Which is worse?

Post Reply
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Which is worse?

Post by glennds » Sun May 21, 2023 8:46 pm

I've been watching the fight between Disney and DeSantis with some interest. It seems to encapsulate two issues so common in US politics today - one being the choice between bad and worse, and the other being the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if they violate my principles.

Florida comes out with a "Don't Say Gay" law in a stand against woke culture, at least at the school level.
Disney voices it's objection to the new law.
DeSantis decides to punish Disney in retribution.
The FLA legislature votes to repeal the Disney special tax district. There are differing opinions on who benefited most from the special district. Disney got a lot of autonomy, but also funded costs that would otherwise fall on the surrounding counties.
Disney now says they're pulling out of a $1 billion project that will cost Florida jobs and revenue.


Should a private sector company like Disney have involved itself by commenting on the Don't Say Gay bill? No
Regardless, should a government use it's legislature to selectively punish a private company that did not violate any laws? No
So, clearly both are wrong, but which is worse?

Personally I hate woke culture and woke politics every bit as much as most of the members of this forum. But borrowing a page out of the Libertarian book, there's not a whole lot worse than coercive government authority. If a government can weaponize it's legislature and find ways to punish whomever it wants, I would say that's worse than Disney and their woke culture. Even if you hate Disney, if it becomes okay for the government to selectively punish whomever they want, who's next?
The real punishment for Disney should have been the free market voting with its pocketbook and customers choosing not to patronize Disney.

Under normal circumstances, a conservative person would surely see Disney as a "leftist" company with a California-like political persuasion. And the same person should see DeSantis as a staunch conservative so it should be clear who is the enemy and who is the friend.

But a conservative (or libertarian) who mistrusts government, is wary of abusive authority, is pro-business, pro-free market, pro-capitalist, faces a real conundrum in a situation like this. Do you stick with your principles (and side with Disney in this particular fight), or compromise your principles and stay with your team thus side with DeSantis?

What's your opinion?
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Which is worse?

Post by boglerdude » Mon May 22, 2023 12:55 am

I suppose my opinion is known. . .DeSantis can do whatever he wants in exchange for merely claiming he wont lock down the state again. The Left initiated violence and now I'm forced to vote for pro-life and other regressive conservatives because nothing matters if I cant run my small business.

The good news for the Left is they are winning, in spite of the record inflation and whats come out about the jabs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI3yU5Z2adI We're going to end up a single party authoritarian state, and it'll be great for those who can afford private school and police.

So I havent dug into the Disney thing, is he not just retracting a privilege that never should have been extended, from a libertarian perspective. We should also roll back patent protection from companies that have built out-sized influence. That would be like a tax that spurs free market innovation/competition. Start there before awkwardly breaking up companies and "banning billionaires"
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Which is worse?

Post by vnatale » Mon May 22, 2023 8:07 am

On the topic of DeSantis .... is this a good thing for the state of Florida?

Seems like this climate he has fostered and shaped appeals to those who love what he has turned Florida into but I don't think it's going to draw more people there.


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/21/us/n ... antis.html

N.A.A.C.P. Issues Florida Travel Advisory, Joining Latino and L.G.B.T.Q. Groups

The N.A.A.C.P. urged people to consider Florida’s policies on diversity and race under Gov. Ron DeSantis when thinking of traveling there.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Which is worse?

Post by glennds » Mon May 22, 2023 9:03 am

boglerdude wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 12:55 am


So I havent dug into the Disney thing, is he not just retracting a privilege that never should have been extended, from a libertarian perspective.
That question is worth looking up. From what I can glean, the arrangement, dating back to 1966 is uber-libertarian.
What Disney negotiated is relative autonomy within the district, and in exchange they agreed to fund certain infrastructure costs and take on responsibility for maintenance. I don't see much evidence that they gained special perks or financial tax breaks. Disney mainly wanted to escape building permits and approval requirements. Interestingly, once Florida dug into the details, they learned the consequences of terminating the special district would mean a new cost burden on the surrounding counties and assumption of over $1 billion in bond debt. Once they realized that, the original repeal was renegotiated from what was initially reported in the headlines.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Which is worse?

Post by vnatale » Mon May 22, 2023 10:51 am

glennds wrote:
Sun May 21, 2023 8:46 pm

I've been watching the fight between Disney and DeSantis with some interest. It seems to encapsulate two issues so common in US politics today - one being the choice between bad and worse, and the other being the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if they violate my principles.

