There was an article in the New York Times today about Newmont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/international/asia/27indo.html

I know we've all been very bullish about Newmont and it has fared quite well thus far. But reading this article makes me question the ethical standards of these large companies that we often talk about.

Obviously a personal decision but should such factors play into the ultimate goal of making money?

Halliburton is another great example. A lot of companies that are supplying the military are making a pretty penny. Their profits are directly tied to the profits of those subsidiaries that have contracts with Libya, Iran, etc. Do we only look at the end numbers? Or as patriots do we only invest in 'clean' companies that will not do business with 'evil' nations?

Curious about other people's point of view.

I didn't have time to read the whole article but I assume the New York Times is upset over some perceived enviromental issue. The fact that the New York Times doesn't like them makes me like them even more.

Look, there will always be some company that some special interest group doesn't like. There are a lot of people that don't like Wall Mart, Atrium (Phillip Morris), Haliburton, any drug company, any oil company, Budweiser, and I could go on and on. I remember in the 80's there were "socially responsible" mutual funds. I guess they still exist, but if they do I'm sure they have underperformed.

My view is that I'm a capitalist. I believe in markets. These companies that a lot of people don't like are great American companies that hire tons of people and make our economy work. I can't think of anything more patriotic.

Here's another one -- a lot of people think it's "unethical" to sell short. Pure ignorance.

Larry

Asuh,

van tharp says we don’t trade the markets but rather our beliefs. it also seems true that we don’t know truth but our lives are shaped by our beliefs of what we think is true. i don’t want to get too philosophical but isn’t it true that, whatever that article says; is just an opinion of a writer based on SOME facts (even that’s questionable). my point is; what you consider to be true is just a belief & that’s just a bias - it’s all how you look at it.

example: i live in California where wal-mart is viewed as the 2nd coming of the 3rd reich. i’ve heard many hip-cool-groovy “educated” folks speak derisively about sam walton’s great success but no matter what point they try to make it all boils down to this – these people have an “underdog” bias. (or, as i call it, the ‘david vs. goliath’ bias).

wal-mart doesn’t pay benefits to all employees; it pays wages less than the average retail stores in the area, etc. what nobody bothers to mention is; no one is forced to work at wal-mart. and even if they were, no one is forced to shop there! so… i don't know about you, but i just don’t get bent out of shape by things i can’t possibly know. that's like getting made at your wife for an argument you had in your dream!

btw; i grew up in arkansas. i remember when gibsons, howards & fred dollar store ruled retail and it was wal-mart that was the little mom & pop shop. they rented a warehouse on the outskirts, had locations in only a couple of states & were the ‘david’ to the other retail ‘goliaths’.

here’s another way to look at that same bias – change if from ‘david & goliath’ to ‘humans vs. neanderthals’ – who do you want to invest in?



-ja