Anti-Vax Financial Advisors

This is a growing, wonderful business. And people dumb enough to remain un-vaxed are probably dumb enough to pay high fees & commissions.

Anti-Vax Advisors Find Refuge In Faith-Based RIA
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/anti-vax-advisors-find-refuge-in…

intercst

6 Likes

yes, they shall reap what they sow.

1 Like

intercst: "This is a growing, wonderful business. And people dumb enough to remain un-vaxed are probably dumb enough to pay high fees & commissions.

Anti-Vax Advisors Find Refuge In Faith-Based RIA"

Affinity fraud has been growing for years. “Affinity fraud is a type of investment fraud in which a con artist targets members of an identifiable group based on things such as race, age, religion, etc. The fraudster either is or pretends to be, a member of the group.”

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affinityfraud.asp

Faith-based RIA sounds like its kissing cousin to affinity fraud and looks to me, IMO, to advisors looking for easy to sell/fleece customers.

Regards, JAFO

9 Likes

Faith-based RIA sounds like its kissing cousin to affinity fraud and looks to me, IMO, to advisors looking for easy to sell/fleece customers.

I wonder if they sell medical insurance also?

Andy

1 Like

“Bonito had been with Edelman Financial Engines since January 2014. “I’m very excited about the fact that I’m on a team that is committed to advancing the Kingdom in addition to putting our clients’ interests and values first,” he added.”

Bonito sounds like he has a conflict of interest, how does he act as a fiduciary for his clients,
while advancing the Kingdom ?? How can he in good faith put the client ahead of the Kingdom ??

PT Barnum was right.

4 Likes

Faith-based anything is a crock. Investing, medicine (or, rather, usually the lack of medicine), and even those medical cooperatives that usually don’t pay when you need them.

Stick with secular. You’re less likely to get screwed.

7 Likes

Faith-based anything is a crock

A bridge too far there.

Many people have very valid reasons to object to certain types of investments. You, for example, may object to investing in Exxon or Trump’s SPAC. Your reason for avoiding those is no less legitimate than a Muslim that doesn’t want to invest in a casino or a pork producer. Not all faith-based investments are based on utter quackery.

17 Likes

Many people have very valid reasons to object to certain types of investments. You, for example, may object to investing in Exxon or Trump’s SPAC.

Stocks are trading cards (e.g. “I got a rookie Joe Montana!”). The company got its money at the initial offering. If you sell your Exxon to me, that’s between you and me. And I don’t think a super PAC qualifies as “investing”.

“Faith based” is just another way people make bad decisions.

Now I totally get why you might not want to participate in an IPO for “Pollution, Inc” (made-up example). But once it’s over, the company moves on and gets no further funds no matter how many times you trade in the stock.

1 Like

Stocks are trading cards (e.g. “I got a rookie Joe Montana!”). The company got its money at the initial offering.

  1. A company that pays a dividend is sharing the profits of their business with you. You don’t get an income stream from a trading card.

  2. It is more than just about who gets the initial premium, it is how you profit from the ongoing business activity. If a gun manufacturer sells a lot of guns and their stock price goes up - and you use that stock to fund your retirement, then you are profiting from the sale of guns.

I have very few stocks that pay dividends, but you are correct that I did neglect that bit. So it’s not a perfect analogy.

But you also are correct that I benefit, not the company. Smith & Wesson doesn’t benefit at all if I purchase their stock (assuming they are public, which I do not know). It’s just one person they have to send an annual report to.

Yes, I would be benefiting from gun sales. But the company wouldn’t be benefiting from me, which was mostly the point. Their benefit derived from the offering. Just as Joe (nor Topps, who makes them) doesn’t benefit if his football card becomes more valuable.

1poorguy

It’s just one person they have to send an annual report to. - 1pg


I long for the days when I would get a real annual report in the mail without having to specifically ask for one on some arcane web site. Same or even more so with proxy materials.

I would be benefiting from gun sales.

And THAT is the objection. If you believe that there is a direct relation between gun sales and the death of innocents, you may object to having a better retirement based on the increasing deaths of innocent people.

But the company wouldn’t be benefiting from me,

That is NOT the objection.

And THAT is the objection.

Ah. OK. I can accept that distinction.

But what does that have to do with investing? A company I do not support is getting no money from me. Their business is what it is, and if that benefits me, it makes no difference to their business. If boycotting their stock would make a difference, I’d do it in a heartbeat. But it won’t. The investment decision therefore is completely independent of any moral decision.

A public offering would be different. If I participated, I would be giving the company money for operations.

