Stocks of evil?

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

Some people think that trading “stocks of evil” is reprehensible. I don’t think that my trades make the slightest difference in the practical impact of the “evil” companies (which provide legal products that are in demand in the marketplace).

When my (nonsmoking) mother got lung cancer, I sold my tobacco company stock. But then I realized that I was cutting off my nose to spite my face for no reason. I bought it back. Despite the very effective anti-smoking campaigns the stock has done well and thrown off years of dividends. I hate smoking. DH smokes and is coughing from COPD. I offered to buy him a Subaru Outback if he stopped but he’s well and truly addicted.

I’m sorry to see that cigarettes is making a comeback in the younger generation. I hope this fad fades away but, sadly, will profit if it spreads.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/style/smoking-cigarettes-…

Altria
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mo+…

Phillip Morris
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=phi…

Let’s not forget the evil oil companies.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=xom…
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cvx…

Let’s throw in alcohol for good measure. The hard stuff is doing much better than beer.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=deo…
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bud…

For those who like socially-responsible investing, there’s Vanguard ESG U.S. Stock ETF which has done very well but has no dividend yield. Fidelity International Sustainability Index Fund (FNIDX) invests in a combination of growth and value-oriented international equities and has a reasonable dividend yield. These have both grown strongly but of course the past doesn’t guarantee future returns.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=esg…
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=fni…

As long as the product is legal and profitable, each investor has plenty of choices regarding personal values.

Wendy

17 Likes
2

Those ‘oil’ companies make 10,000 products that make life possible.

From fertilizers - and without them, several billion would starve in the next 3 years. The world could be like North Korea with mass starvations, people 6 inches shorter than the rest of Asia, lower life spans…- to plastics and composites that make all those IC and EV cars - and fabrics for seats - and foam for the seat cushions. Half the products in your homes would disappear with oil and oil products - from most of the kitchen appliances, laundry, paints, stains, cement and concrete, bricks, curtains and blinds, etc. Back to hand laid stone houses and all wood houses without nails and screws.

No metals - they use mass quantities of fuel to mine copper and iron, make steel, copper wire, aluminum.

So…while some bash the ‘oil’ companies - you might consider without them, we’d be back to 1650s living standards or worse. Using firewood…chopping down whole forests for the 7 billion people on the planet. eating very local. Water mills to grind grain. You got any water mills nearby? no? too bad. Guess you’ll have to learn to do it manually - thresh the grain - after you harvest it - after you plant it…after you take care of your farm animals every day - and feed the chickens. Live in the city/suburbs. Good luck.

you might have solar panels on your roof. Now take away your copper wire in the house…and the glass in your lightbulbs - or plastic - and it gets dark real soon. Good at making candles? Maybe we can get back to whale oil?

t.

18 Likes
3

Wendy,

Every human being is judgmental.

Facing that is not to ease that.

The difference is in gaining the freedom to behave differently. Personal judgments and societal judgments are a prison cell.

The word evil is an all or nothing judgment.

I would say the heart of this is elsewhere. As humans we needed to kill to eat. We have been the best at killing on this plant. Let’s be honest about that.

Our ideal will never be reached.

We can support better causes. I am sure you do already.

4

Wow thanks Wendy, Altria, MO, dividend yield 7%+ and gently, smoothly rising. What more could an investor want …

Is there really a problem owning this stock? The company is throwing off cash, they aren’t looking to do a secondary offering, whereupon investors bidding up the stock would be doing them a favour. So the stock is out there, some-one has to own it … the price doesn’t really affect the company unless it gets so cheap it’s a takeover target …

For comparison in May 2019, Tesla was on the ropes but enthusiastic investors bought a secondary offering that saved the company.

(I can’t decide if I’m impressed or disgusted that Altria, this life-ruining company, changed its name to sound clean and, well, altruistic … !

1 Like
5

And then, there are my personal favorites - the large miners (like Rio Tinto and BHP) who tear up the earth, pollute the air and water and destroy indigenous burial sites.

Jeff

3 Likes
6

I believe that investing based on ‘social responsibility’ is dumb yet I do not invest in tobacco or sugar laced drinks. My investing goal is to pay for my existence. If ‘social responsibility’ does not interfere with the primary goal, go for it!

The Captain

2 Likes
7

A no product or service is necessarily “evil” but the people running the company may act in an evil way and foster a reprehensible culture. To say that the oil extracted from the earth is “evil” is rather simplistic. The “evil” comes from the actions of the company to get it.

Has the company destroyed the environment, poisoned the air and water, taken part in a genocide, etc.?

There are responsible ways to extract resources but sometimes it is more expensive in the short term. But when you are reporting quarterly earnings the pressure is to go cheap.

The recent trend to go with an ESG
fund/companies is more of a realization that there is money to be made without all the death and destruction to people and the earth.

OTFoolish

8

The same arguments were made in defense of slavery when it was legal.

2 Likes
9

The same arguments were made in defense of slavery when it was legal.

