道德與投資
Investing in Vices
道德與投資
[1] A tricky question in investing is how much of a role ethics should play in your stock selections.
[2] 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.
[3] 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 dont have women in key positions? Companies that do animal testing? Companies that sponsor sexually explicit TV shows or art exhibitions?
[4] The world being what it is, too fine an ethical filter could quickly screen out almost every large company and many small ones.
[5] I tend to be tolerant of most vices in life, and also in investing. I am currently seeking out defense stocks. Im eyeing at least one nuclear-power stock, and am favorably disposed toward gambling stocks. Theres no liquor stock I want to own, but if the numbers looked attractive, Id buy one.
[1]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
[6] In my personal portfolio, the only industry I wont 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.
[7] Client portfolios are a different matter. When you are managing other peoples money, your job is to maximize performance. We dont have any tobacco stocks at Dorfman Investments, but Im on the stock selection committee for a money management firm, Dreman Value Management, that has tobacco holdings.
[8] 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 Poors 500 Index during the same period.
[9] At my firm, and many others, clients with their own separate accounts can specify whatever ethical restrictions they want. One of my clients doesnt want to own weapons stocks. For her, I wont 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
[10] 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 dont 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 dont.
防御武器：
軍事力量能否被合乎道義地使用是歷史上最古老的也是最困難的道德問題之一。對我來說，希特勒和二戰足以證明美國保持強大的軍事力量是道德的行為。
我的一些最好的朋友不同意這個觀點。他們認為，目的正當并不能證明手段正當。我問一位教友派信徒的朋友，對希特勒這樣的人美國應該怎么辦。他說：我不知道。但我相信我們應該找到另一種辦法，而不是暴力。
這是一個理智的誠實態度，但對我沒有說服力。總的來說，我覺得如果美國有考頓公司生產的火箭燃料、利頓公司的電子防御系統和卡曼公司的海軍用海怪直升機，這個世界會比我們沒有這些武器更好一些。
Power Sources
[13] Nuclear power is another issue that people feel strongly about. In the wake of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, I cant argue that its wrong to be concerned about the safety of nuclear plants. And yet, I believe people forget the hundreds of injuries and the massive pollution caused by oil-and coal-fueled electrical generating plants. Nuclear power, at least potentially, is a less polluting energy source than most of its competitors.
[14] The green so of cutting hack on energy use strikes me as misguided. Economic opportunity and social justice are much easier to achieve in an expanding economy. And an expanding economy virtually requires abundant energy.
[15] Alcohol, to some people, is the worst villain. And yet, when the nation tried to ban alcohol during prohibition, the experiment proved a failure. I cant resist adding that moderate drinkers have much lower death rates from heart attack than teetotalers.
[16] There are no liquor stocks I want to own presently. But at the right price, I would own one.
動力源：
核動力是另外一個引起人們強烈關注的問題。由于切爾諾貝利和三哩島事件，我不能說考慮核電廠的安全是錯誤的。但是我想人們忘記了由用石油和煤作燃料的發電廠引起的成百上千種傷害和大量的污染。與其大多數競爭者相比，核動力至少從潛在能力上考慮是一種污染較小的能源。
我看這種減少能源使用的綠色解決方法是誤入歧途。經濟發展的良機和社會的公正在一個正在增長的經濟中實現起來要容易得多。而一個正在發展增長的經濟實際上是需要豐富的能源的。
對某些人來說，酒是個最壞的東西。但當國家試圖禁酒時，結果總是歸于失敗。我忍不住要附帶補充一句：適度的飲酒者比完全禁酒者心臟病死亡率要低得多。
我現在還不想買什么酒類股。但一旦價位合適，我是會買一種的。
The Gambling Vice
[17] Anita Green, the director of social research at Pax World Fund, the third-largest social responsibility mutual fund, recently referred to gambling as a vice that inflicts crushing social costs on American society. Noting that seven of the largest 20 mutual funds in the U . S. hold one or more gambling stocks, she suggests that investors pick a fund that has sworn to avoid them--namely, her own.