Florida comes out with a "Don't Say Gay" law in a stand against woke culture, at least at the school level.
Disney voices it's objection to the new law.
DeSantis decides to punish Disney in retribution.
The FLA legislature votes to repeal the Disney special tax district. There are differing opinions on who benefited most from the special district. Disney got a lot of autonomy, but also funded costs that would otherwise fall on the surrounding counties.
Disney now says they're pulling out of a $1 billion project that will cost Florida jobs and revenue.


Should a private sector company like Disney have involved itself by commenting on the Don't Say Gay bill? No
Regardless, should a government use it's legislature to selectively punish a private company that did not violate any laws? No
So, clearly both are wrong, but which is worse?

Personally I hate woke culture and woke politics every bit as much as most of the members of this forum. But borrowing a page out of the Libertarian book, there's not a whole lot worse than coercive government authority. If a government can weaponize it's legislature and find ways to punish whomever it wants, I would say that's worse than Disney and their woke culture. Even if you hate Disney, if it becomes okay for the government to selectively punish whomever they want, who's next?
The real punishment for Disney should have been the free market voting with its pocketbook and customers choosing not to patronize Disney.

Under normal circumstances, a conservative person would surely see Disney as a "leftist" company with a California-like political persuasion. And the same person should see DeSantis as a staunch conservative so it should be clear who is the enemy and who is the friend.

But a conservative (or libertarian) who mistrusts government, is wary of abusive authority, is pro-business, pro-free market, pro-capitalist, faces a real conundrum in a situation like this. Do you stick with your principles (and side with Disney in this particular fight), or compromise your principles and stay with your team thus side with DeSantis?

What's your opinion?


1. Why not? The Supreme Court has affirmed that corporations are people.

2. What did Disney have to gain by doing this? They are probably not going to gain any new customers with their stance but almost certain to lose some. Therefore, they should be admired for taking a stand, something that almost all other businesses / corporations will never do. I can well understand why all those businesses / corporations never take a stand. Little to gain and a lot to lose by doing so.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
DogBreath
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:52 pm

Re: Which is worse?

Post by DogBreath » Mon May 22, 2023 12:00 pm

glennds wrote:
Sun May 21, 2023 8:46 pm
Should a private sector company like Disney have involved itself by commenting on the Don't Say Gay bill? No
Privately held businesses can do what they want (at their own peril), but public corporations should absolutely stay out of politics and remain neutral on social/cultural issues. You literally offend half the country when you don't. In my view, it is also a lapse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders when corps take sides.

There is nothing in that law that actually says "don't say gay". That's propaganda pure and simple. Children, especially young ones, do not need exposure to anything sexual of any kind. That's all the bill was about. But the left weaponizes everything they don't like, and while maybe FL shouldn't retaliate in the way they did (I have no opinion), there needs to be a re-weaponization from the non-woke or the insanity will just continue. Look at the Bud Light debacle: The non-woke finally grew some balls and sent a message. It's about time.
User avatar
jalanlong
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:30 am

Re: Which is worse?

Post by jalanlong » Fri Jul 07, 2023 1:39 pm

vnatale wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 10:51 am

2. What did Disney have to gain by doing this? They are probably not going to gain any new customers with their stance but almost certain to lose some. Therefore, they should be admired for taking a stand, something that almost all other businesses / corporations will never do. I can well understand why all those businesses / corporations never take a stand. Little to gain and a lot to lose by doing so.
When i was younger I read a book called Hollywood vs America by film reviewer turned conservative activist Michael Medved. He wrote that his time spent in Hollywood showed him that to ask why Hollywood often does things that alienate a large segment of the public shows you do not understand how they think. For a lot of them, their primary concern is not money but acceptance amongst their peers. In a lot of instances, turning off Middle America is seen as a job well done.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Which is worse?

Post by vnatale » Fri Jul 07, 2023 1:49 pm

jalanlong wrote:
Fri Jul 07, 2023 1:39 pm

vnatale wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 10:51 am


2. What did Disney have to gain by doing this? They are probably not going to gain any new customers with their stance but almost certain to lose some. Therefore, they should be admired for taking a stand, something that almost all other businesses / corporations will never do. I can well understand why all those businesses / corporations never take a stand. Little to gain and a lot to lose by doing so.


