Live with the thought of knowing your money is used to murder. It is not the politicians that will make a difference. They had their chance. More that twenty years of useless bickering. It it time for the American companies to stop spouting rhetoric and speak with resolve. Grow a spine America and for Gods sake, stop this senseless murder of our children.
9
The electorate must demand real and significant gun law reform and insist that any person running for political office on any level must stand first and foremost on that platform. The media has a role to play in keeping the public focused on that goal and in moving public opinion toward that direction. The electorate must not be distracted by the machinations of the powerful influences who feel otherwise.
4
Here's TED's sponsorship policy - - "You cannot have sponsors who sell weapons/ammunition, tobacco/cigarettes or adult-oriented products/services"; maybe that should be the case w/these pension funds and such?
9
Tell your Union/pension fund what you want! you deserve better!
4
New York Times reporting is getting somewhat closer to the news that NRA is a 501c TAX EXEMPT organization!
Thanks go to Landon Thomas Jr. and Stephen Grocer for finding hidden investments in mutual funds and retirement funds!
Taxpayers must know that their taxes are, in essence, supplementing the NRA by covering for their illegal and immoral exemption from taxes!
Be in the vanguard! Lead the media pack! Let the headline roar!
The NRA is TAX EXEMPT! Your taxes cover what they don’t pay!
Sincerely,
Phyllis Pedersen
15
More Americans die from obesity than guns and sugary soft drinks are known to be a major culprit. Yet there is no outrage or concern about investors in Coca-Cola, whose major long-term holders include Warren Buffett. Buffett’s other major holdings include Wells Fargo, which engaged in systemic fraud, and Goldman Sachs, a very ethically challenged company. Buffett’s company is a major beneficiary of Trump’s tax cuts and so is Apple, his second biggest holding, which means they creatively circumvented taxes.
So if the Times is genuinely concerned about responsible and social minded investing, perhaps you should review your fawning coverage of Buffett and his “shareholder values.” You might also examine who took the gun companies public, as they profited most.
3
You fail to understand that consuming sugary drinks is a choice that you can make everyday. Dying due to gun violence is not a choice.
27
Hmmm interesting analogy though consuming sugar is ones choice and in moderation not detrimental to health. Whereas if you asked relatives of those shot and killed by others’ bullets whether the bullets they got hit with were in moderation the analogy would obviously break down.
4
The title if the article is misleading. If "you" own stock in a gun company, isn't the company giving money to you through dividends and capital appreciation. Rather than the other way around?
4
I beg to differ with Vanguard's position "We believe mutual funds are not optimal agents of social change". As our society becomes increasingly driven by corporate lobbyist, the only way to major social change will be through the stock market.
I think every investor should take a look as to where their investment is placed and what impact it can have on society at large.
Mutual funds so far do not make this easy, can someone please step in and fulfill this perfectly valid market need (or is someone already do this)? Hello Silicon Valley, this is your chance to take on Wall Street.
11
I completely agree, calling my brokerage and my 401k administrator and telling them I want to divest of any and all gun funds!!! Make gun companies feel the financial pain, help stop the madness!
9
Yes and unfortunately there are a lot of other problematic categories of public companies, private prison corporations for one, or pharmaceutical companies that price gouge are just two other that come to mind.
1
Google “Socially Responsible Funds”
These already exist.
4
I unloaded my Vanguard funds and invested instead in the ETHO ETF a couple years ago. The ETHO ETF avoids all weapons companies (as well as tobacco, fossil fuels, private prisons, and other dirty industries), and the fund invests in over 300 sustainability and social responsibility leaders in a wide range of other industries. So far the fund is up over 40% since it launched in 2015, which is over 7% better than S&P 500. So I really don't see any financial reasons why all investors aren't dumping weapons companies and investing more responsibly, since I'm making more money than Vanguard and other conventional index funds with this approach!
22
How do I do that with a public school teacher pension? Beyond trying to influence pension managers, what are my options?
2
With my IRA it was as simple as typing in the "ETHO" ticker symbol and buying as many shares as I could afford. I'm not sure how it works with your teacher pension, but you probably do have to engage with your pension fund managers to get them to offer teachers guns-free portfolio options. I'm sure a lot of other teachers in your state also don't want to invest in guns. Do you have a union that could help make sure teachers have investment options that align with your values?
5
Let's see here. I work in the Defense Industry. My wife works in the Defense Industry. My father was Military, taught my brother and I gun safety from before I can remember. I've taught my kids gun safety, and my wife. I've always owned guns, and I don't fear their presence. I most certainly AM NOT a Republican. I DO NOT belong to the NRA. I'm wondering why you are demonizing the NRA? One of the main reasons I am apolitical, is this. "If you don't denounce these guys, that means you support them". It isn't like that, and this is a form of bullying, "You will react like I say you should, or we'll assume you support _________ (enter whatever group you want here, NRA, White Supremists, People that eat too much garlic, People that love Priuses, whatever)."
Sorry, but I won't be pushed around like that.
6
By posting a public comment that you have every reason to join but have not, you yourself are denouncing the NRA. That’s a worthwhile thing to do. So thank you.
5
I think a better return on your efforts would be to economically boycott the entertainment industry that proudly promotes and profits from depictions of the violent use of firearms.
Two birds with one stone if you start with Miramax/Weinstein Pulp Fiction. Kill Bill.
7
The idea of a link between entertainment violence and real life carnage has been debunked. As reported in this paper, the only predictor of gun violence in an area is the amount of guns in area. Controlling for everything else: domestic violence, gang membership, entertainment options, etc., still leaves only the number of firearms.
5
It's pretty simple to divest weapons, while still holding an index (like the S&P500). You just can't do it with funds. I work at www.openinvest.co, and there's a free tool there that will show you which gun companies are in your current portfolio. You can then launch a passive portfolio that tracks the same index as your fund, while divested from weapons, or any other companies you like (including those who sponsor the NRA). Vanguard, TIAA-CREF simply don't have the tech.
6
The headline is misleading. Owning publicly traded shares is not the same thing as giving a company money.
10
I would like to hear from responsible NRA member gun owners about how each of the following proposals for military style weapons would affect them and why:
Registration for each gun owned.
Testing and Licensing periodically renewed.
Regular inspection of gun storage on the Licencee’s premises.
Licence identification number coded on the bullets.
Gun digitally locked and unlocked.
I suspect that the majority of respectable law abiding gun owners would not have a problem
with some regulations.
The case will be made that only criminals will have the military weapons.
That would be GREAT!
Set a DATE! CONFISCATE those weapons. Enlist SOCIAL MEDIA
to find them. IMPOSE a LIFETIME BAN on the failure to meet the deadline. REGISTER the offenders.
The unresponsible gun owners would be identified, everyone could go back to investing in gun companies that manufacture guns for the police, the military and responsible gun owners how they wish.
7
Registered with whom?
Testing and Licensing to what standard and end purpose?
Regular inspection by whom?
Serialized ammo at what cost ?
Digitally locked/unloacked by whom ?
These are not reasonable proposals as they simply are meant to impede responsible ownership. There are a millions of legal and responsible gun owners today. the above proposals are thinly veiled attempts to inventory and then confiscate legally purchased and owned firearms.
1
The argument that gun regulation proposals are "thinly veiled attempts to inventory and then confiscate legally purchased amnd owned fiearms" is a false argument. We regulate the ownership of cars in a similar fashion, and no one is confiscating your car from you, correct?
4
SG, I use a work truck and it is exempt from registration and licensing, so you are correct in that no one is confiscating it from me.
