Own up, Barefoot, you support the war machine. I have often wondered why my super investments in a fund like Australian Ethical have not grown as much as others. It’s because people like you (who I respect) tell them to invest in the fund that will make the most money, rather than the fund that will be best for us as people on this planet. Vanguard enables genocide, mate. Find a well-performing alternate super fund that doesn’t decimate entire populations.
Sandra
Hi Sandra,
I presume you are referencing a report from 2017 where activist investors wanted Vanguard (and other index funds) to dump their shares in PetroChina, Asia’s largest oil and gas provider, because of accusations of genocide.
Vanguard’s MSCI Index International Shares fund contains 1,439 companies (Apple, Nike, Netflix, etc), yet as of today it does not own shares in PetroChina.But it does raise a good point: an index fund simply owns the largest businesses – it doesn’t put an ethical lens on them.
It’s the investment equivalent of a sausage: when you’re at Bunnings on the weekend you don’t ask if the snags are beef, pork or sawdust, right? (“You get what you get and you don’t get upset”, say my kids, who love a bit of sawdust on a Saturday.)
So the solution is ethical investing, right?
Well, that’s like buying an expensive free-range chipotle instead of the humble snag … but you still need to know what goes into it.
Case in point:
AustralianSuper’s ‘Socially Aware’ investment option was found to have money invested in the coal, oil and gas industries, and to own shares involved in nuclear weapons.
Mercer claimed its ethical fund didn’t invest in booze or gambling companies, though it was holding shares in Heineken and Crown Resorts.
Thankfully the regulator is trying to enforce the claims made by fund managers: last month Vanguard copped a record multimillion-dollar fine for misleading investors about the green cred of its own ethical funds.
Enjoy the sausage sizzle!
Scott.