Pages

Jump to bottom

5 comments

1 jogiff  Sat, Jan 19, 2013 2:23:26am

I don’t think that it’s fair to say that Fortune Magazine is accusing CalSTRS of bankrolling Newtown. The author seems to just be calling for CalSTRS to divest from Bushmaster, a sentiment that I think we can all sympathize with (even if we don’t necessarily agree).

2 Aligarr  Sat, Jan 19, 2013 4:35:18am

Would a california teacher know what their Pension Funds were invested in ? And since the people who make Busmasters are a company that is owned by another Company which does not have a ticker name - Bushmaster ? It’s like owning Bayer stocks and not knowing Bayer makes insecticides . Therefore the Fortune article is either tongue-in-cheek or just plain STUPID .

3 Joanne  Sat, Jan 19, 2013 6:45:07am

Didn’t they say they were divesting completely right after the shooting? I seem to recall an article about that.

4 ReamWorks SKG  Sat, Jan 19, 2013 7:51:21am

Folks, Read the article. Of course they’ll say they’re divesting (though it’s a matter of a BILLION dollars in total, and not just a little bit.)

But the investment was against their already established guidelines:

What I honestly don’t understand, however, is why. Check out the following part of the pension system’s statement on investment responsibility:

Non-economic factors will supplement profit factors in making investment decisions. Non-economic factors are defined as those considerations not directly related to the maximization of income and the preservation of principal. The consideration of non-economic factors is for the purpose of ensuring that the Retirement System, either through its action or inaction, does not promote, condone or facilitate social injury.

Does Freedom Group not facilitate social injury? I’m not suggesting that social injury is its mission, but it certainly is a foreseeable consequence.
Moreover, CalSTRS has identified 21 risk factors “that should be included within the financial analysis of any investment decision.” Here is the one titled Human Health:

The risk to an investment’s long-term profitability from business exposure to an industry or company that makes a product which is highly detrimental to human health so that it draws significant product liability lawsuits, government regulation, United Nations sanctions and focus, and avoidance by other institutional investors.

Pretty sure the manufacture of semi-automatic rifles would apply here as well.

5 ReamWorks SKG  Sat, Jan 19, 2013 7:52:36am

re: #2 Aligarr

They’re supposed to be highly educated, licensed, professionals. Of course they should know where their money is going.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh