3 ms·
They already are: Banks fund certain things and don't fund others. There's no 'neutral' choice on offer here. I'd much rather banks and investors were explicit
by ForHackernews 6y ago
They already are: Banks fund certain things and don't fund others. There's no 'neutral' choice on offer here.
I'd much rather banks and investors were explicit and public about the values driving their choices.
If your hypothesis is right that the big banks are leaving money on the table, I'm sure somebody will start a tobacco/child labour/fossil fuels ETF investors can buy if they can stomach it.
- fakedang 6y ago> If your hypothesis is right that the big banks are leaving money on the table, I'm sure somebody will start a tobacco/child labour/fossil fuels ETF investors can buy if they can stomach it. The optics of such a nonsense ETF would itself drive investors away. Like seriously?
- tzs 6y agoTobacco companies and fossil fuel companies have no trouble finding investors, so it doesn't seem all that nonsensical that an ETF based on those industries would have no trouble getting investors.
- thinkcontext 6y agoThe existence of several vice ETF's undermines your thesis.