立即打开
美国重大枪击案频发,投资者能做什么?

美国重大枪击案频发,投资者能做什么?

ALICIA ADAMCZYK 2022-05-31
作为投资者和消费者确保自己的资金不会资助他们从道德角度出发反对的事情,这是近年来逐渐兴起的一种做法。

得克萨斯州尤瓦尔迪一所小学发生大规模枪击事件,造成至少19名儿童和两名成人死亡,此事件发生后,许多美国人都想要做点什么,甚至做任何事情来提供帮助。

个人可以通过多种方式来做好事,包括捐款帮助受害者家属支付葬礼和其他费用。

另一种选择是从武器制造商和从枪支销售中获得实质收益的公司撤资。作为投资者和消费者确保自己的资金不会资助他们从道德角度出发反对的事情,这是近年来逐渐兴起的一种做法。

非营利组织As You Sow的首席执行官安德鲁·贝哈尔(Andrew Behar)说:“令人惊讶的是,人们对自己的财产、储蓄和401(k)计划(养老金计划)拥有如此大的权力。这真的可以归结为:你是否想从攻击性武器、手枪和弹药中获利?如果不想的话,你需要知道自己是否投资了枪支制造商。”该非营利组织通过股东请愿来提升企业社会责任。

如何撤资

有两家公开交易的枪支制造商:斯特姆-鲁格公司(Sturm Ruger,RGR)和史密斯威森公司(Smith & Wesson Brands,SWBI)。晨星公司(Morningstar)表示,这两家公司的规模都太小,无法被纳入标准普尔500指数之类的指数基金中,但它们可能会出现在小盘股指数基金、扩展市场基金或全市场指数基金中。

如果你最关心的是枪支制造商,那么投资像标准普尔500指数基金这样的指数基金是一种“安全”的投资。但晨星公司指出,当你考虑销售枪支或弹药的零售商时,情况就会变得更加复杂。投资者从道德的角度出发反对武器,可能也想采取措施从这些公司撤资。然后还需要考虑军火和国防公司以及投资枪支和武器的公司。

像沃尔玛这样的零售商——销售大量枪支,尽管根据晨星公司的数据,这些销售额只占其总收入的一小部分——更有可能被纳入你的标准指数基金中。每个人都必须自己确定自己的底线在哪里。(也值得考虑的是:从这些零售商那里撤资就够了,还是说消费者也应该考虑抵制并完全停止在这些商店购物?)

正如晨星公司和其他公司所指出的,即使你投资的基金有涉及枪支的风险,它们本身也可能只占基金的一小部分。例如,沃尔玛在标准普尔500指数中的占比不到1%。

采取措施从这类基金中撤资可被视为一种主动投资形式,理财规划师通常不建议这样做,因为尤其是与被动指数基金相比,人们通常不擅长挑选长期回报的投资。也就是说,如果这个问题对你很重要,你可能不在乎你可能会错过一些回报。

你可以使用As You Sow的不涉及枪支基金(Gun Free Funds)工具或不涉及武器基金(Weapons Free Funds)工具来查看你的基金投资了哪些公司。只需输入基金的名称,该工具就会显示你的基金投资了哪些公司。根据不同基金投资民用枪支和武器的情况,As You Sow还提供了不同基金的评级。

只要稍加研究,当你主要通过经纪账户或个人退休账户(IRA)进行投资时,避免投资这些股票和基金就很容易了。但是,如果你主要是通过雇主赞助的401(k)计划进行投资,你就得要求你的计划管理人在未来投资不同的不涉及枪支的基金。实现的可能性似乎很小,但如果有足够多的员工提出要求,雇主可能会愿意做出改变。

贝哈尔说:“与你的朋友会面,与你的同行会面,与其他员工讨论这个问题。告诉他们你不想再投资涉及枪支的基金了。这听起来很简单,而且确实如此简单。问题在于要进行这样的对话。”

撤资有用吗?

对撤资或一般社会责任投资的普遍批评是,它不会产生重大影响。几乎没有证据表明公司的股价会因撤资而发生变化;对于每一个抛售他们反感的公司股票的投资者来说,都有另一个只要有赚钱机会就会毫不犹豫抢购的人。

但对一些人来说,撤资的预期结果并不一定是这些公司会倒闭或被迫进行某种清算。相反,这是为了让他们个人对投资感觉更好,并确保他们的开支与他们的道德观一致。

贝哈尔说:“这确实是一种价值观的反映。如果人们不想投资涉及枪支的基金,就像从化石燃料类投资撤资一样,这是一个非常有力的声明。”

当然,正如贝哈尔指出的那样,这涉及的不止枪支问题。长期以来,一直有基金将所谓的罪恶股票排除在外,包括涉及枪支以及烟草和酒精的股票。近年来,关注企业环境、社会和公司治理绩效因素的ESG基金大受欢迎。

除了ESG基金,美国的商业领袖们正在重新审视他们的公司应该如何与影响其客户和员工的政治和政策进行互动。

最近几周,在泄露的最高法院意见草案公布后,堕胎权成为焦点,该意见草案将推翻罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v. Wade)。在佛罗里达州,所谓的“不要说同性恋”法案遭到选民和迪士尼等公司的反对。越来越多的公司和首席执行官表明立场并处理这样做带来的政治影响。

