Nuclear free, give or take $42 million
Some good research by Russel and his team into the New Zealand Super Fund shows that it is making some ethically dubious choices about where to put our money:
[I]n response to my written question the NZ Super Fund revealed that, as of August 31, it still holds $41.9m holdings in a series of companies that the Norwegian Pension Fund excludes because they are involved in developing and/or producing central components for nuclear weapons.
The Norwegian Pension Fund is the second biggest sovereign fund in the world, worth NZ$500 billion, and has signed up to the same set of United Nations ethical investment guidelines as the NZ Super Fund.
This means the Government is investing over $100 million in companies that countries like Norway, which have signed the same ethical investment guidelines as New Zealand, have deliberately excluded from their portfolios. Among that $100 million are $42 million of significant holdings in companies that manufacture nuclear bombs. The Norway fund excludes companies involved in the “production of weapons that through normal use may violate fundamental humanitarian principles“. These companies include, with New Zealand’s investment in brackets beside:
- BAE Systems ($8.3 million),
- Boeing Co. ($4.4 million),
- Honeywell International ($9.1million),
- Northrop Grumman Corp. ($16.7million),
- And United Technologies Corp. ($3.4 million)
Now I don’t want a nuclear bomb. It wouldn’t fit in my office. But I’m even less keen on having my money spent giving financial liquidity to a company that wants to make bombs for other people. Are there really so few companies out there willing to take our money that we must resort to investing in companies that stand in direct opposition to one of our most well known and respected peace policies?
September 29th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
And I’m not happy funding PhilU. Or the Green Party. Or South Auckland. Wouldn’t it be good if we got to select where our tax money does, and doesn’t, go!
Where does one draw the line? How about the companies that service those companies? And the companies that service those companies? And the companies that finance any of those companies? Would there be any company left to invest in?
I’d rather the government focus on returns, especially when they insist on doing it on my behalf.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Mind you the way the fund is bleeding money
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10 534785
it is a mute point where the investments are.
Soon the fund will be dry.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
As much as I dislike Cullen, the fund is averaging 10%, which is a good ROI. There will always be years when it slides backwards.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
“..it is a mute point..”
(heh..!..)
the idiot running this fund..is also saying this is a ‘good buying time’..
..good grief..!
..how could he be so ignorant/stupid…?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 29th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
People still need goods and services, Phil. The world doesn’t stop turning….
September 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
ergh, why should we have a retirement fund in the first place? Although, that said, as far as retirement funds go; the idea behind the cullen fund is one of the better options.
if government must fund the old, bent, and wrinkly i would rather the fund provides at a base survival rate with a subsidary income for extra goods and provisions generated through a kiwisaver style fund.
May not be the most sentimental thing to say but; overall, the thing most humans can do to benifit the human species is produce and bring up children in a manner that most facilitates future continuation and productivity; the second greatist thing is to turn to dust once they are no longer productive.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Not investing in companies that manufacture components used in weapons could narrow the field down a lot. Boing make aircraft parts. There just has to be a significant amount of commonality between aircraft parts and missile parts, particularly cruise missiles which after all are essentially small unmanned aircraft. Boing is a multi-billion dollar company. Ruling out investing in Boing just because some of its parts can be used in missiles is going a bit far. Same for Raykon (in the news a while back because they make components usable in navigation systems such as for missiles). I’ve personally bought Raykon parts for my own use, but they weren’t for weapons
I think we need some more details before we can say that investing in these companies is unethical.
Trevor.