Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#1
Annouced today that K.C.C. has invested £23million in a tobacco company
whilst at the same time having policies of anti smoking within the county.
the reason K.C.,C. says it is doing so is to get the best return for there pensions
but although there is a moral argument here
what do forumites think
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#2
Not a good idea for a County Council to be investing in something that causes so much illness and therefore costs to the Health Service, their products are banned from being used in KCC buildings that should say it all!
Audere est facere.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#3
I would have thought that they could have found a more suitable way to invest their money that would also give a good return.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
i suspect that k.c.c. are in a lose/lose situation here, the moral issue is balanced against the demand for the best return for council taxpayers money.
when they invested in icelandic bank/s they did so for a higher interest rate unfortunately that backfired.
if they had not invested and the banks had done well we would all have been asking why they did not put some into icelandic babks.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#5
Dunno, Keith. I don't drink strong alcoholics, which counter-ballances the odd puff.
One could invest in BP-Shell, I suppose, but petrol is bad for the lungs.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#6
This is a little different from the Icelandic banks scandal. That was a scandal because I think all council cash should be invested in short term Treasury bills.
The investments referred to here are made by the KCC pension fund which is a separate legal entity not controlled by the council.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#7
Surely it is up to the staff who's pension money it is to decide how it is spent and not the public. It's already spent from the public funds and is like them telling me how to spend my wages
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#8
I think you will all be aware how much I detest smoking. That said I see no problem here. The KCC pension fund must invest for the best possible return and as long as it does not claim to invest in ethically screened investments then this is fine.
Incidentally - if you want just ethically screen investments then you will be filtering out a huge number of companies and those left will have a much higher proportion of small and mid-caps and therefore the equity content of any investment will carry a higher level of volatility risk and that has to be justified.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#9
I don't think KCC screens at all - the problem is what one person sees as ethical another wouldn't.
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
You are correct of course Paul regarding ethical criterion, so that is why I say they did no wrong. That said I hope they do have some kind of screening system to ensure that they get worthwhile investments as 'ethics' is only one potential filter.
Now you have raised an interesting point Paul - different strokes for different folks and have a true story on just that!!
At a meeting with the manager of a major Ethical Fund some years ago he tried to claim that an investment into Boeing was not ethical because they built the stealth bomber. I challenged him on that and it led to quite a debate and we ended up agreeing to differ...
The point I made to him is that an investment into the manufacture of a stealth bomber is highly ethical for the following reasons:
1/ On an attack run it is not detected by enemy radar so it does not have to dodge missiles therefore there is less fuel expenditure by the plane and with no missiles being thrown at it as well - voila, a lot less pollution into the atmosphere.
2/ Being stealth fewer aircraft need be used on a mission so again less fuel emissions and therefore as well fewer aircraft need be built, again less pollution from their construction.
3/ Because the stealth bomber is not dodging so much defensive fire it can deliver it ordnance with more accuracy so fewer missiles/bombs need be launched. The result, less chance of collateral damage and fewer innocent civilians at risk.
Anyway - way off topic but it does show Paul that ethics are a personal matter.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#11
well its hit the news
i fully understand the need to get maximum benefit for your investment
but the kcc are campaigning themselves against smoking
doesn't quite stack up to me
but ok
any one else hold a view
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#12
Would we be having this conversation if they were investing in crack cocaine?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
bern;
to campaign/have policies on such an issue is to me a little strange
any one else?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
Keith, I thought it has been made clear to you that KCC is one thing and the Trustees of the pension are another, different bodies with different priorities and policies. Perhaps the facts simply do not suit your argument.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#15
probably getting cheap fags through the back door.
#16
#14 - or perhaps there should be better cohesion between the bodies?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#17
barryw
'the trustees of the pension fund will be working ON BEHALF OF the KCC
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#18
If councils are meant to set the best example then should they not be licencing pubs ??
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#19
Bern it would be highly improper for KCC to put political or ideological pressure on the fund trustees, it would almost certainly constitute a breach of the governance rules of the fund if they took any notice.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
No Keith - the fund works and manages assets on behalf of its members not the employer.
Bern - not an issue. They are bodies with very different roles/objectives. If they wish members could campaign for an ethical screening criteria for the pension fund but if successful it could adversely impact on the scheme's ability to manage it funds effectively. That said, there are some well managed ethical investment funds and only today I have been reviewing such a portfolio of about 45 funds, nearly half of which are ethical. I would not restrict my own investments in that way though.