I found a website that checks whether or not your investment funds include gun stocks, and what percent of the fund is in gun companies:
https://goodbyegunstocks.com
7
We need a tax on civilian purchases of Military style rifles to cover the costs needed to work effectively as a nation toward a temporary set of solutions. Or require insurance on these purchases to protect the tax payers from the inordinate expense of rebuilding schools and lives.
2
Thank you for the research and analysis. Following the money is just one aspect, but necessary aspect, to effect change. If pension plans and university endowments can decide to divest themselves of tobacco and fossil fuel companies after just a few years of lobbying , then it is entirely feasible that they may also divest themselves of military and gun and addictive drug manufacturers as well. Why not? It just takes concentrated and organized effort over a long time but it can happen. I see a future where gun ownership becomes like smoking, or it’s just not cool anymore. It may take generations, but with 5 million kids turning 18 every year, and just as many elderly dying each year, in 20 years the voting population will be considerably changed.
5
Putting downward pressure on gun stocks will greatly assist these companies as they use profits to buy back their stock at a discount.
Companies use the sale of stock to get low cost capital, being able to buy back that stock at a discount with their profits enhances their bottom line even further.
2
My employer already offers a tobacco-free index fund. How hard would it be to add firearms to that? I doubt that it would make any discernible difference in performance. If a large number of investors shifted their money into such funds, it could hurt the stock prices of firearms companies. It would also send a message that might encourage the gun lobby and their congressional allies to moderate their positions. Money talks.
6
I used to invest heavily in a socially-conscious mutual fund called Parnassus Core Equity. They're an actively managed fund that screens out companies involved in alcohol, tobacco, gambling, weapons, and nuclear energy. Cool. I was doing "good" with my investments. The problem, though, is Parnassus got trounced by the S&P 500 for the three years I owned it, and I was paying an expense ratio just under 0.9% for mediocre performance. I was padding Parnassus' wallet and making little money for myself, even though the market was roaring. So I got out, and switched to Vanguard index funds. I'm glad I did.
The whole point of a total stock market index fund is that you don't have to hire someone to make decisions. That makes them dirt cheap, meaning you keep more of your money. The fund blindly invests in nearly 3,600 publicly traded companies. Yes, a small fraction of your investment consists of gun manufacturers. But I would rather see good returns via index fund, even if I inadvertently invest a sliver of my money in "reprehensible" companies, than suffer mediocre returns via active fund, by paying a 1% fee to a "socially-conscious" suit, year after year after year.
If you don't like guns, don't buy them. But be wary about divesting: moving the core of your investments from passive index to active management is almost certain to enrich your fund manager at your expense. I can think of better ways to fight the gun lobby than by making myself poorer, and the rich richer.
5
People can develop socially responsible yet passive indexes to solve that issue.
2
There apparently are such indexes, but I doubt they go far enough to satisfy many NYT readers.
For instance, Vanguard has a fund called the FTSE Social Index Investor that tracks the FTSE4Good U.S. Select Index. It divests from vice companies, nuclear power, etc., but it omits only the worst offenders, so it still invests in companies with mediocre sustainability records.
That's the rub: sustainability is a criterion that's begging for an active management solution. If you want to pick only the most sustainable companies for your hypothetical index, you're limiting yourself to a fraction of the market, and the index is bound to change all the time. It runs against the entire philosophy of index investing, which is: buy and hold the entire market, cheaply.
I've seen ads on Morningstar for a socially-conscious fund family. They featured a young black lady saying "I want gender equality and performance." I researched their funds, and they turned out mediocre: front-load fees, a high expense ratio, middling performance... I'm just wary that people who want to do "good" and invest in a socially-conscious way are liable to get ripped off by inevitably embracing active management. If you own the total stock market through a low-cost index fund, you've maxed out your risk-adjusted reward and bypassed Wall Street middlemen entirely. That for me is far more rewarding than boycotting 1,000 different companies for 1,000 different reasons, and being poorer as a result.
1
Thank you for this article. This is why I read the NY Times. I have made a query about the funds that I hold.
5
Of course your investment funds are in gun companies! Unless you are doing your own trading, there is o way to avoid this. therefore, this article is pretty useless to the average person. Why not tell us which companies continue to support the slaughter of children?
3
Just cancelled my Amazon Prime.
"You May Not Know You’re Giving Money to Gun Companies"
Catchy headline, but I suspect you have it backwards.
Your money for purchases of stock don't go to the company unless you or your agent buys from the distributor for a new issue. You or your agent may buy shares from others who own shares but that money doesn't go to the gun companies. You or your agent might sell shares to a gun company doing a stock buyback, but then the gun company is giving you money. I would guess that you or your agent buying gun company bonds would be likely to do that in the secondary market and, again, the money would not go to the gun company. In fact, a more accurate headline might read "You May Not Know You're Getting Money from Gun Companies" because gun company stocks in your accounts may pay dividends. If you don't want money from gun companies that is the reason not to own their shares directly and not to own shares in funds that own gun company stock or bonds.
1
Yep I know . I was in a socially conscience investment and it made little to no profit. Very Very frustrating for me. My contempt for humanity grows by the day.
2
Used to have accounts at Vanguard and Fidelity. Now I'm glad I moved them elsewhere.
1
Looks like the NRA pretty much owns our federal government and the governments of most of the states.
I'd say it's way past time for a divestiture movement with respect to weapons manufacturers.
3
Better divest from fast food companies and car companies while you're at it, since they are involved in more deaths than firearms are, and at a higher rate.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php
Most things are dangerous when misused, its the person doing the misusing that is to blame, not the inanimate object.
2
The only way that a stock purchase gives money to the company is if the stock is bought directly from the company. Most trades are between third parties and just give money to other investors. Sometimes those stockholders selling are insiders, but even that isn’t giving money to manufacturers. This idea that owning stock is giving money to a company is simplistic and usually inaccurate.
5
I respect the variety of opinions being expressed, and appreciate the viewpoints I hadn't thought of regarding investing in gun stocks.
Since there are legitimate uses for gun manufacturing (police, military, sportsmen/sportswomen), then why isn't the call to divest of guns stocks being narrowly focused on whatever company makes the AR-15, and the maker of bump stocks? Would that be a way to avoid what seems to the inevitable backlash?
4
Isn't Vanguard the 401K plan administrator for the NYT?
Click bait. Plain and simple. Just because my mutual fund or ETF owns shares a gun company doesn't mean I'm complicit. False equivalency all the way. Since we are on this topic, how about the NYT do a story on the sugar industry, since 12% of all deaths in the US could be attributed to diabetes? Here's a citation:
University of Pennsylvania. "Diabetes accounts for more US deaths than previously thought, study shows." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 25 January 2017.
I can picture the title now: Eat sweets? You may be promoting the insidious deaths of millions of Americans.
I can't the NYT allowed this article to be published. Seems like critical thinking is missing.
3
Maybe you're not personally responsible for gun sales, but should you really feel good about collecting dividends towards your retirement from the profits on gun sales? This article alerts people to that reality so they can divest if this bothers them. And if most people divest, those remaining who stick by gun corps will lose money, as they should. Vote with your wallet.
7
False false equivalency. You control your sugar intake. You can’t control your bullet intake unless you’re committing suicide. If that’s the case you would control your risk of death by diabetes.
3
I hate this pointing finger game. Let's be real here. Mutual fund companies do their business based on profitability not morality. The writers who wrote this piece, you're hijacking your moral value on those companies and your readers. What's the point of this?
1
Please, NYTimes, drill down and keep us informed as to how the supply chain works: from gun manufacturers to shipping services to distributors to retailers to resellers to storage companies. Tell us the names of these companies so we can verify with our financial advisors, funds and banks whether they invest in, or loan money to, those who are instrumental to violence.