对于那些想为美国枪支暴力危机做点什么的人来说,改变不会在一夜之间到来。撤资只是一个开始。

贝哈尔说:“我们生活的世界是怎样的,我们本身难脱干系。当我们积极投资并参与其中时,我们不能只是说,‘哦,我不喜欢这样’。我们终需投资我们想要的未来。”(财富中文网)

译者:中慧言-王芳

得克萨斯州尤瓦尔迪一所小学发生大规模枪击事件,造成至少19名儿童和两名成人死亡,此事件发生后,许多美国人都想要做点什么,甚至做任何事情来提供帮助。

个人可以通过多种方式来做好事,包括捐款帮助受害者家属支付葬礼和其他费用。

另一种选择是从武器制造商和从枪支销售中获得实质收益的公司撤资。作为投资者和消费者确保自己的资金不会资助他们从道德角度出发反对的事情,这是近年来逐渐兴起的一种做法。

非营利组织As You Sow的首席执行官安德鲁·贝哈尔(Andrew Behar)说:“令人惊讶的是,人们对自己的财产、储蓄和401(k)计划(养老金计划)拥有如此大的权力。这真的可以归结为:你是否想从攻击性武器、手枪和弹药中获利?如果不想的话,你需要知道自己是否投资了枪支制造商。”该非营利组织通过股东请愿来提升企业社会责任。

如何撤资

有两家公开交易的枪支制造商:斯特姆-鲁格公司(Sturm Ruger,RGR)和史密斯威森公司(Smith & Wesson Brands,SWBI)。晨星公司(Morningstar)表示,这两家公司的规模都太小,无法被纳入标准普尔500指数之类的指数基金中,但它们可能会出现在小盘股指数基金、扩展市场基金或全市场指数基金中。

如果你最关心的是枪支制造商,那么投资像标准普尔500指数基金这样的指数基金是一种“安全”的投资。但晨星公司指出,当你考虑销售枪支或弹药的零售商时,情况就会变得更加复杂。投资者从道德的角度出发反对武器,可能也想采取措施从这些公司撤资。然后还需要考虑军火和国防公司以及投资枪支和武器的公司。

像沃尔玛这样的零售商——销售大量枪支,尽管根据晨星公司的数据,这些销售额只占其总收入的一小部分——更有可能被纳入你的标准指数基金中。每个人都必须自己确定自己的底线在哪里。(也值得考虑的是:从这些零售商那里撤资就够了,还是说消费者也应该考虑抵制并完全停止在这些商店购物?)

正如晨星公司和其他公司所指出的,即使你投资的基金有涉及枪支的风险,它们本身也可能只占基金的一小部分。例如,沃尔玛在标准普尔500指数中的占比不到1%。

采取措施从这类基金中撤资可被视为一种主动投资形式,理财规划师通常不建议这样做,因为尤其是与被动指数基金相比,人们通常不擅长挑选长期回报的投资。也就是说,如果这个问题对你很重要,你可能不在乎你可能会错过一些回报。

你可以使用As You Sow的不涉及枪支基金(Gun Free Funds)工具或不涉及武器基金(Weapons Free Funds)工具来查看你的基金投资了哪些公司。只需输入基金的名称,该工具就会显示你的基金投资了哪些公司。根据不同基金投资民用枪支和武器的情况,As You Sow还提供了不同基金的评级。

只要稍加研究,当你主要通过经纪账户或个人退休账户(IRA)进行投资时,避免投资这些股票和基金就很容易了。但是,如果你主要是通过雇主赞助的401(k)计划进行投资,你就得要求你的计划管理人在未来投资不同的不涉及枪支的基金。实现的可能性似乎很小,但如果有足够多的员工提出要求,雇主可能会愿意做出改变。

贝哈尔说:“与你的朋友会面,与你的同行会面,与其他员工讨论这个问题。告诉他们你不想再投资涉及枪支的基金了。这听起来很简单,而且确实如此简单。问题在于要进行这样的对话。”

撤资有用吗?

对撤资或一般社会责任投资的普遍批评是,它不会产生重大影响。几乎没有证据表明公司的股价会因撤资而发生变化;对于每一个抛售他们反感的公司股票的投资者来说,都有另一个只要有赚钱机会就会毫不犹豫抢购的人。

但对一些人来说,撤资的预期结果并不一定是这些公司会倒闭或被迫进行某种清算。相反,这是为了让他们个人对投资感觉更好,并确保他们的开支与他们的道德观一致。

贝哈尔说:“这确实是一种价值观的反映。如果人们不想投资涉及枪支的基金,就像从化石燃料类投资撤资一样,这是一个非常有力的声明。”

当然,正如贝哈尔指出的那样,这涉及的不止枪支问题。长期以来,一直有基金将所谓的罪恶股票排除在外,包括涉及枪支以及烟草和酒精的股票。近年来,关注企业环境、社会和公司治理绩效因素的ESG基金大受欢迎。