When i was younger I read a book called Hollywood vs America by film reviewer turned conservative activist Michael Medved. He wrote that his time spent in Hollywood showed him that to ask why Hollywood often does things that alienate a large segment of the public shows you do not understand how they think. For a lot of them, their primary concern is not money but acceptance amongst their peers. In a lot of instances, turning off Middle America is seen as a job well done.


I several times read of that book and am familiar with the author. But I've still never read the book.

Part of what he says may well be true but I tend to fall back upon my belief that "money makes the world go round".

In Hollywood you don't get rewarded or get future opportunities if your backers are not sufficient financially rewarded.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Which is worse?

Post by glennds » Mon Aug 07, 2023 12:18 pm

DogBreath wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 12:00 pm


Privately held businesses can do what they want (at their own peril), but public corporations should absolutely stay out of politics and remain neutral on social/cultural issues. You literally offend half the country when you don't. In my view, it is also a lapse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders when corps take sides.

There is nothing in that law that actually says "don't say gay". That's propaganda pure and simple. Children, especially young ones, do not need exposure to anything sexual of any kind. That's all the bill was about. But the left weaponizes everything they don't like, and while maybe FL shouldn't retaliate in the way they did (I have no opinion), there needs to be a re-weaponization from the non-woke or the insanity will just continue. Look at the Bud Light debacle: The non-woke finally grew some balls and sent a message. It's about time.
I understand your point of view, and I agree that it would be better stewardship for companies to stay out of social political issues.

But I'm not sure my question was clear - It is well settled constitutional law that the First Amendment protections extend to corporations. It makes no difference whether the corporation is publicly traded or privately held. So long as they're not breaking laws, it makes no difference whether that speech is disagreeable to you or me. It could be despicable woke propaganda. The expression is still a protected right. And here we have a state government punishing the corporation because they don't like that speech.

So the conundrum is we have a liberal company exercising a Constitutional right and we have a so-called conservative government infringing it and punishing them..

This kind of slope leads to a place where you only get your First Amendment rights so long as you say what the government wants to hear.

What really should be happening is the free market should penalize Disney, because people like you and I don't like what they are saying and we take our business elsewhere.

It shouldn't be a government choosing to punish them. For this reason, though I consider myself a non-tribal conservative, I find myself objecting to DeSantis as a hypocrite and supporting Disney on this issue, on principle. Because as much as I hate the woke movement, abusive government power is the worse of the two evils.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Which is worse?

Post by vnatale » Mon Aug 07, 2023 1:09 pm

glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2023 12:18 pm

DogBreath wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 12:00 pm



Privately held businesses can do what they want (at their own peril), but public corporations should absolutely stay out of politics and remain neutral on social/cultural issues. You literally offend half the country when you don't. In my view, it is also a lapse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders when corps take sides.

There is nothing in that law that actually says "don't say gay". That's propaganda pure and simple. Children, especially young ones, do not need exposure to anything sexual of any kind. That's all the bill was about. But the left weaponizes everything they don't like, and while maybe FL shouldn't retaliate in the way they did (I have no opinion), there needs to be a re-weaponization from the non-woke or the insanity will just continue. Look at the Bud Light debacle: The non-woke finally grew some balls and sent a message. It's about time.



I understand your point of view, and I agree that it would be better stewardship for companies to stay out of social political issues.

But I'm not sure my question was clear - It is well settled constitutional law that the First Amendment protections extend to corporations. It makes no difference whether the corporation is publicly traded or privately held. So long as they're not breaking laws, it makes no difference whether that speech is disagreeable to you or me. It could be despicable woke propaganda. The expression is still a protected right. And here we have a state government punishing the corporation because they don't like that speech.

So the conundrum is we have a liberal company exercising a Constitutional right and we have a so-called conservative government infringing it and punishing them..

This kind of slope leads to a place where you only get your First Amendment rights so long as you say what the government wants to hear.

What really should be happening is the free market should penalize Disney, because people like you and I don't like what they are saying and we take our business elsewhere.

It shouldn't be a government choosing to punish them. For this reason, though I consider myself a non-tribal conservative, I find myself objecting to DeSantis as a hypocrite and supporting Disney on this issue, on principle. Because as much as I hate the woke movement, abusive government power is the worse of the two evils.


