Seems a bit 'trying too hard to make a story' to me if their "investing in arms" equates to investing a couple of hundred grand of their billions into BAE Systems.
Agree with Cougar. Read the story and thought... oh.
I do like the way you've sensationalised it with your thread title though.
Can't see a problem with this myself. Looks like a shrewd investment. I'm in. 😉
I dunno, it seem a bit like its turned into a cash cow without thought to the aims and principles that it's about.
Helping people and children in war zones while investing in arms company's is a bit rich IMO..
And [i]only a couple of hundred grand[/i] is couple of hundred grand that people have donated to help others not to invest in arms.
And the thread title is taken from the BBC...
I applaud the BBC for bringing this out, especially since the 2 organistions are so closely linked. It's seems they're finally learning about proper journalism and unbiased reporting after the savile scandal. A ways to go yet but a step on the right road.
And they seem to think its ok
the charity uses a number of[b] managed funds[/b] which invests that money on the charity's behalf, including in the stock market.
my money's on "not aware"
I applaud the BBC for bringing this out, especially since the 2 organistions are so closely linked. It's seems they're finally learning about proper journalism and unbiased reporting after the savile scandal. A ways to go yet but a step on the right road.
Utter balls, more like a journalist trying to create a sensational story when there is none.
I do see a problem with it, holding equity in companies that put their profit above the health of the consumers that use their products is not ethical. People give to charity assuming the beneficiaries will be the people that motivated them to donate not corporates that may then go on to sell them addicitive drugs/their governments the weapons do them harm. Pretty straightforward really:
Give money to cause =+1 social benefit
Invest money in ethical business =+1 social benefit
Invest money in non-ethical business =-1 social benefit
'Do the math'(s)
[i]And the thread title is taken from the BBC[/i]
Minus a crucial word?
the charity uses a number of managed funds which invests that money on the charity's behalf, including in the stock market.my money's on "not aware"
Yeah, I thought that too.
'not aware of where the money is going' is not a phrase that should be in a charity's vocab. If you're claiming that 'every single penny is going to those who need it' then you need to be aware of where every single penny is going. Also, why are they investing money and not using it to purchase goods and services for those that need it?
Give money to cause =+1 social benefit
Invest money in ethical business =+1 social benefit
Invest money in non-ethical business =-1 social benefit'Do the math'(s)
1+1-1=1 still better than 0
Managed funds, so someone at Comic Relief didn't go off any buy some cluster bombs to keep in a cupboard - they gave their cash to a fund and said "try and make us some more money with this". They probably should have added "without doing anything too embarrassing", but as said by others its a a bit of a non-story.
Something similar was reported about Newcastle?? council last week, with a separate entity running their pension investing a few thousand quid out of the several billion that they manage in Wonga.
I'm surprised you think it's ok, keep chucking your money in then, it'll keep it on the telly for years to come..
'Chewie, take the profesor in the back and plug him in to the hyperdrive'
Pretty sensational headline IMO.
If the BBC article is correct, then seems to be a failure on the part of the trustees to ensure that money is invested in line with aims and principles. Investing in managed funds can and does involve these kind of issues which is why trustees are appointed. More fool them putting money into managers funds instead of indexing them as well, but that's a different story.
Still there is quite a stretch to what is happening and the headline even if the latter may be factually correct.
[i]'not aware of where the money is going' is not a phrase that should be in a charity's vocab.[/i]
this.
saying 'Oh, it's all done at arms length' isn't an option.
*everything* they do should help support their stated aims and ethos.
Minus a crucial word?
Shares? 😕 So that's not really investing then?
Oh..
[quote=khani said]I'm surprised you think it's ok
Whilst I don't think it's hugely OK, I also thing that it's very very difficult to keep track of every pound out of the millions they get/invest etc.
Like someone else said, it's not like they're going to an arms dealer and buying a job lot of bullets and land mines, it's a managed fund, and it's arguably the fault of the firm doing the managing, which I very much doubt is anyone inside the Comic Relife charity.
they gave their cash to a fund and said "try and make us some more money with this"
Is it right that a charity can gamble with donations like this in the first place - I think this is the elephant in the room.
