5 ms·
I mean... isn't it _supposed_ to be? Putting money into something that money would otherwise never be put into because it can't turn a profit? Regardless of w
by commandlinefan 4y ago
I mean... isn't it _supposed_ to be? Putting money into something that money would otherwise never be put into because it can't turn a profit? Regardless of whether you agree with the goals or not, ESG (IIUC) was always supposed to be altruistic and not a money maker. Sort of 21st century charitable giving.
- psychphysic 4y agoThe real question is are you better off investing normally and then directing profits to causes. In theory you should be by using two separate entities one with the goal of making money and with the goal of using the money for good. The alternative is to put the money in an ESG investment and see it struggle to survive against its unhindered competitors.
- JohnFen 4y agoIf your normal investments are going to further active harm, though, isn't that counterproductive?
- 988747 4y agoThe money you spend to buy a stock does not go to the company issuing it (with exception of the IPO), so you're not really helping them in any way.
- mo_42 4y agoI think you are. If you buy a stock, you support the value of the company on the stock market. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of the company to raise more money. (Same as if you’re against killing animals and buy used leather. You support people who want to sell used stuff and, thus, indirectly producers of leather.)
- JohnFen 4y agoIf this were actually true, no company would go to all of the pain and hassle of offering stock in the first place.
- psychphysic 4y agoAll investments will do harm if they are productive. They will be producing emissions, developing land, shipping products etc. It's the harm cost of the profit that matters.
- mypastself 4y agoIf that were the case, why not just donate to charity instead? ExxonMobil turns a significant profit, and it’s infamously a part of the ESG index.