DeSantis is a full blown hypocrite.

A few weeks ago I read his book.

Of course he many times labors over how the federal government needs to stay out of states' business.

Yet, on the other hand, he in his great wisdom constantly overrode what towns in Florida decided to do.

Here is how he addresses it:

"Some tried to criticize me on the grounds that overruling local officials was being "not conservative," but this represented a bizarre conception of conservative philosophy of which I was not acquainted. My goal was to protect the rights, jobs, and livelihoods of Floridians; this would not have happened if I simple deferred to local governments and did nothing while their mandates harmed people."

Of course this was all done according to his fallible judgement. Someone in the federal government could have easily had the same paragraph substituting only a few words so as to justify why the federal government needed to override the actions of certain states.

As an additional aside to DeSantis. He along with Cruz is Yale / Harvard educated and then excoriated each of those colleges for being so liberal?

I could buy his initial argument that coming out of high school he was apolitical and did not know what he was getting into. But with all his brilliance he did not catch on during his freshman year at Yale and then transfer to somewhere more appropriate for his sophomore year? Or, at least after doing those four years at Yale why continue on to the equally liberal Harvard?

Or, is he being disingenuous with us?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1313
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: Which is worse?

Post by boglerdude » Mon Aug 07, 2023 7:30 pm

You'll be waiting a long time for a politician who can stick a pure ideology and isnt a "hypocrite." College was a lot different in the 90s. But I'm not going to defend him, sure he's a scumbag, whatever, bottom line is he fought back against martial law while Trump was playing golf.
DogBreath
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:52 pm

Re: Which is worse?

Post by DogBreath » Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:32 pm

glennds wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2023 12:18 pm
DogBreath wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 12:00 pm


Privately held businesses can do what they want (at their own peril), but public corporations should absolutely stay out of politics and remain neutral on social/cultural issues. You literally offend half the country when you don't. In my view, it is also a lapse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders when corps take sides.

There is nothing in that law that actually says "don't say gay". That's propaganda pure and simple. Children, especially young ones, do not need exposure to anything sexual of any kind. That's all the bill was about. But the left weaponizes everything they don't like, and while maybe FL shouldn't retaliate in the way they did (I have no opinion), there needs to be a re-weaponization from the non-woke or the insanity will just continue. Look at the Bud Light debacle: The non-woke finally grew some balls and sent a message. It's about time.
I understand your point of view, and I agree that it would be better stewardship for companies to stay out of social political issues.

But I'm not sure my question was clear - It is well settled constitutional law that the First Amendment protections extend to corporations. It makes no difference whether the corporation is publicly traded or privately held. So long as they're not breaking laws, it makes no difference whether that speech is disagreeable to you or me. It could be despicable woke propaganda. The expression is still a protected right. And here we have a state government punishing the corporation because they don't like that speech.

So the conundrum is we have a liberal company exercising a Constitutional right and we have a so-called conservative government infringing it and punishing them..

This kind of slope leads to a place where you only get your First Amendment rights so long as you say what the government wants to hear.

What really should be happening is the free market should penalize Disney, because people like you and I don't like what they are saying and we take our business elsewhere.

It shouldn't be a government choosing to punish them. For this reason, though I consider myself a non-tribal conservative, I find myself objecting to DeSantis as a hypocrite and supporting Disney on this issue, on principle. Because as much as I hate the woke movement, abusive government power is the worse of the two evils.
That is a fair point. And the free market IS penalizing Disney. Their movies are bombing and park attendance is way down YOY. Same with Bud Light and Target.

But it's not so simple. If I want to not buy stock in Disney or Target bc I don't agree with their "values", that means I can't buy any index funds and have to buy individual stocks, which is more complicated and time consuming.

Even if corps have 1A right to be woke, it is secondary to their responsibility to their shareholders to maximize value. And who gets to decide what their values are? I indirectly own Disney stock, and no one asked me what I thought about it.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Which is worse?

Post by glennds » Thu Aug 10, 2023 4:58 pm

DogBreath wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:32 pm


That is a fair point. And the free market IS penalizing Disney. Their movies are bombing and park attendance is way down YOY. Same with Bud Light and Target.

But it's not so simple. If I want to not buy stock in Disney or Target bc I don't agree with their "values", that means I can't buy any index funds and have to buy individual stocks, which is more complicated and time consuming.

