ProperCharlie

aside from whether or not you think it would be a good investment (may be for income - probably not for growth) if you are (like me) a non smoker, would you avoid investing in these companies for moral reasons? i think on balance that i would invest if i felt there was value - it's personal choice after all.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

NO

Although the Far East & Africa may be growing markets, they are going to get the t1ts sued off them in the West over the next few years IMHO

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

& deservedly so IMHO

GM

They kill people for a living - so no.

ProperCharlie

Puff: yeah - they probably will get their ***** severely felt, but that wasn't actually the question.

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Charlie

On moral grounds I would not invest in them either, purveyors of death

milo

they produce a product that people choose to (or not to) use.

and as such i wouldnt have a problem investing in them IF i thought they would do well. id be pretty surprised if the majority didnt agree, unless they think people (smokers) are sheep.

asking the question, would you invest in a company that (for example) painfully kills animals in the testing of their product but you KNOW investing in them will double your money over (say) 2 years would have been a more interesting question imho.

Markus

Interesting moral question this.

Would I? hmm, maybe, it makes financial sense, as they know they have a captive market. But there is, as mentioned the moral side of investing in an industry that causes death.

However, saying that, by the same turn would you invest money in, lets say Anheuser-Busch*(makers of Budweiser) or Jack Daniels? Could you not level the same comment at these companies that they kill people for a living? and thus there should also be a moral issue with investing money in these companies?

I guess it would be the same as asking if you would invest money in Smith & Wesson? or another gun manufacturer?

ProperCharlie

that's exactly the point, Markus - if you scratch the surface, most large corporations are up to no good. whether it's deforesting the amazon basin or selling a product which kills or harms people. if there's a good return in it, people are gonna invest IMO. look at the terrible performance of "ethical" funds OTOH.

Spoon

If you look closely at most stocks you can probably find something deemed immoral.
Vodafone are always in the top 5 stocks traded on a daily basis, why if mobile phones fry your brains, or don't they, it's up to you?

I've traded in baccy companies for years and done well from them and I don't smoke.

So has every sport on earth done well out of baccy companies.

BMWhere?

No problem on moral grounds even though I'm very anti-smoking.

However I don't see them as a viable investment these days due to all the political stuff surrounding them. Just too risky these days!

milo

the difference here is intended use.

depending where you are, in order to obtain a gun, you need a license which basically states you won't kill people. so using guns to kill people is not intended use (using correctly).

tobacco on the other hand, used correctly, kills people.

your analogy to guns is the same as saying that investing in cars would also be bad, as you could use a car to kill someone, even tho its not the intended use.

gljam

So what is a guns intended use if not to kill someone?

Dave T-S

I've owned guns for many years, and use them for sporting (clays/game/vermin).

Handguns? Law enforcement.....

Guns in the right hands are safe, a car in the wrong hands isn't

I shoot for pleasure, have no qualms, and do not have to defend my actions, so if anyone wants to try and shoot me down (pardon pun ), save your breath

Dave T-S

Oh, and as to the smoking question, if people are stupid anough to smoke, let them. If I could make a profit out of tobacco companies, I would. Oh, BTW, I work in US liability insurance - someone does make a big profit out of Big Tobacco - the attorneys

rr_ww

Nope

They assist people commit suicide. Theres a difference


Might be a good investment in the short term so YES. No one forces you to smoke, or more importantly FORCES you to NOT stop.


(non-smoker)

Ralf

Wrong!

They knew it was addictive and harmful and denied it for a very long time! That's the one point that gets you legally into trouble: Not stopping cunsumers committing a painful suicide against better knowledge for as low a reason as making profits.


At one point I had to ask myself if I would work for the tobacco industrie for pretty good money. Never had to answer that and am still undecided but I know I'd never feel well doing so.

Dunk

iTrader: (1)

I know for a fact that their are HUGE operational inefficiencies with the UK based manufacturing arms of the major players. There is a huge move for them to currently switch manufacturing to the far east to allow a large push into the local markets, the only issue with this is that currently they can't afford the prices, but give it time......
(Price of UK production of 1000 **** is ...























































£1.75



D

GM

Cigarettes are addictive. Tobacco companies know this.

Cigarettes kill people. Tobacco companies know this as well.

But tobacco companies still try and get more people addicted. Half of these people will die of a smoking related illness.

One day tobacco companies are going to start losing law suits. And one day they're going to get convicted of corporate manslaughter.

And when they do, their shares are going to be worthless.

And I'll smile slightly. And everyone elso who's sat at a hospital bedside and watched someone they love die of lung cancer will do the same.

Bear a grudge? You bet I do...............

G

Dracoro

And so do the general public (unless they really are determined to ignore facts and the real world). I used to smoke and I would fully accept that if I got lung cancer, it would be because I smoked (no one forced me to, no gun to head etc.) and I would have to live with the consequence of MY actions.

Yes, many older people smoked before they knew it was bad for them. Fair enough, they have something owed to them by the powers that be. However, from the 60's (if not earlier), it has been common knowledge that smoking is bad for you. From this time, the more sensible gave up realising their health was at risk. The others carried one which is fair enough but they must realise that it was their own fate that they were deciding. People can blame others as much as they like but ultimately, it was their choices that directly affects their life.

The tobaccos companies have a LOT to answer for and must be brought to book but it's not 100% their own doing. For example, you can't blame gun manufacturers 100% for gun suicides. yes they may promote guns and the use of, but ultimately the individual chooses whether or not one pulls the trigger.

Ralf

I don't think gun manufacturers ever claimed shooting one self or another man has no negative effect on oneself's or his health! Even quite the opposite I'd say.

Drunken Bungle Whore

Just out of interest, if I wanted to invest in a 100% ethical organisation, no terrorist links, no arms links, no animal testing, no harm to the public, no nothing..... who would I invest in....?

ProperCharlie

greenpeace?

stevem2k

there are some 'ethical' funds available, but I would suggest if any of them are part made up of cash or bonds then they aren't.

Steve