Am I naive to think that when I donate my £1 for a red nose, that money is used to help someone in need and not passed to an investment manager to gamble on stocks and shares?
dan1980 - Member
I also thing that it's very very difficult to keep track of every pound out of the millions they get/invest etc.
I am not sure I agree dan, that is the whole purpose of having trustees. Maybe Ballantyne was "out" at the time.
Am I naive to think that when I donate my £5 that money is used to help someone in need and not passed to an investment manager to gamble on stocks and shares?
Apparently so..
Errr...invest in an ethical fund*? Hardly bleedin rocket science is it
*Yes this may give you a lower return but you should factor in the additional damage done by supporting exploitative organisations to the stated aims of your organisation. That may not be a pounds and pence value but would include reputation and long term sustainability
Apparently so..
Damn it. now I've got more reason to be cynical. I tell thee - I'm gonna be Victor Meldrew before I'm 35 at this rate!
So if arms manufacturers lob a few K of their billions of hard earned profit to the war affected does that suddenly make them ethical? Likewise for tabacco companies and cancer sufferers. One thing affects another.
eh? so it's correct but it's a bit of a stretch? sensationalist possibly but not really "a stretch" Id have thought.Still there is quite a stretch to what is happening and the headline even if the latter may be factually correct.
Surely it's impossible for them to go and spend every penny donated all at once. They don't have the telethon and then go shopping the next day with £60 million in cash.
So since they have all this cash waiting to spend it makes sense the try to make a return on that capital before it's spent on stuff.
Whether they should simply maximise their return on investment or try to restrict the funds they invest in to fluffy benign things is then an ethical debate but the fact they have funds to invest is just common sense.
Am I naive to think that when I donate my £1 for a red nose, that money is used to help someone in need and not passed to an investment manager to gamble on stocks and shares?
My understanding ( from a quick listen to the news this morning ) is that investing the money is _exactly_ what allows Comic Relief to pay out every penny that it receives - the costs of the running the charity are taken from the profits made by the investments.
DONK, charities (should) appoint trustees to ensure that investments meet certain guidelines. It seems in this case that this may not have happened, but we need to see the details. However, there is a stretch IMO between investing in managed funds that invest in a diversified portfolio of companies (correctly) and "implying" that CR directly invested in arms and tobacco companies.
Is there an algorithm (or even a simple equation or sum) that can tell us definitively whether using unethical money for good causes, offsets the harm that the dodgy company will inevitably cause..?
(please bear in mind that I had trouble working out the ages of my sons classmates based on the September intake etc so I'm no mathematician.. a yes or no answer will suffice 8) )
Am I naive to think that when I donate my £1 for a red nose, that money is used to help someone in need and not passed to an investment manager to gamble on stocks and shares?
Pretty naive, yes - after all, the money you donate to any charity will go into a bank account paying a certain amount of interest - where do you think this interest comes from? Some of it comes from mortgages and the like, but not all. And that's the simplest case: for a large charity with large sums of money it would be unethical for them not to invest it - after all, that investment generates more money for "doing good".
I don't know how anyone can say this does not matter.
If I give money to a charity that purports to care for people, especially children, I do not expect that money to be used to develop bombs to blow up children and their parents, nor do I want it spent on supporting alchol and tobacco industries - who are more than happy to exploit youth drinking and worse the enticement of children in the 3rd world into a (short) life time of smoking. Its not like there are a lack of other industries around the world to invest in.
Its deeply immoral and I will never give to this charity again, much as I cease giving to any charity I see exploiting the vulnerable and not very bright by 'chugging' in the street.
I don't know whats happened to so many charities - so many seem motivated by profit, perks and salaries and have lost all sight of their supposed purpose. I guess thats why politicians/MPs seem to be moving into 'managing' them - same big talk to the public but with a total lack of morals and lots of pay.
My understanding ( from a quick listen to the news this morning ) is that investing the money is _exactly_ what allows Comic Relief to pay out every penny that it receives
But if the money is being invested, shirley that money is at risk of being lost - there's no such thing as a sure thing in investments, especially ones as contentious as BAE systems.