Even if corps have 1A right to be woke, it is secondary to their responsibility to their shareholders to maximize value. And who gets to decide what their values are? I indirectly own Disney stock, and no one asked me what I thought about it.
I wondered about this, and did some quick research to learn that there are two "anti-woke" ETFs for people who feel like you do. One is the American Conservative Values Fund (ACVF) and the other is Vivek Ramaswamy's Strive Asset Management which offers a few funds that fit this bill. It seems that these funds are very small by industry standards and haven't seen much in the way of growth after an initial subscription at launch.
Maybe this is like the people who make noise about "buying American" but will refuse to do so if it means paying any premium.

You might be right. If you are an investor in broad indexes, it might be hard to avoid some of the "woke" companies. But as a consumer I guess you can find it easier to do so.
DogBreath
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:52 pm

Re: Which is worse?

Post by DogBreath » Tue Aug 15, 2023 4:58 pm

glennds wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 4:58 pm
DogBreath wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:32 pm


That is a fair point. And the free market IS penalizing Disney. Their movies are bombing and park attendance is way down YOY. Same with Bud Light and Target.

But it's not so simple. If I want to not buy stock in Disney or Target bc I don't agree with their "values", that means I can't buy any index funds and have to buy individual stocks, which is more complicated and time consuming.

Even if corps have 1A right to be woke, it is secondary to their responsibility to their shareholders to maximize value. And who gets to decide what their values are? I indirectly own Disney stock, and no one asked me what I thought about it.
I wondered about this, and did some quick research to learn that there are two "anti-woke" ETFs for people who feel like you do. One is the American Conservative Values Fund (ACVF) and the other is Vivek Ramaswamy's Strive Asset Management which offers a few funds that fit this bill. It seems that these funds are very small by industry standards and haven't seen much in the way of growth after an initial subscription at launch.
Maybe this is like the people who make noise about "buying American" but will refuse to do so if it means paying any premium.

You might be right. If you are an investor in broad indexes, it might be hard to avoid some of the "woke" companies. But as a consumer I guess you can find it easier to do so.
ACVF has an expense ratio of 0.75% vs VTI at 0.03%, or 2500% higher. I don't mind paying a premium, but 2500%?!?
D1984
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: Which is worse?

Post by D1984 » Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:15 pm

DogBreath wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2023 4:58 pm
glennds wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 4:58 pm
DogBreath wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:32 pm


That is a fair point. And the free market IS penalizing Disney. Their movies are bombing and park attendance is way down YOY. Same with Bud Light and Target.

But it's not so simple. If I want to not buy stock in Disney or Target bc I don't agree with their "values", that means I can't buy any index funds and have to buy individual stocks, which is more complicated and time consuming.

Even if corps have 1A right to be woke, it is secondary to their responsibility to their shareholders to maximize value. And who gets to decide what their values are? I indirectly own Disney stock, and no one asked me what I thought about it.
I wondered about this, and did some quick research to learn that there are two "anti-woke" ETFs for people who feel like you do. One is the American Conservative Values Fund (ACVF) and the other is Vivek Ramaswamy's Strive Asset Management which offers a few funds that fit this bill. It seems that these funds are very small by industry standards and haven't seen much in the way of growth after an initial subscription at launch.
Maybe this is like the people who make noise about "buying American" but will refuse to do so if it means paying any premium.

You might be right. If you are an investor in broad indexes, it might be hard to avoid some of the "woke" companies. But as a consumer I guess you can find it easier to do so.
ACVF has an expense ratio of 0.75% vs VTI at 0.03%, or 2500% higher. I don't mind paying a premium, but 2500%?!?
A. It has only a little over $55 million AUM. Some costs scale linearly (i.e. a smaller ETF will have a commensurately smaller cost for those items than a giant one like VOO or VTI) but some don't; in that case the cost in $$ won't be too much lower even if the ETF has a thousandth or less the AUM than one of the huge ones.

B. Actively managed instead of an index fund; actively managing a portfolio has gotten a lot cheaper to do over the past two decades but it still can't beat the rock bottom expenses of a cap weighted index fund and likely never will be able to.

