as a "lack of luxury" is kind of weird.
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    >as a "lack of luxury" is kind of weird. I did no such thing. In fact, I am unable to even contribute enough to meet my full employer match (like most of the people in my office). I said I don't have the luxury of investing meaningful amounts of money into potentially risky stocks/funds that only invest in renewable energies instead of broad market/whole market index funds that also include fossil fuel driven companies. As far as tax-sheltered, it looks like 59-65% of Americans have access to a 401k [1], something like 3 million teachers will have access to a 403b, and those that don't have access to either are almost certainly eligible for an IRA. [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/how-many-americans-dont-have-access-to-a-401k.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/how-many-americans-dont-have...
- dharma1 7y ago
  I agree this should be easier, and far more accessible. I'm not sure how this works in the US, but in the UK you can transfer whatever you have accrued in the default (defined contribution) workplace pension into a private pension plan, at any point. They are called SIPPs, and you have many suppliers for them, and many of them offer a large universe of funds (or even shares directly). They are accessible to all taxpayers in the UK. Getting broad market exposure, minus fossil fuels - there are a growing number of ETFs and funds that don't have exposure to fossil fuels - I think there should be more, and lower cost ones.

bamboozled 7y ago

I have done this and they’ve been performing excellently for me.

ryanmercer 7y ago

Not in my 401k plan though. It's great for people earning 6 figures or more that have lots of income to throw at investments, but for the common man that is doing their best to even make the minimum contribution needed for maximum employer match in something like a 401k (if they even have an employer match, or access to a 401k) they are locked in to whatever funds their employer has allowed in the plan. The median household income in the United States is around $63,000 with an average household size of 2.6 people. Unfortunately many of us simply lack the luxury to invest in such ways, we do our best just to invest. At best I could throw 1-2% of my income into an IRA and buy some ETF that invests in renewables which would equate to a drop in a swimming pool and interestingly at 2% it would be about 1% of my gross income less than the amount I spend on gasoline annually at current prices (I pretty much only drive to work and church, I bought my 2013 Impala in 2013 and I'm at like 68k miles).

icebraining 7y ago
Portraying the fact that you have the option of tax-sheltered, employer-matched investment as a "lack of luxury" is kind of weird.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >as a "lack of luxury" is kind of weird. I did no such thing. In fact, I am unable to even contribute enough to meet my full employer match (like most of the people in my office). I said I don't have the luxury of investing meaningful amounts of money into potentially risky stocks/funds that only invest in renewable energies instead of broad market/whole market index funds that also include fossil fuel driven companies. As far as tax-sheltered, it looks like 59-65% of Americans have access to a 401k [1], something like 3 million teachers will have access to a 403b, and those that don't have access to either are almost certainly eligible for an IRA. [1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/how-many-americans-dont-have-access-to-a-401k.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/how-many-americans-dont-have...
dharma1 7y ago
I agree this should be easier, and far more accessible. I'm not sure how this works in the US, but in the UK you can transfer whatever you have accrued in the default (defined contribution) workplace pension into a private pension plan, at any point. They are called SIPPs, and you have many suppliers for them, and many of them offer a large universe of funds (or even shares directly). They are accessible to all taxpayers in the UK. Getting broad market exposure, minus fossil fuels - there are a growing number of ETFs and funds that don't have exposure to fossil fuels - I think there should be more, and lower cost ones.