Investing in Vices
道德與投資
A tricky question in investing is how much of a role ethics should play in your stock selections.
Should you invest in companies that manufacture weapons? What about nuclear power? Alcohol? Gambling? Tobacco? Those are the "Big Five" in terms of ethical decisions. They tend to provoke the strongest emotions, and come up most often in discussions of ethical investing.
But the list could go on and on. Should you invest in companies that have been fined for polluting the environment? Companies that have been sued for racial discrimination? Companies that don’t have women in key positions? Companies that do animal testing? Companies that sponsor sexually explicit TV shows or art exhibitions?
The world being what it is, too fine an ethical filter could quickly screen out almost every large company and many small ones.
I tend to be tolerant of most vices in life, and also in investing. I am currently seeking out defense stocks. I’m eyeing at least one nuclear-power stock, and am favorably disposed toward gambling stocks. There’s no liquor stock I want to own, but if the numbers looked attractive, I’d buy one.
投資時需要慎重對待的一個問題，就是道德規范在你選擇股票時應該占多大份量。
我們是否應投資于生產武器的公司?或者投資于核動力、酒類、賭博、煙草類公司?這是有道德爭議的“五大”領域，容易激起人們最強烈的愛憎之情，也最常引發道德性投資的討論。
不過這個名單可以一直列下去。你是否應該投資于那些因污染環境而受罰的公司?那些被指控種族歧視的公司?那些不讓婦女擔任要職的公司?那些用動物進行試驗的公司?那些為直接渲染色情的電視節目出資和舉辦類似藝術展覽的公司?
現實世界就是這樣，如果用太細的道德過濾器去篩選，那么幾乎每一個大公司和許多小公司很快都得從投資的名單中篩出去。
我傾向于容忍生活中的大部分不道德行為，在投資方面也是如此。我現在正在挑選一些國防類的股票。我至少中意于一種核動力的股票，還看好博彩類的股票。我不想買酒類股，但如果價位有吸引力的話，我還是會買一種的。
Smoke-Free Zone
In my personal portfolio, the only industry I won’t invest in is tobacco. Tobacco causes disease and suffering when used as intended, whereas most of the others cause problems only when they are abused.
Client portfolios are a different matter. When you are managing other people’s money, your job is to maximize performance. We don’t have any tobacco stocks at Dorfman Investments, but I’m on the stock selection committee for a money management firm, Dreman Value Management, that has tobacco holdings.
As for performance, the 80 "socially responsible" mutual funds tracked by Morningstar Inc., the Chicago research company, returned 15 percent a year on average in the five years through October. That compares to an 18 percent return for all U. S. stock funds, and 26 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index during the same period.
At my firm, and many others, clients with their own separate accounts can specify whatever ethical restrictions they want. One of my clients doesn’t want to own weapons stocks. For her, I won’t buy stocks such as Lockheed Martin Corp., Litton Industries Inc., Cordant Technologies Inc. or Kaman Corp. But stocks of that type will be in many other clients’ portfolios.
無煙區：
在我個人的投資組合中，我唯一不碰的是煙草業。當你有意常吸煙草時，它會帶來疾病和痛苦，而其它的大多只有在濫用時才會帶來麻煩。
顧客的投資組合就是另一回事了。當你為別人理財時，你的任務就是要取得最好的業績。多爾夫曼投資公司中沒有煙草股，但我是德雷曼價值管理公司——一個理財公司——選股委員會的委員，該公司卻持有煙草股。
據芝加哥的一家調研公司——晨星股份有限公司的跟蹤調查，就業績來講，80家“對社會負責”的共同基金在直至10月份的過去5年的年平均收益是15%。與之相比，同階段美國所有的證券基金的平均收益是18%，標準普爾500指數的平均收益是26%。
在我的公司和許多其他公司中，客戶有他們自己各自的考慮，他們能明確指定他們的道德禁忌。我的一位客戶就不愿持有武器股，所以我不會為她買進諸如洛克希德·馬丁公司、利頓工業公司、考頓科技公司或卡曼公司的股票，但這類股票會出現在許多其他客戶的投資組合中。
Weapons of Defense
The question of whether military force can be used ethically is one of the oldest and most difficult in history. To me, Hitler and World War II are sufficient proof that maintaining a strong U. S. Military force is a moral act.
[11] Some of my best friends disagree. To them, the ends do not justify the means. I asked one friend, who is a Quaker, what the U. S. should have done about Hitler. His response: "I don’t know. But I believe we should have found an alternative other than force."
[12] That is an intellectually honest position, but to me not persuasive. On the whole, I feel the world is a better place if the U.S. has rocket fuel (Cordant), defense electronics (Litton), and Seasprite naval helicopters (Kaman), than if we don’t.
