Beating lifeboats into missiles
The RNLI is one of "the most persistent charity holders of arms investments" according to the Campaign Against Arms Trade. I suppose if you're sitting on £378m you've a duty to spread your investments (including to Rolls Royce whose Hawk jet fighters sell so well in the developing world).
The Leukemia Research Fund is the other persistent one. It has a £1.3m stake in Smiths Group (trigger systems for Israeli attack helicopters).
Cancer Research UK has just withdrawn its 30,000 shares in BAe Systems (cluster bombs). Bless its cotton socks.
Funny old world. More from CAAT.
posted by David Pitchford @ 9:18 am
6 Comments:
I could be wrong,but I believe RNLI are also the biggest legacy earning charity in the UK, and I'm wondering if there is a connection. If I were looking to invest for retirement, and wasn't concerned with 'ethical investing', things like Rolls Royce would be tempting.
Understood; if you're not concerned with ethical investing, this entry won't mean much to you. But the research I've seen suggests that the vast majority of charitable givers *are* concerned.
Agreed. But just to play devil's advocate, I have some money, I want to do something good with this money. I plan to invest it now to give away as a legacy. Obviously, I can do *more* good the more money there is. Would it be ethical to make an investment that would produce a lower return?
You're assuming that ethical investments give lower returns. I personally have an ethical portfolio that is AAA-rated by S&Ps and has outperformed across the board this year. There's always a way, if you want there to be one ;)
Before anyone asks, details of my ethical fund company are:
http://funds.ft.com/funds/displayFund.do?symb=BPETHI
Well answered. Both of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home