C. As per the factsheet they seem to be spending money on "shareholder advocacy" to try and get companies to (presumably) act in accordance with conservative principles. This is a waste of ETF holders' money (just as it would be for a liberal targeted ETF to do the same in the other direction). If they want to set up an ETF that boycotts inclusion of certain companies that is fine (since it adds almost nothing to overhead or to costs) but IMO if they want to do advocacy they can do it with their own money.

D. Is there any proof that tilting an ETF to ostensibly "conservative" or "liberal" companies actually works? My understanding was that all this will do is have an ETF that is lighter--vs the S&P 500 index as a whole--on tech names, media stocks, and certain financial stocks (for the "conservative" fund) and an ETF that is lighter on energy and defense stocks (for the "liberal" one). That just amounts making a simple sector bet (which could turn out better or worse than the index as a whole depending on what sectors do well in a given time period; note that the DEMZ ETF did better in 2021 when tech outperformed but ACVF did better in 2022 when energy outperformed....and FWIW the two are dead even for 1/1/2023 to 7/31/2023 with VOO handily clobbering both of them) but overall it will probably do about the same as the index over the long term (minus the 0.75% fee which means that it will over the very long term probably trail the index by about that much in CAGR).

E. Last but not least.....it isn't like by refusing to invest in these companies you are depriving them of capital. Almost any large company--at least if it is big enough to be publicly traded--gets the overwhelming amount of its capital from retained earnings or via borrowing from banks/the bond market/money markets. Publicly traded companies typically hate issuing any new stock (even if it is for a good reason like financing expansion of plant and equipment) because doing so is seen as dilutive to existing shareholders. There are exceptions--BDCs, MREITs, REITs, CEFs, MLPs, and certain other RICs generally are more willing to issue new stock (since they can't grow by retaining earnings seeing as how they aren't allowed to retain earnings to begin with; growing by issuing debt is also limited by laws restricting how much debt they can have vs equity) as are a few rapidly growing ordinary corporations like Tesla--but for the average publicly traded C-corporation the CFO probably would rather crawl over broken glass naked than have to float a secondary issue of stock.
DogBreath
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:52 pm

Re: Which is worse?

Post by DogBreath » Wed Aug 16, 2023 5:40 pm

D1984 wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:15 pm

D. Is there any proof that tilting an ETF to ostensibly "conservative" or "liberal" companies actually works?

Who cares if it works. Maybe some people would just rather invest in companies that share their same values and not invest in companies that "hate them". As long as the return is comparable, I would love a fund like that IF it also had a comparable MER.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Which is worse?

Post by glennds » Fri Aug 18, 2023 12:05 pm

DogBreath wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2023 5:40 pm
D1984 wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:15 pm

D. Is there any proof that tilting an ETF to ostensibly "conservative" or "liberal" companies actually works?

Who cares if it works. Maybe some people would just rather invest in companies that share their same values and not invest in companies that "hate them". As long as the return is comparable, I would love a fund like that IF it also had a comparable MER.
If you want the returns to be comparable then you do care if it works.
So you're looking for a fund that (i) invests only in companies that share your values, (ii) does so at a return that is comparable to the broad indexes, and (iii) charges a low fee.
Unicorn hunter
DogBreath
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:52 pm

Re: Which is worse?

Post by DogBreath » Sat Aug 19, 2023 2:15 pm

glennds wrote:
Fri Aug 18, 2023 12:05 pm
DogBreath wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2023 5:40 pm
D1984 wrote:
Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:15 pm

D. Is there any proof that tilting an ETF to ostensibly "conservative" or "liberal" companies actually works?

Who cares if it works. Maybe some people would just rather invest in companies that share their same values and not invest in companies that "hate them". As long as the return is comparable, I would love a fund like that IF it also had a comparable MER.
If you want the returns to be comparable then you do care if it works.
So you're looking for a fund that (i) invests only in companies that share your values, (ii) does so at a return that is comparable to the broad indexes, and (iii) charges a low fee.
Unicorn hunter
Yep, it doesn't exist. But then, back to the original point of public corporations maximizing shareholder returns rather than political agendas. If they did that, it would be unnecessary / moot.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Which is worse?

Post by glennds » Sun Aug 20, 2023 12:32 pm

DogBreath wrote:
Sat Aug 19, 2023 2:15 pm


Yep, it doesn't exist. But then, back to the original point of public corporations maximizing shareholder returns rather than political agendas. If they did that, it would be unnecessary / moot.
Pug wisdom right here
Post Reply