Agreed. I don’t own a single SRI-focused investment but I would never intentionally buy a company for which their sole focus is to make a product that has no redeeming quality and serves only to create social costs, including death, to others.

As I stated recently in another thread, it isn’t about me helping the company by buying their stock, it is about me not wanting to benefit by earning a dividend/income from the willful death of others (blood money).

There always other investments one can make.

9 Likes
10

Some people think that trading “stocks of evil” is reprehensible. I don’t think that my trades make the slightest difference in the practical impact of the “evil” companies (which provide legal products that are in demand in the marketplace).

===============================================

Rationalization of bad behavior is not condoned by ethical people.

Fossil fuels are now starting to be demonized for good reason - they are causing extreme pollution, global warming and climate disasters. We have the technology to ween ourselves from fossil fuels, but the fossil fuels industry is using all its money and power to spread disinformation, buy politicians, stop renewables, stop electrification of transportation, stop environmental regulations and greenwash their pollution.

Fossil fuels cause long term health deterioration and death to millions of people every year.

Many products and facilities are legal, but bad for our health and/or the environment. Tobacco, pesticides, herbicides (Roundup), many drugs, many food products, lead pipes for potable water, plastics, chemical weapons (Napalm, poison gas, phosphorous, etc.), and many other products have been demonized and/or boycotted over the years.

The demonizing voices are getting louder and louder for good reason. People who invest in the propagation of these products and facilities are rationalizing bad behavior.

Jaak

3 Likes
11

Another ESG ETF is CHGX. It’s essentially SPY, with currently politically incorrect companies filtered out (Altria, big oil, other “deplorables”.)

12

no product or service is necessarily “evil”

I see no redeeming quality in cigarette manufacturers. I can rationalize just about any other product of service but not cigarettes. If any product is going to be deemed ‘evil,’ then cigarettes certainly qualify.

2 Likes
13

Hawkwin,

Native Americans smoked tobacco as part of certain rituals it was “big” tobacco that engineered this product to be addictive and gave free cigarettes to the military plus marketed to children.

These are the evil actions of a corporation bent on a profit at all costs.

OTFoolish

1 Like
14

t: Those ‘oil’ companies make 10,000 products that make life possible.

======================================

Fertilizers, plastics, home products, cars, appliances, can all be made without petroleum.

Mining of metals like copper, aluminum, and iron ores can be done without petroleum.

Making copper wire, steel and aluminum can be done without petroleum.

But those are not our first order goal WRT petroleum - we first need to electrify transportation which is the by far the largest use of petroleum in the US and globally. This will take 10-20 years. Then we can tackle the other products generated from petroleum.

So do not listen to the misinformation being spewed by people who are petroleum biased. They people never admit to the damages done to human life, the environment, and to global warming resulting in climate change disasters.

The scientists and engineers know that we need to ween ourselves from petroleum to save life on earth.

Jaak

1 Like
15

Native Americans smoked tobacco as part of certain rituals it was “big” tobacco that engineered this product to be addictive…

From the National Institute on Drug Abuse:
www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/tobacco-nico…
Is nicotine addictive?

  • Yes. Most smokers use tobacco regularly because they are addicted to nicotine.

DB2
All tobacco contains nicotine…

16

Fertilizers, plastics, home products, cars, appliances, can all be made without petroleum.
Mining of metals like copper, aluminum, and iron ores can be done without petroleum.
Making copper wire, steel and aluminum can be done without petroleum.

No, not really, or at least not in any way that’s economically viable. How do you mine iron ore - or process and smelt it without petroleum? (Oh, I get it, you use coal!)

You can’t get to the temperatures needed for a lot of metallurgical processes with electricity. Continuing to champion these absurdly unrealistic ideas only hurts your cause, not help it.

But those are not our first order goal WRT petroleum - we first need to electrify transportation which is the by far the largest use of petroleum in the US and globally. This will take 10-20 years. Then we can tackle the other products generated from petroleum.

It will take 10 years if you have gigantic government mandates and incentives, which seems unlikely. Norway has managed it with a zero VAT tax, saving about 25% of the purchase price, a zero pollution tax which all cars pay (not EVs anymore), and other cash incentives including free charging at many locations. Again, that is not anywhere on the radar here - or especially in developing countries where they want cars as they climb to the middle classes.

Moreover there is no electrical alternative for the military; they’re not going to rely on recharging their troop carriers and tanks on some sort of mobile chargers - and that means there’s going to be a petrol infrastructure all over the country and world for decades to come. There is no alternative for heavy industry: the mining machines and heavy trucks in use around they world. The introduction of electric 18-wheeler cabs is good, but quite distance limited at the moment, so that’s a work in progress and that’s great. But 10 years? Not likely.

So do not listen to the misinformation being spewed by people who are petroleum biased.

I am petroleum biased, but then I am reality biased as well. I advise people not to listen to misinformation being spewed by dreamers who insist on doing everything all at once, because it is likely nothing will get done timely. Instead pick the worst offenders and easiest targets and get that done. Then pick another. Then another.

The scientists and engineers know that we need to ween ourselves from petroleum to save life on earth.