[18] Gambling, which Green opposes so strongly, is to me a pleasurable activity. I go to the racetrack, watch the pageantry of the horses, jockeys and silks, and enjoy the spectacle more because I have a $ 2 or $ bet on the outcome. I enjoy spending a day or two in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. But I go only once every year or two, and set myself a limit of $ 50 or $ 100 a day. When thats gone, I walk around and see the sights.
[19] For better or worse, it appears that America is still moving in the direction of more gambling. So I think that casino and lottery stocks--issues like Scientific Games Holdings Corp., Mirage Resorts Inc. and Mandalay Resort Group--are good bets.
[20] The impulse to invest ethically is praiseworthy, but Im skeptical of one size fits all approaches to it. And I think anyone attempting to invest ethically should have respect for the complexity and difficulty of the task
Gaps problem
[21] For example, Pax World Fund, based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, says it invests only in companies that treat their employees, their environment, and their communities with respect. Im sure it makes every effort to do so, but in an imperfect world, these decisions get mighty tricky.
[22] Pax Worlds largest stockholding is Gap Inc. Friday, Gap (along with some other retailers) lost in its attempt to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of selling clothes made under sweatshop conditions in the U.S. territory of Saipan. In August, four other defendants in that suit, including Nordstrom Inc. and J. Crew Group Inc., agreed to settle the claims against them by establishing a $ 1.25 million fund to monitor working conditions of their Saipan workplaces.
[23] None of this necessarily means that Gap is a bad company, or culpable in the Saipan case. But it does illustrate the difficulty in making ethical investing decisions.
賭博惡習：
阿妮塔格林是第三大社會保障共同基金派克斯世界基金的社會研究經理，最近她指責博彩業是一種讓美國社會付出毀滅性代價的惡疾。她注意到美國最大的20個共同基金中的7個擁有1個或多個此類股票，于是呼吁投資者選擇那些發誓不買博彩股的基金----也就是她自己所任職的基金。
格林如此激烈反對的博彩對我來說是一種令人快樂的活動。我到賽場去，觀看馬匹、騎手以及騎手們穿戴的彩色綢制賽馬服組成的盛大華麗的場面，并享受著這樣的壯觀景象，更多的是因為我對結果投了2塊或5塊錢的注。我喜歡在拉斯維加斯或大西洋城花上一兩天的時間。但我一兩年才去一次，并把自己一天的花費限制在50或100美元。錢一花完，我就四處溜達，看看風景。
不管好壞吧，似乎博彩業在美國仍有發展之勢。所以我想博彩類股票----如科學博奕持股公司、夢幻旅游勝地公司和曼達雷旅游勝地公司所發行的----是值得一賭的。
促進合乎道義的投資是值得贊賞的，但我懷疑這種一刀切的做法能否行得通。我認為任何打算進行合乎道義的投資的人應該考慮到它的復雜性和困難程度。
蓋普公司的問題：
舉個例子，派克斯世界基金，總部設在新罕布什爾州的樸次茅斯，說它只投資于那些尊重員工，尊重環保，尊重社區的公司。相信它是盡力這樣做的，但在一個不完美的社會里，這些決策是非常困難的。 派克斯世界基金所持有的最多的股票是蓋普公司的股票。周五，蓋普(及其他一些零售商)輸了一場官司，他們本想駁回被指控銷售美國西潘地區血汗工廠生產的衣物伽訴訟案。8月，包括諾德斯道姆公司、J.克魯集團公司在內的其他四個被告同意出資125萬美元設立基金來監督西潘工廠的工作條件，以此解決向他們提出的索賠要求。
這都不意味著蓋普是個差勁的公司，或者在西潘事件中是有罪的。但它確實說明了在作出道德性投資決策方面存在的困難。
Investing in Vices
道德與投資
[1] A tricky question in investing is how much of a role ethics should play in your stock selections.