I remember a study done many years ago (10+) that looked at “conscientious” stocks. They severely underperformed the market in general (much less some of the high-fliers). Not a good way of investing for retirement.

Boycott the products all you like (I do), but look at the numbers. If the business is doing well, then it’s a good stock.

1poorguy (noting that mutual funds really are a minefield because they own hundreds of stocks, and many of them may not match your morality…if fact, it’s likely at least a few companies in their portfolios won’t)

But what does that have to do with investing? A company I do not support is getting no money from me.

Because you are profiting from a behavior of a business for which you might strenuously object. Would you personally want your to know that you one of the reasons you might be able to afford an extra vacation this year because a gun manufacturer had record AR-15 sales (and by coincidence or otherwise, there was an increase in mass-homicides)?

It isn’t about boycotting, giving money to the business, or in any way having an impact on the business. It is about YOU benefiting from blood money. Many people, faith-based or otherwise, have objections to such.

For me personally, I choose not to invest in companies that…

Don’t leave us hanging! I can make some assumptions how you were going to finish that sentence, but I could also be wrong in those assumptions. :slight_smile:

I tried to cancel my post because I realized it was a waste of time but I hit the wrong button and accidentally posted it. MF has not responded to my FA yet.

Since I left you hanging, I will say that I personally don’t buy stock in cigarette companies because I don’t want to own a company that profits from selling an addictive product that tortures and kills people. I know that it does not affect their profits or price and I know that it is a personal decision that is irrelevant to these investment boards. And hence I tried to delete it but hit the wrong button.

1 Like

In the end, you have to live with your investments. As is often said, you need to be able to sleep at night.

I suspect we all own companies that have some problems with profits vs human suffering. It’s where we draw the line, I suppose. Apple uses a company in China that pushes their workers so hard that some try to commit suicide, for example.

I did once own MO, though they were a lot more than a tobacco company at that time. When the dividend was included, their returns were very attractive. It suited my investment goals at the time, and I sold it when it no longer did (or, more precisely, when I found a better company). I don’t smoke, and wouldn’t mind if they further restricted smoking in society (I would say “ban”, but that never works).

Rationally, yours or my investment doesn’t affect a business at all. Unless we have enough shares to sway votes.

…because I don’t want to own a company that profits from selling an addictive product that tortures and kills people.

I get that perspective. The football card analogy fails here, also. I don’t own a piece of Joe Montana (or Topps) if I have his card. From an investment perspective, that is irrational. But from a “sleep well at night”, it may be very rational.

And it really is relevant, because we’re talking about investing and all the factors that go into investing decisions. Whether it’s equity-bond ratios, or what a business does (e.g. MO).

1poorguy (long my company, V, COST, NFLX, GOOGL, CRWD, DDOG, MELI, SE, QS, CCL…getting too many, need to reduce some for better tracking…there may be skeletons in one or more of their closets)

Because you are profiting from a behavior of a business for which you might strenuously object. Would you personally want your to know that you one of the reasons you might be able to afford an extra vacation this year because a gun manufacturer had record AR-15 sales.

It isn’t about boycotting, giving money to the business, or in any way having an impact on the business. It is about YOU benefiting from blood money.

Now do companies that have a large presence in China.
AAPL, Nike, etc. Think it’s great to own a company whose products are made with slave labor?

3 Likes

Now do companies that have a large presence in China.
AAPL, Nike, etc. Think it’s great to own a company whose products are made with slave labor?

Or ESG compliant companies who contribute to the REAL killers … obesity and coronary artery disease such as UL (Ben & Jerry’s) or The Holland (burgerville).

BruceM

5 Likes

Or ESG compliant companies who contribute to the REAL killers … obesity and coronary artery disease such as UL (Ben & Jerry’s) or The Holland (burgerville).

BruceM

That’s why you buy Service Corporation International. :wink:

It’s always an interesting discussion. I guess it is rather easy to hind behind a total stock market index fund or two and not worry about it. I had the internal argument about it all with myself back in the late 80’s and early 90’s, but came to a conclusion that seems to work.

I’m not sure I would personally be up for the game of creating my own direct indexing fund by self-selecting only the companies I believe are not contributing to environmental, social, or governance objections I might have. Obviously, mutual funds/ETFs exist that do this for the investor and the strategy certainly is out there for those who do want to do this (mutual funds or direct indexing). I have friends as well as colleagues who lean in that direction and I have no objections to their pursuit of investing in that manner.

For me, I would label a ESG DIY Direct Indexing fund a more complex portfolio to spread the capital between enough companies and ETF’s to provide the kind of global diversity that I feel would meet my own investment goals compared to the total market’s return.

BB