Investing in Vices
道德与投资
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.
投资时需要慎重对待的一个问题，就是道德规范在你选择股票时应该占多大份量。
我们是否应投资于生产武器的公司?或者投资于核动力、酒类、赌博、烟草类公司?这是有道德争议的“五大”领域，容易激起人们最强烈的爱憎之情，也最常引发道德性投资的讨论。
不过这个名单可以一直列下去。你是否应该投资于那些因污染环境而受罚的公司?那些被指控种族歧视的公司?那些不让妇女担任要职的公司?那些用动物进行试验的公司?那些为直接渲染色情的电视节目出资和举办类似艺术展览的公司?
现实世界就是这样，如果用太细的道德过滤器去筛选，那么几乎每一个大公司和许多小公司很快都得从投资的名单中筛出去。
我倾向于容忍生活中的大部分不道德行为，在投资方面也是如此。我现在正在挑选一些国防类的股票。我至少中意于一种核动力的股票，还看好博彩类的股票。我不想买酒类股，但如果价位有吸引力的话，我还是会买一种的。
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.
无烟区：
在我个人的投资组合中，我唯一不碰的是烟草业。当你有意常吸烟草时，它会带来疾病和痛苦，而其它的大多只有在滥用时才会带来麻烦。
顾客的投资组合就是另一回事了。当你为别人理财时，你的任务就是要取得最好的业绩。多尔夫曼投资公司中没有烟草股，但我是德雷曼价值管理公司——一个理财公司——选股委员会的委员，该公司却持有烟草股。
据芝加哥的一家调研公司——晨星股份有限公司的跟踪调查，就业绩来讲，80家“对社会负责”的共同基金在直至10月份的过去5年的年平均收益是15%。与之相比，同阶段美国所有的证券基金的平均收益是18%，标准普尔500指数的平均收益是26%。
在我的公司和许多其他公司中，客户有他们自己各自的考虑，他们能明确指定他们的道德禁忌。我的一位客户就不愿持有武器股，所以我不会为她买进诸如洛克希德·马丁公司、利顿工业公司、考顿科技公司或卡曼公司的股票，但这类股票会出现在许多其他客户的投资组合中。
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.