[2] 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.
[3] 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 dont have women in key positions? Companies that do animal testing? Companies that sponsor sexually explicit TV shows or art exhibitions?
[4] The world being what it is, too fine an ethical filter could quickly screen out almost every large company and many small ones.
[5] I tend to be tolerant of most vices in life, and also in investing. I am currently seeking out defense stocks. Im eyeing at least one nuclear-power stock, and am favorably disposed toward gambling stocks. Theres no liquor stock I want to own, but if the numbers looked attractive, Id buy one.
[1]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
[6] In my personal portfolio, the only industry I wont 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.
[7] Client portfolios are a different matter. When you are managing other peoples money, your job is to maximize performance. We dont have any tobacco stocks at Dorfman Investments, but Im on the stock selection committee for a money management firm, Dreman Value Management, that has tobacco holdings.
[8] 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 Poors 500 Index during the same period.
[9] At my firm, and many others, clients with their own separate accounts can specify whatever ethical restrictions they want. One of my clients doesnt want to own weapons stocks. For her, I wont 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
[10] 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 dont 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 dont.
防御武器：
軍事力量能否被合乎道義地使用是歷史上最古老的也是最困難的道德問題之一。對我來說，希特勒和二戰足以證明美國保持強大的軍事力量是道德的行為。
我的一些最好的朋友不同意這個觀點。他們認為，目的正當并不能證明手段正當。我問一位教友派信徒的朋友，對希特勒這樣的人美國應該怎么辦。他說：我不知道。但我相信我們應該找到另一種辦法，而不是暴力。
這是一個理智的誠實態度，但對我沒有說服力。總的來說，我覺得如果美國有考頓公司生產的火箭燃料、利頓公司的電子防御系統和卡曼公司的海軍用海怪直升機，這個世界會比我們沒有這些武器更好一些。
Power Sources
[13] Nuclear power is another issue that people feel strongly about. In the wake of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, I cant argue that its wrong to be concerned about the safety of nuclear plants. And yet, I believe people forget the hundreds of injuries and the massive pollution caused by oil-and coal-fueled electrical generating plants. Nuclear power, at least potentially, is a less polluting energy source than most of its competitors.
[14] The green so of cutting hack on energy use strikes me as misguided. Economic opportunity and social justice are much easier to achieve in an expanding economy. And an expanding economy virtually requires abundant energy.
[15] Alcohol, to some people, is the worst villain. And yet, when the nation tried to ban alcohol during prohibition, the experiment proved a failure. I cant resist adding that moderate drinkers have much lower death rates from heart attack than teetotalers.
[16] There are no liquor stocks I want to own presently. But at the right price, I would own one.
動力源：
核動力是另外一個引起人們強烈關注的問題。由于切爾諾貝利和三哩島事件，我不能說考慮核電廠的安全是錯誤的。但是我想人們忘記了由用石油和煤作燃料的發電廠引起的成百上千種傷害和大量的污染。與其大多數競爭者相比，核動力至少從潛在能力上考慮是一種污染較小的能源。
我看這種減少能源使用的綠色解決方法是誤入歧途。經濟發展的良機和社會的公正在一個正在增長的經濟中實現起來要容易得多。而一個正在發展增長的經濟實際上是需要豐富的能源的。
對某些人來說，酒是個最壞的東西。但當國家試圖禁酒時，結果總是歸于失敗。我忍不住要附帶補充一句：適度的飲酒者比完全禁酒者心臟病死亡率要低得多。
我現在還不想買什么酒類股。但一旦價位合適，我是會買一種的。
The Gambling Vice
[17] Anita Green, the director of social research at Pax World Fund, the third-largest social responsibility mutual fund, recently referred to gambling as a vice that inflicts crushing social costs on American society. Noting that seven of the largest 20 mutual funds in the U . S. hold one or more gambling stocks, she suggests that investors pick a fund that has sworn to avoid them--namely, her own.