6
As is pointed out, investment in firearms companies can be complicated for fund managers, let alone for shareholders. However, it can't be nearly as complicated as some of the hedging and index-based models now routine in nearly all investment firms. If one of the large firms had the foresight to offer something like a "S&P minus guns" fund, or better a firm-wide no-gun investment policy, investors would almost certainly flock to them and abandon Vanguard, TIAA and the others that lack the courage to do so.
4
You're giving money to gun companies when you pay your taxes.
5
Gun stocks are going up now. Time to invest!
2
Other companies may have men who've sexually harassed women at their heads as well. Even worse, some of these companies may employ people who did something so terrible like help vote "that man" into the White House. We cannot, in good faith, support any company that does anything that disagrees with us. Doesn't matter how good their product is or how far it is from the heinous act. It's the only way to get our message across.
I suppose the only thing left for those of us who want 100% moral purity in all things we support in any way is to sell everything we own, give away all our money, and buy nothing. Then we have to hope that the handouts on which we will live will not come from Christian groups that don't support LBGT rights as they should.
2
This is starting to sound a lot like the apartheid days in the former South Africa. Divest yourselves of Krueggerands! Which a lot of us did, along with selling our shares in gold-mining companies. Because, as we all know, apartheid was a system which needed to fail, so withdrawing all financial support for such a regime was a sound strategy.
Now, is this how NYT readers view firearms? All firearms are bad? All companies which manufacture firearms are bad? That's a LONG way from talking about the regulation (including ultimate prohibition) of certain types of high-capacity firearms favored by mass shooters.
By all means, don't invest in companies whose products you either don't support or which don't interest you. But let's try to stay focused on the big picture, which is not the abolition of private ownership of all firearms (is it?), but the regulation of those classes which serve no legitimate purpose except in the hands of law enforcement and the military.
1
For people who want to replace funds that include gun stocks, this is a great way to identify both what your funds own and what alternative funds exist with similar profiles but without gun stocks: https://goodbyegunstocks.com/
1
If you want to choke the supply of handguns, Fedex has to be the target. They are the only carrier that ships handguns via economical ground; the Postal Service does not accept them and UPS will only ship via costly next day air. For rifles, the Postal Service ships but is rarely used, leaving most of the business to Fedex and UPS. No wonder Fedex has double-talked around this (very profitable) issue.
12
Please keep up the good work unearthing the way money ends up in the pockets of companies that benefit from massive private gun ownership and meager limitations on purchasing.
6
I have instructed my financial services to divest from any holdings invested in the gun industry. I want no gain from greedy blood money.
3
80% of stocks are held by 10% of Americans, and pension plans are rare these days. Still, I wouldn't want a penny of my money benefiting the instruments of death industry.
2
It would be a great business opportunity for Fidelity or Vanguard to offer stock index funds in which firearms makers have been deleted.
16
If you have a financial planner, you can do that yourself. We have told our FA that we don't want any gun or oil-related stocks. That certainly hasn't hurt our invention income. There are lots of good investments out there that don't kill people or the environment.
I'm not sure what the recent spate of over the top opinion pieces are concerning the gun industry and the opinion that everything they touch is toxic.
There are many legitimate gun owners, sportsmen, hunters, target shooters, and of course those who feel they have the right to have a gun if they choose and there are no judgements against them to remove that right.
After all, many of these commercial producers are also involved with arming our military service people with the finest most dependable arms today.
The far reach of this article has exceeded reason and in my opinion has seriously reduced the momentum and careful thought being given to reducing attack weapons.
5
It's not the legitimate gun owners, sportsmen, hunters, or target shooters some of us have issues with. It's selling AR-15 like assault weapon to any Tom, Dick, or Harry (or Susan, I guess, but I'm doubting the percetange of women who own such weaponry is very high) who decides they want to play Rambo. There is no logical reason other than selfishness that these types of weapons are available to the public at large. Buy every shotgun, rifle, pistol your heart desires. Just don't buy weapons whose sole purpose is killing people.
1
The author and commenters either forgot or do not know one of the most basic economic principles: markets are efficient. Stock price is a reflection of the projected health of a company. And since markets are efficient, if you sell positions in a company for personal reasons that have nothing to do with that company's performance, the price won't change. By all means, move your money to "ethical" funds! They exist and aren't hard to find. But all you are doing is moving money from your pocket to the pocket of someone with fewer scruples than you.
To attack these companies, you have to attack the bottom line. That means changing regulations and consumer behavior so that they sell fewer guns, or that their profit margins go down. Let's go do that! Because shuffling stocks will do nothing.
1
Pushing these companies to divest may be the only way to stop the NRA and the gun manufactures given the situation in congress and red states. It is a morally bankrupt society that views profits over lives....
3
It is your money and you may choose how to buy or invest. However, having said that, I refuse, absolutely refuse to fund an organization that controls a large part of Congress. The NRA has become an organization intent on making money other than safety for our children. They have bought and paid for their protection by buying the votes of "their"politicians using my money. No more.
3
I heard last night that the lt governor of Georgia threatened Delta for pulling there name from the NRA by not offering discounts. So the Ga. official decides it seems on his own to stop giving Delta a break on its fuel taxes. Seems to me when Delta decided to do what it did it was based on what took place in Parkland Florida and was has become a regular thing in this country. The Georgia Lt Governor basically told (ordered)Delta to re-instate its partnership with the NRA he would take away fuel tax breaks they were or had been giving them. First Trump uses the DACA kids as blackmail/extortion and now we have Georgia doing the same. Vote Them Out!!
31
Maybe, just maybe, Delta will get tired of being blackmailed by two-bit politicians in their home state and find another hub. I hear both Cincinnati and Pittsburgh have very large airports that are significantly under-utilized. Maybe I'm wrong, but the legislators of PA or OH (well, having lived in OH for about 7 years, I might be wrong there) are probably smart enough not to give away many thousands of jobs because Wayne LaPierre had a hissy-fit.
So let me see if I understand , groups can put political pressure on Delta to brake ties with the NRA and that's fine but if an elected official proposes removing tax benefits that's extortion. Can't have it both ways.
Boycott companies that continue to support the NRA and give their members discounts, for instance FedEx. and others.
11
The real question is are they good performer? Who cares if you disagree with their products. Do you agree with meat producers? Big pharma? Arms manufacturers? Liberal media? ICE car manufacturers? Online retailers? If you are dumb enough to chase lower gain, good, more money and influence for those that made better decisions.
4
I wonder how many cyclists and hikers realize that Savage Arms parent company Vista Outdoor also owns CamelBak, Giro, Bushnell, Bollé, Camp Chef, and Jimmy Styks. I see that a petition is underway at change.org asking Mountain Equipment Co-op to stop selling Vista products. No more Giro helmets or CamelBaks for this biker.
6
What ridiculous narrow-minded thinking. Many of these firearm companies provide guns/rifles/ammo to law enforcement, DEA, government, military, etc., in addition to those who hunt and use firearms for personal protection and sport shooting (yes, even the olympics have shooting).
21
You raise an important point. The object of this disinvestment should be political, and should not be permanent. So long as these gun manufacturers can force, on the threat against their own financial interests, the NRA to abstain from virulent political lobbying to oppose commonsense safety considerations, the call for divestment in these gun manufacturing companies are justified. However, if the result of this call is to force NRA into a less virulent lobby agent, and if in the future commonsense gun laws are passed, we should no longer oppose reinvestment to sports companies and gun manufacturers. Social transformation sometimes require temporary sacrifices; this is no different.
13
"Desperate times call for desperate measures." The cowardice of Republican politicians (NYT pointed out earlier this week that 99 percent of the NRA's hush money goes to Republicans) has led us to reactions such as this.
9
If it's ridiculous and narrow-minded to be alarmed with the continuing carnage of the innocent so that the minority of the self-centered can indulge a collective gun fetish, then by that definition of either term, ridiculous and narrow-minded I choose to be. (Personal protection via fire arms wouldn't be needed in our society were it a society without fire arms.)
6
Investment advisers often say to buy a piece of everything and not to choose individual stocks. I invest in a few companies that 1) are well run and have a solid history, 2) provide products and services I believe are important. So far, a few decades later, it has been working pretty well.
I would never invest in a 1) financial, 2) defense, 3) pharma, 4) tobacco, 5) guns. It's time for a another, broadened 'Bank Transfer Day'. Money talks.. Remember? It's speech...
2
It is extremely easy for these fund companies to construct benchmarks that exclude certain industries. Institutional investors do it all of the time. If a stock or group of stocks are out of your benchmark, not owning them can't hurt your relative performance, which is all that the Portfolio Managers are graded on. Investors in these funds need to demand that gun stocks (or private prisons or whatever) be excluded from the benchmarks and be prohibited in the funds. Individuals need to demand that their employers offer gun-free investment choices in 401k packages.
3
One can always profit from that which fosters duality. Between The haves and havenots, men and women, earth and sky. The real issue is the degree of imbalance.
1
Taking guns away from •law-abiding• & •sane• people is not going to keep hardened criminals and psychopaths from committing horrendous crimes with guns or with motor vehicles. Mowing people down with a truck or car is no different than mowing them down with a gun. The emphasis has to be on identifying criminals and psychopaths to get them off the streets until they are rehabilitated.
2
That's very good parroting of the line that the gun-industry lobby group, aka the NRA, feeds everyone. A shame it's not true.
11
There is no discussion I'm aware of that supports "taking guns away from law abiding & sane people", but rather growing outrage that psychopaths have unfettered access to fire arms let alone assault rifles, or what some of us had traditionally known as . We have identified criminals and psychopaths reasonably well actually. What, ironically and tragically, we've failed to do is keep them from wandering into the next gun show or entering into a private, irresponsible citizen to nut job transaction to obtain a bump stock modified AR-15 with multiple magazines. Or is there some serious attempt to reconcile having such weapons, by anyone, for hunting? Hunting what, for goodness sake? Is hunting with a machine gun a sport? Or is there alleged concern that one will encounter a bad guy with an assault weapon? How about hand grenades, mortars, bazookas and howitzers? Where would that end. A society devoid of military weaponry is a society that has no fear of people having a private stash of WMD. Today assault rifles, tomorrow tactical nukes?
This is how the free market is supposed to work. People should have to pay for their biases.
6
We could use this same analysis to show that Amrericans are supporting other industries that people dislike or would rather not be involved with: tobacco, alcohol, pornography, oil and gas, etc.
Let's focus on real issues and not try to draw fuzzy lines between the gun industry to large portions of the population.
12
You're right Ben, it's a huge problem. So let's start small and just focus on guns for now.
7
There are ethical investment companies especially those catering to members of particular religious groups. However it is strange to think one wouldn’t care about investing in something like pornography.
1
But it's important information that helps people make choices. The comment directly below yours is a case in point.
9
I am a bicyclist and recently learned with horror that these popular bicycle product manufactures, Bell, Giro, Blackburn, CamelBak, and Copilot, are subsidiary companies of Vista Outdoor, a gun and ammo manufacturer.
I will no longer purchase these bicycle products.
118
Thank you for that information! This is why these companies hire the NRA to be their smoke-screen.
2
Here's my understanding after a conversation with my Fidelity advisor. If I want to stop investing in the weapons and fossil fuel industries, I can 1) talk to my employer and ask them to offer choices for having "socially responsible" investment advisors as opposed to only Fidelity, 2) stop using Financial Engines and manage my 401K on my own. Since 1 is unlikely to have any affect, and I may be smart in some areas, but not in managing my own money, it looks hopeless on the surface. However, since I just retired I am able to do the following (despite the fact that Fidelity warned me not to "cut off my nose to spite my face"): move my entire 401K to an IRA and find a "socially responsible" fund manager. If Fidelity is smart, IMHO, they should remove gun companies from their indices anyway, because they're stock will start plummeting soon anyway.
75
Plummeting? I doubt that. And I think Fidelity gave you some good advice. A hedge fund manager is not socially responsible by definition. And a final thought Sue, trying to find any investments that are not in some way tied to the military industrial complex is impossible. That is like the celebrities that threatened to move to Canada when Trump got elected. Why did you not move your money after Combine or Las Vegas? Is the media making you do it? Really think about it. This is your financial future you are messing around with, for what? To make a point to no one because the media talks you into thinking you are part of the problem? Don't believe it for a minute. You are no more a part of the problem now that ever. That is like feeling guilt because you are American. You are smarter than that.
Check out the ETHO ETF. It's fully divested from guns (as well as other socially irresponsible industries), and it's invested in sustainability and social responsibility leaders in other industries. Since I shifted my IRA to ETHO I've also been substantially outperforming most of the conventional index funds!
1
Mark, yes, I am smarter than you seem to imply. For example, the media didn't tell me to do anything with my money, and if anyone did, I wouldn't follow their advice without thinking things through. There are many more important things to my future and the future of America than making sure I get the maximal profit on my investments. To me, that is doing whatever I can to get assault weapons out of the hands of civilians. I choose to invest in a future worth living for.
The movement towards a safer and saner approach to the sale and use of firearms appears to be gaining traction...hopefully "speaking with one's wallet" will help to effect a change in the present gun culture.
Just as an aside, of the persons shown in the foreground of the photo accompanying the article, I count 23 men 3 women and a baby. While this is a wee bit of strictly anecdotal evidence, it occurs to me that there is a possibility that electing more women might be advisable!
3
Thank you for the heads up. My 401k's are tied up in Vanguard too and it never occurred to me that I've been supporting a merchant of death. Not any more.
13
Not anymore, really? So how are you going to manage your 401k? Invest yourself into the poor house?
As mentioned in the article, Vanguard allows you to choose your investments so I'll simply exclude Sturm Ruger, American Outdoor and Vista Outdoor.
I am considering moving all my 401K funds to another holder. Will try to determine ones without guns in the portfolios I select. Fidelity is involved with a local newspaper that slants toward all GOP candidates and pro gun issues. I was already irked and considering a change as soon as taxes were done.
5
Just sent a copy of the NYT's info on how we might have $ invested in plans that include NRA plans to our broker. I'll let you know what transpires as we asked to be freed from any such investment program involving the NRA.
5
TIAA-CREFF should divest its stakes, however small, in gun manufacturing companies until a socially responsible gun ownership law is in place.
17
Not surprising but still infuriating that many of us are unintentional investors in the immoral firearms industry. I will look into ways of disentangling myself and my assets.
This was a helpful story. I hope the Times continues to shine light on this industry.
11
So you don't mind being an "unintentional investor" in the war profiteering industry? global warming profiteering industry? state sponsored information technology spying industry? saturated fats industry? Not interested in "disentangling" yourself from these? Ever?
1
It's not just stocks and investments. Cerberus Capital owns Remington weapons as well as Albertson's/Safeway, the second largest traditional grocery store chain in the USA. If you shop those supermarkets, are you supporting gun manufacturers? You decide...
5
I don't even talk to my brokers. I got one of those remote Roth IRAs. They could be funding drug shipments from Bolivia for all I know.
5
Technically speaking, if you don't invest in a primary offering by a gun manufacturer (like an IPO) you aren't giving them your money.
I don't think people much care about the technicality right now. It's all part of the money chain. IMO people are finding out and paying more attention to investment matters and maybe the side effect of all this is a more informed investment populace—that's good I think.
1
In America, even if the companies in which you own stock do not promote guns, or climate change, or unhealthy foods, drug abuse, or environmental destruction, they nevertheless likely support the corruption of our political system through the lobbying & bribery that prevents the public interest from setting sensible legal boundaries on economic behavior. The only way to ensure the morality of your investments is to define and ensure, by law, the morality of corporations and economic life.
3
I'm OK with that. But that is me personally. If you're NOT OK with that, then you're welcome to divest of your ETF and buy individual securities. You can include any combination of individual stocks, from any companies that you approve of. There are plenty of other people who are OK with owning weapon manufacturer stocks besides me. That's our choice, just as it is your choice not to.
8
Let's not leave out drug companies in the portfolio that have had a direct hand in killing thousands of Americans in the opioid epidemic.
3
The number of US citizens killed by guns in the YS is more that those killed in wars. A shocking and shameful significant, not tolerated in any other developed country. Whilst significant, I don’t believe that the number killed by opioids is of the same order of magnitude.
1
A friend just shared this site with me: https://goodbyegunstocks.com/
Info is from 2016, so may be somewhat out of date, but it could be a good place to begin. The funds included go beyond Vanguard.
4
Yeah, and Boeing sells airplanes and equipment to reprehensible governments all over the world, not mention Goldman Sachs and its nefarious investments.
So what's your point, assuming you don't mind profiting from such sales by owning Boeing?
3
While we're at it we might as well sever ties with pharmaceutical companies, alcohol and cigarette makers. We can't exclude car manufacturers either who's products kill 100 thousand Americans a year. Just as bad are sugar producers and all the companies who use it in their products. Killing innocent people is still killing whether by a gun, a car, a drug or sugar, right? So let's take the moment to stop support to all killers of our countrymen.
14
Right on!
Taking guns away from •law-abiding• & •sane• people is not going to keep hardened criminals and psychopaths from committing horrendous crimes with guns or with motor vehicles. Mowing people down with a truck or car is no different than mowing them down with a gun. The emphasis has to be on identifying criminals and psychopaths to get them off the streets until they are rehabilitated.
2
There is a big difference. Cars are not weapons of destruction of lives but are means of transport; guns are weapons of destruction of lives. The collateral of transport is accidental death; the collateral of food consumption, which is a means of survival and not of destruction, can be death due to diabetes or stroke. Therefore, food items and cars belong in the same category but guns in a different category. It is somewhat disappointing to make this distinction known in a deliberate manner to American adults. It ought to be an intuitive understanding.
4
.....don't stop at sugar producers, how about fast food, oil and gas producers, coal miners, all miners, GMO seed manufacturers, the ethanol industry, any industry with a Weinstein film connection, pulp and paper producers, etc. etc. etc.
Foolishness reigns supreme.
2
We live on a farm. I have five guns—12 gauge shotgun, 22 cal rifle, .243 rifle .45 pistol and Daisy BB gun. I don’t hunt. We have coyotes walking through the yard, raccoons on the porch, badgers digging in the yard. People have dumped their dogs countless times. We came home from town one day and found a snarling pit bull tied to a tree in our front yard. Feral cats are always picking a fight with our sweet kitty Jewel. We need a gun out here. Ar 15s are not necessary and should be outlawed.
160
Feral cats, raccoons, coyotes? I've got all that in Philadelphia, and I feel no need for a gun. I have been robbed at gunpoint, however, by someone who did apparently feel a gun would be helpful.
5
Thank you for this - I much appreciate the perspective and am really heartened to read of reasonable views from gun owners.
For crissake Alden, have you no heart? You shoot them instead of using humane methods to deter their presence?
I too have had wild animals on my property but would never consider killing them merely because they exist.
Call animal control, a rescue or shelter for the dumped dogs. As for the wild animals, what did you expect? You chose to live on a farm, of course they'll show up from time to time. We're encroaching on their habitat, not the other way around. There are many ways to scare off unwelcome critters without harming them.
8
A nice on-line tool I just found that can tell you how much of your investments are in gun stocks. Search for "goodbye gun stocks"!
1
i found this site, but the information is from 2016 it looks like.
I do not have a problem with this possibility. Thank you.
2
Please consider joining the FB group Parents and Kids Against NRA. We are a group of concerned parents about gun safety laws. We are not gun haters. We just want to reduce the influence of NRA bribe money on our politicians. We accept democrats, republicans, independents as members. We do not accept donations.
14
Dear Vanguard:
As someone who is invested in several of your mutual funds products, I am disappointed to read your morally recumbent comments in the New York Times today that “mutual funds are not optimal agents of social change.” The hedge word you chose, of course, is “optimal.” It may once have been the case that there were optimal means for social change—the political system, for example. But as is abundantly clear by now, the political system is hopelessly dysfunctional. So, in fact, I and thousands like me will now be looking to Vanguard and other investment managers—suboptimal though you may be—as agents for effective change.
Let me be concise. I expect not to be invested in blood money enterprises. And gun and ammunition manufacturers—especially those of semiautomatic weapons for sale on the common market—are profiting from a business that results in thousands of needless deaths and untold suffering every year. You are on notice that I intend to divest myself of any small cap or medium cap mutual funds that are in any way contributing to the manufacture of assault weapons. If you do not do it for me, I will do it for you. Please wake up to the realities of what money to these companies allows to persist in this blood-soaked country.
Sincerely,
Morgan Davis, Ph.D. (he/him/his)
33
I own Vanguard funds, so I called them to chat about this. Turns out the VAST majority of their funds have no holdings in gun manufacturers! The ones that do are primary ETFs. I agree with MGI. Let's pump the brakes a bit here!
5
This may well be the most effective tool we have to break the hold over our government of these masters of war.
Keep up the pressure. Call all financial institutions you deal with and demand they divest from Murder, Inc.
5
An article of utmost necessity. Thank you.
3
Here are some mid-cap and small-cap Vanguard and TIAA-CREF funds below that I just sold out of my retirement portfolios. It will leave my investments without allocations for mid and small caps, but I will be happy to reduce my returns, and maybe these two financial institutions and others will get sensible and screen American Outdoor Brands and Sturm, Ruger out of these funds. Until then, you can remove the funds from your portfolio and ask TIAA, Vanguard or whoever manages similar mutual funds to make the screens themselves:
Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund: VIEIX
Vanguard Small Cap Index Fund: VSCIX
TIAA-CREF Small Cap Blend Index FUND: TISBX
5
Also, other gun manufacturers and NRA underwriters are Olin and Vista Outdoor, Inc., both of which are publicly-traded small cap companies found in most small cap index funds offered by Vanguard, etc. For instance, Olin and Vista are both holdings in Vanguard's small cap index fund (VSCIX)
1
Can you please write another article about companies that give discounts to NRA members? I was disgusted to find out that FedEx does: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fedex-says-it-differs-with-nra-on-gun-issue.... Boycott.
18
I found a web site that tells you if your fund includes gun stocks. Look for goodbyegunstocks dot com
4
I have taken a socially responsible approach to investing since 2004 and am generally happy. I think performance is comparable, although fees tend to be a bit higher. That said, there appear to be an increasing number of social indexes, that allow you to own "clean" index funds.
That said, as a shareholder and part owner of a company, you do retain the option of making your voice heard when it comes to the way the company is run (assuming management will listen to you). Once you divest you lose that voice.
1
Unless you are a billionaire, you could not possibly own enough stock in any of these companies for your voice to make a difference.
Not only am i giving money to them without knowing it, but we are also funding the external costs of guns by not having an insurance requirement.
5
I invested some money this past year with a brokerage company. First thing I told them: no weapons,no oil. My investment is doing quite well. I encourage all investors to do the same.
2
Years ago, I decided there were certain things I would not invest in and moved my money accordingly. Social investing is not new, there are many good investment options that screen for environmental, human rights, guns and other criteria. Yes, most of the large companies also have at least one of these screened funds. Some call this naive and not good investing, but I believe it is clear the most successful companies will be those that are run ethically. By the way, my investments seem to bear this out.
29
I no longer am part of it, but I seem to remember that TIAA-CREF had something called the "Social Choice Equity Fund". Other investment firms must have the same.
5
Hit them where it hurts. Fire a hundred rounds into their pocketbook. I don't want any of my investments to fund gunmakers or companies that support them. If we can't vote the changes we need for gun safety there are other ways to stop the carnage. Military weapons shouldn't be street weapons available to anyone, any time.
23
I am a strong proponent of gun control and have a five figure investment in Vanguard Target Retirement date funds. The holds if both AOB and Sturm Ruger are <0.01% in the underlying index funds (total stock market, total international stock market). Can we pump the brakes a little bit here before we hit the panic button?
4
Yes, I was told the same info from Vanguard. However, if those funds hold 0.01% of such companies, why even bother? I don't care if it's 0.001 or 99%. I don't want to make any income off of such companies. So I transferred all of my money out.
15
pump the brakes ? so that you can retain some profits from gun manufacturers?
dump those fund NOW.
(disclosure, I may buy them if the price is right)
1
I am in the process of doing the same. If each of the millions of Vanguard investors took this action that 0.01 percent would quickly become a weighty punch.
2
People who don't want guns in their portfolio can pull out of equities and invest in cash. Or look for one of those funds that invest only in "socially responsible" companies.
12
I just searched Vanguard:
Small Cap funds and market-wide indexes hold these gun stocks. Notably, NOT the S&P 500.
Even the fact that some have changed their names indicates how toxic the real names are!
This is just one tiny step, as for example Vanguard tells you that market-wide indexes like the Total Stock Index holds less than .01% of each of these toxic stocks. (When you search, not only does Vanguard indicate the funds holding the stock - you need to search by stock symbols - but what % of that funds invests in it.)
Thanks very much, Times, for the link!
Whatever each of us can do, that’s part of accomplishing a squeeze on these toxic holdings.
35
please join Parents and Kids Against NRA. We need your help. And, invite your friends and family members.
2
I have both fidelity and vanguard and will be contacting both this week to either divest me from these shares or lose my business. I have never considered this in my life but am frankly sick of these gun merchants and their harebrained ideas. If they want to buy politicians who believe it is fine to add more guns, then they can do it without my financial support.
93
While the article's body is fine, the title (You Might Be Giving Gun Companies Money, Even if You Don't Own a Gun) is quite misleading. Owning a share of a stock or bond you bought on the secondary market doesn't mean you are "giving" the company money. You gave your money to the seller of the shares. That is only true if you buy at issuance (IPO) of the stock or bond. I'm not saying that should assuage all concerns about owning gun stocks, but the title is just inaccurate.
7
Buying stock supports the stock price which has a variety of benefits to the company. So, indirectly the company still receives benefits (money) through the ownership of its stock.
5
BING! Winner!
Unless you are buying into an IPO, your money does not go to a gun company. End of story.
Take your gun company dividends and send them to the Democratic Party if you want to stop sales of AR-15s.
2
By that logic, selling the stock would harm the company. Of course in every trade there is a buyer and seller, so the net effect would (by definition) be neutral. Also, buying shares does not "support the price." It indicates the price at any given moment but it does not determine whether the price will be higher or lower at any later time. Also, there is no way of knowing that the price paid at a given moment is an accurate (or even close) expression of the true value of the company. Hence, at best, the buyer is "supporting" a price that is incorrect.
Meanwhile, in addition to the utterly misleading headline (in the sense of being completely ignorant of what the stock market is and does) it is equally inaccurate to say "you probably are a gun owner." That's like saying if you own GM shares you are a Cadillac owner.
Eventually, NYT will lecture the world about financial illiteracy. It will make no mention of its unique contribution to the problem.
Finally, before anyone gets all sanctimonious on this so-called issue, unload your Wal-Mart shares and every fund that holds them. They are a huge gun-seller and thus are the real customers of the manufacturers. Good luck finding a replacement investment.
I just asked my financial advisor to change any of our stocks or funds that are connected in any way to the gun industry.
16
Me too.
The United Federation of Teachers has financial holdings in various mutual funds that include stock in gun manufacturers, yet they are the first ones to call for banning the sale of guns. Hypocrisy? You decide.
32
Wow. that's how you want to play this. So sad! let's talk about hypocrisy, Republcians, say they are pro cops, more guns on streets make it deadlier for cops.
7
That is not hypocrisy. I am one of the people who supports banning the assault and military style rifles. I used to be a gun owner. I do not want to ban all guns. Millions of us are sick of NRA. We want sensible gun safety laws just like we have them for our cars. NRA would way guns do not kill people, you can use a knife to kill someone. The Parkland shooting lasted 6 minutes - that is one kill every 10 seconds. OU cannot kill 17 people in 6 minutes with knife or a hammer. I am not even including the number of injuries. Enough is enough. Come to our side.
8
Probably some hypocrites in there, however I suspect that members, at least some members, are not or were not aware of UFT holdings. I know I wasn't. This discussion is very informative—checking my investment portfolio now and contacting the UFT. Thanks for the heads up.
38
I am perplexed by the near-exclusive focus of many of these comments on divestment. Might we not do better by trying to convince Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA-CREF, and Universities and Pension Funds to vote their shares in favor of stockholder initiatives to support common sense gun regulation, and slates of insurgent directors favoring such policies? That might get the attention of the NRA and the politicians.
41
This is a ‘shell game!’ The ‘anti-flavor of the month’ is the firearms industry. The Florida massacre and subsequent student protests have this tragic issue on many hearts and minds. Whereas it is morally good that questions are being asked of the investment industry the real question is: for how long? Years ago there were revelations about major, legacy corporations having benefited from slavery. Those corporations (and universities) still exist and have recouped from any dip in revenues or embarrassment. The gun manufacturers may take a “hit” for being child killers for now, but when this ‘blows over’ watch those hedge funds re-invest in an industry that is the backbone of the military/industrial complex. LBJ proved you can’t have ‘guns and butter’ and keep a straight face! The only thing that “kills” this madness is the repeal of the Second Amendment. Unless you’re expecting to have to shoot it out with the US Armed Forces, you don’t need to kill private citizens. America is too invested in firearms. This gun investment hiatus won’t last as long as America remains an imperialistic belligerent internationally and the ‘Wild West’ at home. When Americans focus more on butter and ‘plowshares’ there will be less citizens needing to shoot their neighbors! But, according to Wall St., “where’s the money in THAT?!”
4
What a stretch.
So, I probably own The Times too? Where does this logic lead?
I own everything because I have a retirement account, yeah that's it, you people all work for me.
Some one up there needs to get a life.
3
This is like owning tobacco stocks once was. ( Even the American Medical Association pensions had some tobacco stocks decades ago.)
Not acceptable to most of us to invest In such stock.
So wise up, investment fund managers!
22
So a economic boycott of the manufacturing entities has other consequences. One should keep in mind that the products are purchased by domestic law enforcement agencies as well as our national defense agencies.
If your intent is disconnect association, consider your message to law enforcement and national defense.
4
No other developed country feels the need to have anything close to the level of gun ownership “needed” in the US. No other developed country has anything close to the level of gun deaths as the US.
What will it take for the US to wise up?
I work at Columbia University. All my savings are with Vanguard. I was dismayed to read this piece and immediately called Vanguard. After looking for a script to read, the representative told me they were NOT planning to divest from these companies. The link in this piece was of no help to me, but after a second call and 20 minutes with an agent, I was able to reshape my portfolio to exclude all investements in gun companies. And here is the irony of it all: the more responsible and mindful Social Index Fund (VFTX) to which I moved part of my savings outperformed my previous fund (the one with ties to gun companies) by almost 3% last year! But I am still leaving Vanguard.
131
The article should have mentioned investment options at Vanguard and elsewhere for people who want investments that don't include gun companies.
19
That will only hurt you, as no other company has the low fees that Vanguard does.
2
Why are you leaving Vanguard if they offer the VFTSX?
Divesting in gun company stocks or funds that hold those stocks may temporarily attempt to disconnect association, or may be an extended attempt at an equity boycott, but it does not affect the company's sales much. A gun company does well if they sell merchandise. A NY anti-gun owner boycotting a gun company probably changes nothing. An entire group of NYers, not much, as they probably didn't buy guns to start. Now, if you got a gun-friendlier state like Texas on board, you'd have sway. That's simply not going to happen on its own though. Plenty of people buy guns, enough to support an industry without the boycotters.
1
The thing is, if for the sake of your own conscience, you don't wish to enrich or endorse the gun industry, you pull the plug on those investments.
10
Not sure you understand capital markets all that much. If it becomes harder or impossible for a company to raise capital, that will most surely be of importance to that company. Demand alone will not overcome that issue.
"Plenty of people buy guns, enough to support an industry without the boycotters." - MH
The majority of Americans disapprove of the NRA's manipulation of politicians and public opinion. The weapons manufacturers will be adversely affected by our boycott (despite your opinion).
Fidelity has hesitated to respond about its investments in weapons manufacturing and retirement funds. One could use the profits from such funds to support politicians and companies brave enough to challenge those manufacturers and their NRA reps.
4
We may not be able to withdraw from a major pension fund which holds stock in gun related companies, but the pensioners can sure write to the Groups to express their dismay.
The only wrong thing to do is nothing.
91
Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon to divest themselves of any interest in a firearms manufacturing kindly consider the following; Every American police and military organization both public and private depend upon the firearms industry to provide them with modern, safe and dependable equipment. These manufacturers are a vital part of the safety and security of the United States. Yes, through retirement funds and other financial instruments we own may very well be invested in the gun industry and that is not a bad thing. We need to remember these industries provide jobs and financial security for their employees. There are craftsmen, designers, and engineers and accountants that are employed by arms manufactures. There is also research and development.
Like it or not guns and gun accessories, ammunition, clothing, and protective gear are an integral part of American industry. While we do not want criminals to use guns and slaughter innocents we cannot starve an important, indeed critical part of our industrial base to suddenly be starved of capital and pushed out of business. Do we really want our gun manufacturers to close? Exactly how would we defend our homes, families and communities? Oh, sure we could import arms but that makes no sense. We need the gun industry. We also need better laws and enforcement to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
I many not want a gun in my home but I do want a well armed and equipped police force and standing army too.
17
Let the manufacturers make rules to police themselves better then. I don't mind getting Italian or German weapons for the police.
If the manufacturer has a contract fo military or police weapons they are doing fine. Dumping them may not hurt them. If the company sells to private parties then they have an ethics problem. The company needs to be outed so pensioners can act on conscience.
4
Most of us understand these companies are not going away. But at least, one by one, we are making statements. We can't say we are for gun reform, and then be making profits for ourselves, and off of such repulsive companies that also profit off of sales of ARs to Private Citizens.
Thank you for this information. These gun manufactures fly under the radar and it is hard to keep up with them. When checking if my 401k included any gun manufactures, I was shocked to learn that "American Outdoor Brands" was previously known as Smith and Wesson. And here I thought they made hammocks and picnic baskets.
56
What’s that? My Fidelity managed 401K is more than likely investing in the military weapons industry?
Why of course.
Why not?
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and the right of Wall Street to invest in the Weapons Industry for profit shall not be infringed.
38
You could pull out of stocks and just invest in cash.
1
"You could pull out of stocks and just invest in cash."
then stuff that cash into a mattress and sit at your door with an AR-15 guarding it.
2
Sorry I disagree; Strong economy, Good Education is much more important to a strong country than a giant military or a huge gun industry.
The 2nd A. has nothing to do with individual ownership, If the founders wanted to used the word; they would of. They used Militia - base on a 6 century word; additionally large standing armies were not the norm in 18th century for many reasons. e.g. Drag on the economy, less people in food production - this was the 18th century... a time of muskets
10
U.S. Constitution was rectified when there were not enough sheriffs to protect citizens, when all sheriffs were on horseback, and when guns were not accurate beyond a few hundred feet and difficult to reload. Now, we have 911 system to cover the entire country and the slowest transportation method for police officers is bike. We also have extremely powerful auto weapons. Those who have no idea about history think their love for guns is holy and their guns cannot be taken away. Do they go by the the Eighteenth Amendment as well? It's high time to have tight gun control and confiscation laws and all business should boycott NRA.
18
Fully agree. Not much appetite for the 3/5th slave vote either but I remember it being part of the constitution. These are not immutable laws. Things change and situations chang. The majority is sick of this minority tyrrany and will not abide by this mindless defense that it is in the constitution and thus beyond reproach or scrutiny.
FYI for those of you 2nd amendment defenders please stop using the whole defense against the government argument. It is ridiculous and just turns folks like me off to even start with a premise that any of you with any hoard of weapons can hold off the government.
7
I don't get the reference to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States - Prohibition - which was repealed by Constitutional means.
You may try to repeal or change the 2cd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but you will never succeed.
1
MPS, look up "Battle of Athens" aka "McMinn County War" to get a better understanding of the role of individual ownership of firearms and government.
I strongly encourage them to divest these gun company stocks, fast, so that I could buy them at cheaper prices.
12
What started as a small campaign to shame those owning assets in South Africa, encouraging the divesting of stocks in South African companies and South African gold coins hastened the end of aspartate. Huge cultural shifts start with small acts of principle by a few people and can quickly gain momentum with the opportunity to bring about dramatic cultural change. It's may not be the end of America's Gun culture but let's hope that it is the beginning of the beginning to that end.
44
I think you meant apartheid. Aspartate is an amino acid for the synthesis of proteins
1
Thank you Utah Native for the point you made on the demise of apartide caused by small acts of principle by a few people. Those Florida kids, who I like to call Generation Courage, may have power-fertilized the seeds of our fast blooming cultural change to end America's Gun culture. We must all continue to raise our voices, register Gen Courage to vote, and vote the Republican gun culture out. NOW!
1
You forget, I live in Utah, totally dependent on spell checker
I do not want to be in these investments for moral reason but also, they are simply a bad investment. Just like fossil fuel has no future, why invest in the past in a product that has killed and will kill hundreds of thousands of people world wide every year? Death is business for long term investors—which we all are.
Buggy whips were a great investment in 1900. By 1915, they were a horrible investment.
Caveat: I will still invest in defense contractors and manufacturers. But if any cross over into non military, other then single shot bolt action long guns for hunting, I am out.
10
After the Sandy Hook massacre, Princeton University declined to act on a petition to divest from gun companies producing assault rifles. Princeton lost an opportunity to be at the forefront of an important battle to save lives.