除了ESG基金,美国的商业领袖们正在重新审视他们的公司应该如何与影响其客户和员工的政治和政策进行互动。

最近几周,在泄露的最高法院意见草案公布后,堕胎权成为焦点,该意见草案将推翻罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v. Wade)。在佛罗里达州,所谓的“不要说同性恋”法案遭到选民和迪士尼等公司的反对。越来越多的公司和首席执行官表明立场并处理这样做带来的政治影响。

对于那些想为美国枪支暴力危机做点什么的人来说,改变不会在一夜之间到来。撤资只是一个开始。

贝哈尔说:“我们生活的世界是怎样的,我们本身难脱干系。当我们积极投资并参与其中时,我们不能只是说,‘哦,我不喜欢这样’。我们终需投资我们想要的未来。”(财富中文网)

译者:中慧言-王芳

In the aftermath of a mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, that left at least 19 children and two adults dead, many Americans will want to do something, anything, to help.

There are a number of ways individuals can use their pocketbooks for good, including donating to help the victims' families pay for their funerals and other expenses.

Another option is to divest your money from weapons manufacturers and companies that materially benefit from gun sales. This is a practice that has picked up steam in recent years as a way for investors and consumers to ensure their dollars aren't funding things they're morally opposed to.

"It’s amazing how much power people have in their money, in their savings, in their 401(k) plans," says Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, a nonprofit that promotes corporate social responsibility through shareholder advocacy. "It really just comes down to: Do you want to profit off of assault weapons, handguns, and ammunition? If you don’t, you need to know what you own."

How to divest

There are two publicly traded gun manufacturers: Sturm Ruger (RGR) and Smith & Wesson Brands (SWBI). Both of these companies are too small to be included in something like the S&P 500, but they may be present in a small-cap index fund, an extended market fund, or a total market index fund, according to Morningstar.

If your biggest concern is gun manufacturers, then something like a S&P 500 index fund is a "safe" investment. But it gets more complicated when you consider retailers that sell guns or ammunition, Morningstar notes. An investor morally opposed to weapons might want to take steps to divest from those companies too. Then there are arms and defense companies, and companies that invest in guns and weapons, to consider.

Retailers like Walmart—which sells a lot of guns, though those sales make up a small portion of its total revenue, per Morningstar—are much more likely to be in your standard index fund. Everyone has to work out on their own where they draw the line. (Also worth considering: Is divesting from these retailers enough, or should consumers also consider a boycott and stop shopping at these stores altogether?)

As Morningstar and others have pointed out, even if the funds you are invested have exposure to guns, they likely comprise a small part of the funds themselves. Walmart, for example, makes up less than 1% of the S&P 500.

Taking steps to divest from these kinds of funds could be considered a form of active investing, which financial planners usually advise against because people are generally bad at picking investments that pay off long-term, especially compared to a passive index. That said, if this issue is important to you, you might not care that you're potentially missing out on some returns.

You can use a tool like As You Sow's Gun Free Funds tool or Weapons Free Funds tool to see which companies your funds are invested in. Simply input the name of the fund, and the tool will should you what you're exposed to. As You Sow also provides ratings of different funds' exposure to civilian firearms and weapons.

With a little research, it's easy enough to avoid these stocks and funds when you're investing primarily on your own, through a brokerage account or IRA. But if you mostly invest through an employer-sponsored 401(k), you'll need to ask your plan administrator for different, gun-free funds in the future. It might seem like a long shot, but if enough employees make the request, employers may be willing to make the change.

"Meet with your friends, meet with your peers, talk with other employees about this," says Behar. "Say you don't want to own guns anymore. It sounds simple, and it is. It’s a matter of having that conversation."

Does divesting work?

A common critique of divestment—or socially responsible investing in general—is that it doesn't make a big impact. There is little evidence that a company's share price changes as a result of divestment campaigns; for every investor who sells off shares of a company they find objectionable, there's another one who has no issue with snapping them up as long as there's the opportunity to make money.

But for some people, the desired outcome of divesting isn't necessarily that these companies will go out of business or be forced into some kind of reckoning. Rather, it's so that they can personally feel better about investments and ensure their spending aligns with their morals.

"It’s really a values situation," says Behar. "If people don't want to own these, just like divesting fossil fuels, it’s a statement that is very powerful."

Of course, guns aren't the only issue this touches, as Behar noted. There have long been funds that exclude so-called sin stocks, including firearms as well as tobacco and alcohol. In recent years, ESG funds—which focus on environmental, social, and governance factors—have exploded in popularity.

Aside from ESGs, business leaders in the U.S. are reexamining how their companies should interact with the politics and policies that affect their customers and employees.

Abortion rights have taken center stage in recent weeks, after the publication of a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. In Florida, the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill received pushback from constituents and companies like Disney. More and more corporations and CEOs are taking stances and dealing with the political repercussions of doing so.

For those who want to do something about America's gun violence crisis, change won't come overnight. Divesting is one place to start.

"We’re complicit in this world that we live in. We can't just say, 'Oh, I don't like it,' when we’re actively participating in it through our money," says Behar. "There comes a point where we have invest in a future we want to live in."

热读文章
热门视频
扫描二维码下载财富APP