@ Yunki - No, you can't buy absolution, if you've ****ed somebody over theyre still ****ed even if you help someone else
but you can buy damnation ie if you do aload of good and **** somebody over then guess what? They're still ****ed
Many years ago, before the term "ethical investing" was widespread, I was the trustee of a charity which would be equally outrageous to be investing in arms or tobacco firms etc. We had a policy which meant that direct investments were scrutinised for suitability, that is we would not hold shares directly in an arms company or a tobacco firm. IIRC we did hold shares in drinks companies, and Nestle (who at the time were a bit controversial for their baby milk policies in the developing world) - which generated some discussion within the trustees. The conclusion was if we looked hard enough there would always be something that could be criticised in any investment choice.
We did invest through a number of funds as well, and there was no scrutiny at trustee level on the composition of the funds, so it is likely that indirectly we held arms and tobacco shares. This was also discussed but it just wasn't considered practical to withdraw funds any time the fund manager decided to make an individual investment we didn't approve of (this was before the internet was widespread, and realistically to manage the investments with that level of scrutiny would have required additional full time staff). There was an overarching responsibility to make sure that the investments were also profitable. Whilst there are now ethical funds, even they may not be as rigorous as some would like in investment selection or may return less money.
Investments we once might have seen as 'clean' are now tainted. Financial services have had their issues! Chemicals or oil carry a stigma of environmental pollution. Telecoms, coffee bars, on-line book sellers etc all avoiding UK tax opens up another angle of ethical concern.
Finally its likely that any successful investment itself holds cash which it invests potentially not following your own ethical principles.
yunki - Member
Is there an algorithm (or even a simple equation or sum) that can tell us definitively whether using unethical money for good causes, offsets the harm that the dodgy company will inevitably cause..?
Yes, the Bentham Algorithm (aka consequentialism)
for those that have said "they're not aware, it's not a story" any self-respecting fund manager - part. if it's for a charity - would have asked them to fill in some kind of Q&A sheet on ethical stuff.
So it doesn't wash IMO - they've been caught out being lazy, they could, and should, have thought about it. Sure it's not much in factional terms, but even for managed funds they really shouldn't be in there at all, plenty of other ways to invest ethically.
kcal - Member
plenty of other ways to invest ethically.
Actually as poly (I think) noted, when you dig down there are actually very few.
Arent we all investing in the arms industry in the state subsidies of BAE
the entire arms trade couldnt be more hypocritical, see Jets to saudi cover up and continued arms sales to most of the repressive middle eastern dictatorships, all fully endorsed and promoted by the Prime Minister.
and comic relief should know much better
Fair point, but they'd have at least avoided the headline stuff - arms companies FFS. Someone's just been pretty lazy really.
Yes, the Bentham Algorithm (aka consequentialism)
Philosophically interesting but requires all the harm and benefit to known inadvance to perform the 'calculation' so effectively useless
Up there with Ayn Rands philosophy of rational self interest and the Laffer Curve.
OK so maybe being a bit short there but you do have to take a risk with investments on both financial and ethical grounds. The thing is in my view charities that promote the geberal and wide ranging kind of stuff that comic relief does need to stack that risk away from 'non-ethical' business, where that line lies is a judgement call but tabacco and weapons, for me, are clearly on the wrong side of it. So called 'ethical' business will act outside your original brief but that may be out of you sphere of influence and anciallry to their main purpose.
But if the money is being invested, shirley that money is at risk of being lost - there's no such thing as a sure thing in investments, especially ones as contentious as BAE systems.
Yes that's precisely why you need to invest in a range of funds and a range of company types to mitigate that risk. If you pick one sector you think is quite clean, or focus one one fund type your portfolio becomes unbalanced which makes people twitchy.
The lowest risk investments might be things like government bonds, but are we sure that governments are ethical?
@Poly - sounds like a justification for apathy to me. Not that it's necessarily CRs fight to turn capitalism to the path of righteousness but I think the public handing over the stake would expect it to be not to be bet on the 'the baddies'.
So what is your point OP?
That we should stop donating to any charity that invests/saves a tiny fraction of its money in a way that you as an individual disagree with? And that will help who?
thestabiliser - Member
@Poly - sounds like a justification for apathy to me.
Or realism based on experience as a trustee?
I agree that even the risk-free (sic) rate or a money market deposits is unlikely to be 100% ethical but practicalities have to take over (and be managed transparently) at some stage when holding cash IMO (and no I am not a Utilitarian!!!)