[18] Gambling, which Green opposes so strongly, is to me a pleasurable activity. I go to the racetrack, watch the pageantry of the horses, jockeys and silks, and enjoy the spectacle more because I have a $ 2 or $ bet on the outcome. I enjoy spending a day or two in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. But I go only once every year or two, and set myself a limit of $ 50 or $ 100 a day. When thats gone, I walk around and see the sights.
[19] For better or worse, it appears that America is still moving in the direction of more gambling. So I think that casino and lottery stocks--issues like Scientific Games Holdings Corp., Mirage Resorts Inc. and Mandalay Resort Group--are good bets.
[20] The impulse to invest ethically is praiseworthy, but Im skeptical of one size fits all approaches to it. And I think anyone attempting to invest ethically should have respect for the complexity and difficulty of the task
Gaps problem
[21] For example, Pax World Fund, based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, says it invests only in companies that treat their employees, their environment, and their communities with respect. Im sure it makes every effort to do so, but in an imperfect world, these decisions get mighty tricky.
[22] Pax Worlds largest stockholding is Gap Inc. Friday, Gap (along with some other retailers) lost in its attempt to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of selling clothes made under sweatshop conditions in the U.S. territory of Saipan. In August, four other defendants in that suit, including Nordstrom Inc. and J. Crew Group Inc., agreed to settle the claims against them by establishing a $ 1.25 million fund to monitor working conditions of their Saipan workplaces.
[23] None of this necessarily means that Gap is a bad company, or culpable in the Saipan case. But it does illustrate the difficulty in making ethical investing decisions.
賭博惡習：
阿妮塔格林是第三大社會保障共同基金派克斯世界基金的社會研究經理，最近她指責博彩業是一種讓美國社會付出毀滅性代價的惡疾。她注意到美國最大的20個共同基金中的7個擁有1個或多個此類股票，于是呼吁投資者選擇那些發誓不買博彩股的基金----也就是她自己所任職的基金。
格林如此激烈反對的博彩對我來說是一種令人快樂的活動。我到賽場去，觀看馬匹、騎手以及騎手們穿戴的彩色綢制賽馬服組成的盛大華麗的場面，并享受著這樣的壯觀景象，更多的是因為我對結果投了2塊或5塊錢的注。我喜歡在拉斯維加斯或大西洋城花上一兩天的時間。但我一兩年才去一次，并把自己一天的花費限制在50或100美元。錢一花完，我就四處溜達，看看風景。
不管好壞吧，似乎博彩業在美國仍有發展之勢。所以我想博彩類股票----如科學博奕持股公司、夢幻旅游勝地公司和曼達雷旅游勝地公司所發行的----是值得一賭的。
促進合乎道義的投資是值得贊賞的，但我懷疑這種一刀切的做法能否行得通。我認為任何打算進行合乎道義的投資的人應該考慮到它的復雜性和困難程度。
蓋普公司的問題：
舉個例子，派克斯世界基金，總部設在新罕布什爾州的樸次茅斯，說它只投資于那些尊重員工，尊重環保，尊重社區的公司。相信它是盡力這樣做的，但在一個不完美的社會里，這些決策是非常困難的。 派克斯世界基金所持有的最多的股票是蓋普公司的股票。周五，蓋普(及其他一些零售商)輸了一場官司，他們本想駁回被指控銷售美國西潘地區血汗工廠生產的衣物伽訴訟案。8月，包括諾德斯道姆公司、J.克魯集團公司在內的其他四個被告同意出資125萬美元設立基金來監督西潘工廠的工作條件，以此解決向他們提出的索賠要求。
這都不意味著蓋普是個差勁的公司，或者在西潘事件中是有罪的。但它確實說明了在作出道德性投資決策方面存在的困難。
