Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Support quality journalism
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24weeks
The Globe and Mail
Support quality journalism
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Globe and Mail website displayed on various devices
Just$1.99
per week
for the first 24weeks

var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){console.log("scroll");var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1);

Globe and Mail columnist David Berman.

The Globe and Mail

Ethical investors take a principled approach to their portfolios, but they now face a dilemma: Is the entire U.S. stock market looking like a no-go zone?

The alarming shift in U.S. policy under President Donald Trump – defending the use of torture, trampling women's rights, closing the door on refugees and targeting immigrants as a threat to national security – has raised the question of whether investors should be doing something to voice their concerns.

Selling U.S. stocks sends a message, especially if it causes a market downturn that forces the White House to reconsider its actions.

Story continues below advertisement

Typically, ethical or responsible investing avoids specific stocks and sectors, rather than entire countries. Gun, tobacco and gambling companies are out. So are companies that harm the environment, employ unsound labour practices and pack their boards of directors with old, white men.

What's left are sound companies that investors can own with pride. Portfolio managers also believe these companies will perform well because they are positioned for the long term.

But surely something bigger must be gnawing at ethical investors today. If these investors can't stomach the idea of a company that makes cigarettes, how are they going to sleep at night knowing that their silence is reflected in the performance of their U.S. index funds?

A U.S. boycott wouldn't be easy, of course.

U.S. stocks account for 60 per cent of the developed global stock market in terms of their weighting in the MSCI World Index. The next largest country, Japan, is about 9 per cent and Canada is less than 4 per cent.

This means that large, institutional investors would have a tough time avoiding U.S. stocks. Small investors are more nimble, but would be at risk of creating very lop-sided portfolios with an overwhelming tilt toward, say, Canada and Europe.

They could miss out on gains. Since early November, U.S. stocks have rallied 9 per cent and the Dow Jones industrial average recently surged to a record high above 20,000, reflecting hope that Mr. Trump's economic policies will boost growth and employment

Story continues below advertisement

As well, avoiding all U.S. stocks means taking a pass on progressive companies such as Google Inc. and Apple Inc., which could be opposing Mr. Trump's social policies. Clearly, a broad boycott would cause some collateral damage.

Experts in ethical investing actually discourage a broad boycott, arguing that companies shouldn't be punished for the actions of one government.

"I would be reticent to say that we should all sell our U.S. equities. I think that would be rather irresponsible," said Milla Craig, a Montreal-based consultant at Millani Perspectives, which focuses on business sustainability and responsible investing.

"We have to look at this on a global basis," she added. "Some of the leading companies in the world are U.S.-based companies."

Dustyn Lanz, a spokesperson for the Responsible Investment Association, said in an e-mail: "The shift toward responsible investing is much bigger than one president."

It's a fair point, but it doesn't address the importance of sending a message to the Trump administration.

Story continues below advertisement

Consumers appear to be getting on board with this approach. The Economist noted that a sizable share of European travellers say they are less likely to visit the United States, which suggests that tourists are willing to vacation elsewhere.

Investors could send a similar message.

I've written numerous articles that touted the benefits of investing in tobacco stocks and many readers have vilified me for my unprincipled approach to investing. They tell me that their principles are more important than the big dividends and profits that flow from cigarette sales.

These principles are now being put to the test. If the Trump administration is good for the U.S. stock market, ethical investors need to ask themselves if they're okay with that. And if they are, well, take another look at tobacco stocks.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies