(no subject)

Although I'm not by nature a numbers person, and I'm certainly not an economics person, back when I had more spare time I made it a point to learn enough about my retirement investments to be at least interesting about them, if not entirely successful. I've actually done reasonably well for someone with two arts degrees. And the knowledge stood me in good stead when I inherited an investment annuity from Mama Tickey and had to figure out what the hell to do with it. (Spend a year earning and then cash out, as it happens.)

One of the funds I've invested in is a "Social Index" fund, which I knew in a general sense was about investing in socially responsible companies but couldn't, at the time, get much hard information on. They recently sent me a prospectus as part of some annual legal thing they do, and I finally managed to wade deep enough to find out what the criteria are (it's a third party picking the stocks). Turns out:

The Index includes companies considered to have superior environmental policies, a strong hiring and promotion record for minorities and women, and a safe and healthy workplace which is great. But what came next made me wonder just who came up with these criteria:

Excluded from the Index are companies that are involved with tobacco, alcohol, adult entertainment, firearms, gambling, nuclear power...

I mean, I'm glad I'm not investing in tobacco or firearms, and I'm aware that most adult entertainment is pretty exploitative. I get that alcohol and gambling can be addictive but I still raised an eyebrow at those.

Nuclear power? That is a really weird addition to the rest of them. I don't really know enough about nuclear power to make a moral judgement about it, but I was given to understand it's not exactly on the same level as booze, porn, guns, and baccarat. (Now there's a party.)

I smell vendetta! Some poor stock analyst somewhere really loves We Almost Lost Detroit, maybe.