We are never going to stop using petroleum around the world, absent economic disincentive, same as coal. The pressures are just too great for people to move up their standard of living with increased energy use, and oil is the easiest, usually cheapest path. You want to make a difference, make other paths better, easier, cheaper. You’re not going to do it trying to shame people into it.

18 Likes
17

In many cultures (none modern) the religious and spiritual cultures carefully controlled access, preparation for, and use of sacred – mostly addictive or very psyvhoactive – substances.

Lose that and everything goes to hell and cancer.

David fb

1 Like
18

No, not really, or at least not in any way that’s economically viable. How do you mine iron ore - or process and smelt it without petroleum? (Oh, I get it, you use coal!)

You can’t get to the temperatures needed for a lot of metallurgical processes with electricity. Continuing to champion these absurdly unrealistic ideas only hurts your cause, not help it.

==================================================================================

Your are being obtuse and ignorant. Yes you can get high temperatures without petroleum or coal. Yes you can get the temperatures needed for metallurgical processes with electricity. And you get higher quality and uniformity of steel with electricity without CO2 emissions.

Read the following two articles about carbon free steel making:

Alternative reduction technologies include hydrogen-based direct reduction processes
and electrolytic reduction methods. Most are not well developed and require huge amounts
of green energy, but they hold the promise of carbon-neutral steelmaking.

One alternative reduction process, H2-based shaft furnace direct reduction, offers
particular promise due to its emissions-reduction potential and state of readiness. It is the technology that we envisage steelmakers will pursue in order to achieve carbon neutrality. H2-based shaft furnace direct reduction is ready to use and can be introduced step-by-step into brownfield plants. This ensures operational continuity and reduced emissions during the transition from conventional steelmaking methods.

A full transition is only achievable through high CAPEX and a plentiful supply of green
electricity. To switch the approximately 30 million tons per annum of steel produced via
the primary route in Germany to H2-based shaft furnace direct reduction would require
estimated capital expenditure of about EUR 30 bn at current prices. In addition, electricity
production of 120 TWh per annum would be required, a figure roughly equal to half the
amount of green electricity Germany produced in 2019. Political support is therefore vital
if the European steel industry is to achieve carbon neutrality. Without it, large parts of
the steelmaking value chain may move abroad.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrVk.HK9.BhVxYARA4PxQt.;_yl…

The world’s first customer delivery of “green steel” produced without using coal is taking place in Sweden, according to its manufacturer.

The Swedish venture Hybrit said it was delivering the steel to truck-maker Volvo AB as a trial run before full commercial production in 2026. Volvo has said it will start production in 2021 of prototype vehicles and components from the green steel.

Steel production using coal accounts for around 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Hybrit started test operations at its pilot plant for green steel in Lulea, northern Sweden, a year ago. It aims to replace coking coal, traditionally needed for ore-based steel making, with renewable electricity and hydrogen. Hydrogen is a key part of the EU’s plan to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-…

Jaak

2 Likes
19

Moreover there is no electrical alternative for the military; they’re not going to rely on recharging their troop carriers and tanks on some sort of mobile chargers - and that means there’s going to be a petrol infrastructure all over the country and world for decades to come. There is no alternative for heavy industry: the mining machines and heavy trucks in use around they world. The introduction of electric 18-wheeler cabs is good, but quite distance limited at the moment, so that’s a work in progress and that’s great. But 10 years? Not likely.

==========================================

You are trying to put words in my mouth again. I did not say 10 years for military and heavy industry vehicles. I was discussing cars and light trucks in 10-20 years.

The military is now researching ways to eliminate petroleum based troop carriers, tanks and other heavy vehicles which require enormous and inefficient supply lines and tanker trucks to haul fuel to the front lines. These supply lines are a weak link in any military operation as demonstrated in Iraq, Syria, and every other military operation.

Much better to have battery powered troop carriers, tanks and other heavy vehicles with mobile chargers. They want to be independent of long vulnerable supply lines.

Therefore, 20+ years should produce great advances in electrification of heavy military and industrial vehicles.

Jaak

2 Likes
20

I am petroleum biased, but then I am reality biased as well. I advise people not to listen to misinformation being spewed by dreamers who insist on doing everything all at once, because it is likely nothing will get done timely. Instead pick the worst offenders and easiest targets and get that done. Then pick another. Then another.

==========================================

I already picked the worst offenders: cars and light duty trucks make up about 80% of all petroleum usage. You are again being ignorant and obtuse about “doing everything at once”.

Gasoline is the dominant transportation fuel in the United States, followed by distillate fuels (mostly diesel fuel) and jet fuel. Gasoline includes aviation gasoline and motor gasoline. Finished motor gasoline includes petroleum gasoline and fuel ethanol. Fuel ethanol includes ethanol (a biofuel) and petroleum denaturants. On an energy content basis, finished motor gasoline accounted for 62% of total U.S. transportation energy use in 2020, while distillate fuels, mostly diesel, accounted for 24%, and jet fuel accounted for 10%.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transporta…

Jaak

2 Likes