h a l f b a k e r yNot just a think tank. An entire army of think.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Investment funds are often based on a particular theme.
There are any number of country-specific investment funds
out there, where the attraction is that country's economy. A
fund can invest in a component of that economy, such as a
particular industrial sector.
But what about investing in
a geographic sub-sector of a
country's economy, like a state? A state has an economy, but it
also has a local state govt, whose policies affect the economy
in that state. The ideology of a country and the govt in power
can certainly affect its policy approach, including towards the
economy, and thus affect that country's economic
performance. Likewise, the same would be the case for a
local state and its ruling govt.
Currently, the United States is experiencing intense political
polarization, while undergoing an internal transition. People
are fleeing from Blue States like California where they feel
the future is one of decline, and moving to Red States like
Texas and Florida, where they feel there is a promising
future. Due to the deep ideological schism in the country,
birds of a feather wish to flock together. And why shouldn't
they? Like-minded people may be able to coexist more
harmoniously and do greater things together in each other's
company, as compared to being alone or with those they're in
conflict with. While the nation as a whole may be divided,
some sub-sections of the nation may consolidate and unite.
This may result in better economic performance for some,
and worse economic performance for others.
The purpose of a Red State Fund and a Blue State Fund is to
allow investors to then invest in the ideological approach they
feel will yield the most growth and prosperity. Instead of
having to invest more broadly in the economy of an entire
country, or in an industrial sector of an entire country, it may
be useful to target investment into a geographic sub-section
of a country and its economy, based on governing ideology as
the differentiating criteria. This may represent an untapped
market opportunity. Many people are ideological, and that
includes investors too. Why not offer an investment product
to the marketplace which caters to their ideological
preferences? In a world where ideology and money are at the
forefront of contention, why not marry the two together and
let the market decide what's most profitable?
DEMZ
https://www.fool.co...nched-election-day/
[theircompetitor, Nov 19 2021]
anti woke ETFs
https://www.bloombe...onservative-traders
[theircompetitor, Nov 19 2021]
[link]
|
| |
Bonds are securities. What about the growth side? We're
currently in a high-inflation environment, where bonds of
any kind see their yield eroded by inflation, and this is
what's keeping people piled into stocks and fixed assets like
real estate. Real estate can certainly be tied to geographic
locality, so that buying property in a particular area may
amount to a vote of confidence in its economic future. |
|
| |
But stocks are still their own asset class, and are geared
towards growth. If country-specific ETFs can own certain
stocks associated with said country, why can't there
likewise be state-specific ETFs that hold stocks associated
with that state, whereby a suitable company's operations
and assets are disproportionately tied to that state?
Eventually, investment funds could granularize down to the
municipal level, but state level should logically come first. |
|
| |
Furthermore, there should be an explicit tie to ideology. Just
as an investment fund can be tied to a certain theme
(environmentally friendly technology fund, socially
responsible investment fund, etc), likewise it should be
possible to explicitly organize an investment fund around
ideological criteria. An association with ideology and
ideological criteria can be the prime selling point to
prospective buyers. |
|
| |
This could be an interesting experiment. But we
don’t need more reasons to be polarized. |
|
| |
This would actually help to reduce/end polarization, not
increase it. Why? Because while the electorate is a Voting
Machine, the market is however only a Voting Machine in
the short term --- in the long term the market is a Weighing
Machine. (I'm repeating that famous quote from Benjamin
Graham, which you've no doubt heard.) The market sifts
the wheat from the chaff in the long run. Weighing Machine
therefore has the proven power of influencing the Voting
Machine in the investment world. But now it's time to more
directly couple that same influence with the Voting
Machine that is the electorate. Politics is full of increasingly
heated rhetoric, but that bubbling cauldron can be doused
with the cold rationality of financial returns. The political
proof is then in the profits. |
|
| |
I don't see any meaningful way in which this is missing, from
donating to the parties, to muni bonds, to ETFs, to PACs. |
|
| |
A donation is not an investment. Nobody donates to a
company when they buy shares in it. Nobody donates
money when they buy a bond. A donation is not supposed to
be a financial transaction as such, whereas buying shares or
bonds explicitly are. |
|
| |
Ideologically based funds would reposition money to
jurisdictions, companies and assets that reflect certain
ideological values and meet certain ideological criteria. |
|
| |
Ordinary retail investors can't always keep track of what
the ideological disposition is of a given political jurisdiction
or a given company. The fund would track that and keep
readjusting accordingly. |
|
| |
The goal is to connect retail investors with market entities
that reflect ideological character in a financial profit-loss
environment. |
|
| |
I don't see enough chaff being removed to support
that statement. |
|
| |
For instance, the National Enquirer still exists. The
top Google searches were for Christina Aguilera and
Starbucks Reusable Holiday Cups. |
|
| |
but ETFs do actually do what you say. and ESG investing has
been a thing for years. And you don't propose any proper
mechanism for how value would be assigned to the ETF. And if
you think "donating" is not buying, you don't understand
donating. |
|
| |
but ETFs do actually do what you say. and ESG investing has
been a thing for years. And you don't propose any proper
mechanism for how value would be assigned to the ETF. And if
you think "donating" is not buying, you don't understand
donating. |
|
| |
//Nobody donates money when they buy a bond// |
|
| |
Not intentionally, at least. ;-) |
|
| |
I like it, A managed portfolio with a goal. Back all the companies involved with rain forest reforestation or ones aiming to place a research station at the bottom of the ocean. |
|
| |
At the state, nation level not so much. As [RayfordSteele] said, polarizing and a bit like expensive voting. |
|
| |