44
And to Princeton I say thank you. The gains made by investing wisely in an industry that is essential for military, police and sporting purposes will support scholarships and research at Princeton. Without those funds, needy students have to take huge loans and the best faculty leave for institutions who are richer.
4
What if they made fantastic profits only selling assault weapons to child killers? Would you feel the same way?
If not, what if they made fantastic profits selling assault weapons to the military and police and also by marketing to deranged killers? Would that be ok or do you think it might be ok to try to get these firms to stop marketing to deranged killers even if the gains were a little less?
Vanguard may say they "believe mutual funds are not optimal agents of social change," but as distasteful as the gun lobby has become, investors may not want to feel like they have blood on their hands. They can choose to invest elsewhere. When one of these mass murders happens, I cannot tell the difference between the US injuries and those in a war-torn country. The NRA and NSSF only offer more guns to anguished family members. Only their opinions seem to matter, because they are screaming the loudest. I do not want guns in my portfolio, and most sane people do not want more guns offered as a solution. Vanguard, Fidelity, are you listening?
234
I find Vanguard's comment interesting because if anything, they are the agent of mutual fund change.
Curious that they claim that “We believe mutual funds are not optimal agents of social change,” since that is the reason they advertise themselves as "socially responsible" investments. Seems like they are calling their own bluff.
2
As a former 3rd grade teacher, I was horrified to find out about two weeks ago that some of my TIAA-CREF mutual funds include gun manufacturers and other weapons companies. What's the best way to get them to divest?? I plan to get rid of those funds a.s.a.p. but someone else will buy them. TIAA needs to divest completely! It is infuriating.
213
Invest in their annuity type fund then!
Dear friend,
I just got off the phone with TIAA and let them know I will be taking my money out, regardless of penalty, if they do not divest from American Outdoor Brands, maker of the AR-15. Just call their toll free number and talk to an agent, be polite, the phone person does not make the decision, but make sure they push it on up the chain of command and that they let us know what they are going to do.
1
Don't tell us!
Complain to TIAA.
That's what I am doing.
1
Let's dispense with the fiction that shareholders actually control public companies.
Shareholders have no control; shareholders ratify boards of directors, who mutually reinforce and are reinforced by senior management. Dissenting shareholders are doing no more than howling at the moon.
Of all those culpable for gun violence, shareholders are well below those who contribute to and/or vote for NRA-backed political candidates.
2
That's not quite the case. Shareholders are partners with their brokerage firms and do have voice and choice in countering callous decisions, however passive, of profit over principle. My investments with Vanguard will be elsewhere as soon as I can identify an alternative broker with a less rigid, more progressive stance in selecting holdings less enthralled and in league with corporate concentration on profit via devices of death.
7
I disagree, an individual investor can very much demand to not have weapons stocks in their 401K or their personals portfolio! And a group of investors say like a school districts teachers can indeed have their 410K in Finds that support their personal values!
1
There's a world of difference between the IPO market and the secondary market. IPO purchases fund the company, but secondary market purchases do not.
Vanguard isn't in the IPO market for stocks, so the investments Vanguard makes for diversified shareholders don't go to the gun companies. Rather, it goes to the prior investor, who could be anyone.
If you want to crimp gun manufacturers through the stock market, then don't fund their IPOs. Once the shares are trading, the horse has left the barn.
If divesting or selling stocks in gun manufacturing isn't effective in stopping the NRA hold, what is?
6
Peggy
The NRA is nothing without local political zombies who see them through every crisis.
People like the governor of Georgia who threatens to punish companies that withdraw support from the NRA. Like that's a thing.
People like my Senator Portman in Ohio who give the gun lobby everything it wants without a second thought, then drags his poor wife out of the shadows to express thoughts and prayers every time another batch of kiddos bites the dust.
Get involved in local politics. Hold feet to fires. Never give up. Never be quiet.
Thank you to the NY Times for this informative article. My husband and I previously moved around our investments to insure we were in "clean energy" and out of coal. Now we will be reviewing how our life savings are invested at both Vanguard and Fidelity. I am fine with gun rights for hunters and enthusiasts alike but there is imbalance here. Republicans have no issue trampelling on others rights from abortion to citizenship, they along with rabid gun owners and the NRA are protecting antiquated gun rights from back when our country had little law enforcement and roaming wild animals. I am speaking with thoughtful protest by moving my hard earned investments now. Fidelity take notice.
69
It is not just pressuring companies by withdrawing investments, I don't want to help them in any way possible.
18
At least Vanguard allows a search for deathmongers among their funds. As more shareholders move their retirement savings out of those funds they'll get the message.
65
Yup. We must attack this from all sides. I just called Vanguard and moved all my personal investments from various Vanguard Target Retirement accounts into the FTSE Social Index Fund (VFTSX), which is a socially-responsible fund. I will now have to pay taxes on any gains in my former investments, but so be it. ;-) I have sent a message loud and clear, and feel good about it!
54
Thank you for the update. I will send this to family and friends who can do the same.
1
Nothing like sending a message by making yourself poorer. Good strategy. Maybe you should send more messages.
A more direct way people support gun manufacturers is by buying other brands sold by the same company. Vista Outdoor - one of the companies described in your article -- also owns the Bell, Giro, CamelBak, Tasco, Bushnell and other outdoor product brands. Consumers can take much more direct action in protest of Vista's gun products by stopping their purchases of these other brands.
126
Fidelity Investments customer service department responded to my repeated emails about disinvesting in the gun industry by saying my views will be brought to management's attention. While Fidelity might eventually actually shift where their/my money goes, my big goal is shifting the political wind. Big companies taking positions speaks to politicos.
49
Note that the Johnson family, which is the majority owner of Fidelity, is Republican. (Yes, even in Boston!)
17
Just checked this with my Fidelity account yesterday!
11
Fidelity is now run by a woman, Abigail Johnson. She started making headway on their corporate culture to root out sexism. Maybe she can make a change here for socially responsible investing. Wish my employer offered Vanguard funds...
1
There's some talk about divesting out of these gun companies to "pressure them". This is wrong. When you sell off or divest your stake in companies, you sell off your ownership and influence on them. Does it financially affect these companies? Not really. When you sell $100 of a company's shares, the company doesn't lose $100. Someone else just bought it for $100.
10
I get what you say but still, the overall markets will see more people SELLING, and that in and of itself sends a message. In addition, it will now help some of us sleep better at night. We can't say one thing yet behave another way.
6
The idea is that if enough people sell off together, the value goes down and it does hurt the company. But of course gun enthusiasts can just adjust their portfolios to buy more so it isn’t really a “bulletproof” strategy.
2
Quite true. But . . . If enough people and pension funds, etc. divest it will affect the stock prices and, presumably influence the boards of directors who have a fiduciary duty to remaining stock holders.
The trick is to get boards to tell their slaves at the NRA to back off opposition to reasonable gun control, in particular a ban on weapons like the AR-15 in its current configuration.. The other stuff, bump stocks. background checks for all., raise the age limit (the reasoning behind don't drink until 21 is the same as that behind don't have a gun until 21) red flag laws, etc. are No Brainers, which explains why the NRA leadership opposes them.
After all manufacturers can reconfigure the AR-15 design so that it is no longer a WMB (Weapon of Mass Bloodshed) but an honest hunting rifle and sell the safer version.
At any rate, people will have to decide for themselves whether they want ownership in an industry whose leaders to this point have shown themselves indifferent to massacres of America's children and youth.
11
Unlike most consumer goods with built in obsolescence, guns have an ex long shelf life-necessitating aggressive marketing using fear and intimidation in order to sell more their products.
60
Yes, and do you know what the most effective gun marketing campaign is? It is talk of gun control. Whenever that happens, gun sales skyrocket.
2