I'm all for promoting saving the environment and all that, but is divestment really the best way to do it?
In my mind, if there is enough divestment to make a move in the share price of a company, then other investors who are not divesting will use it as an entry point and it should go back to where it was as there is no change in the fundamentals of the company.
This means that the "morally right" investors are forced to sell off holdings, maybe not at an ideal time, while the "morally wrong" investors who did not agree to divest make money.
And this doesn't make a difference to the company itself. So essentially, divesting doesn't change anything (except publicises climate change), and causes the money to go to people that don't divest.
Am I thinking about this wrong?
Submitted April 22, 2017 at 04:56AM by stocks-n-stuff http://ift.tt/2p2dwFt
