Activists should leave Warren Buffett out of the debate over the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.
Following Buffett's suggestion, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s (NYSE: BRK.A) shareholders on Saturday defeated a proposal requiring the company to divest its holdings in PetroChina Co. (NYSE: PTR) because of the ties of its parent company to Sudan.
Though I share the outrage over the Darfur genocide, people who are trying to pressure Buffett are misguided. Though he is the largest shareholder in PetroChina, his influence is dwarfed by the the Chinese government, the real bosses of the company's management.
Why would the Chinese government listen to Buffett? Shouldn't the U.S. government and the UN be pressuring the Chinese to pressure the Sudanese?
Maybe Buffett could send a message by selling PetroChina's shares. But for every seller, there is a buyer. All Buffett would do is wind up making someone else rich, negating any message he was trying to send.
If you want to express your political views in your portfolio, invest in one of the many socially conscious mutual funds, including Citizens Funds or Domini Social investments. Investment News says that this category is the fastest growing segment of managed money.
But trying to separate the good companies from the bad ones isn't always easy.
"The pressure on social investing portfolios to achieve a beta comparable with those of such popular benchmarks as the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index means that social funds include companies that are involved tangentially in socially conscious activities," according to Investment News.
Five winners of a weak dollar: SBUX, PEP, AAPL
Twitter valuation off by half: NeXt Up Research
Comfort Zone Investing: The unmighty dollar
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-07-2007 @ 10:09AM
Cambridge, MA said...
It is the kind of fatalistic attitude conveyed in your article that allows genocides and other humanitarian atrocities to persist. Buffet is the largest single shareholder of Petrochina, one whose record of picking lucrative stocks is imitated time and time again. As a result, investors follow his lead, which means he can have an impact by refusing to support such atrocities, and setting the bar high for other investors that respect his decisions. The Chinese government has begun to change their stance on Darfur, in large part due to the potential loss of the 2008 Olympics from boycotters. Shareholder activism can cause change, and it is misguided to think that Buffett doesn't play a role in the devestating conflict in Sudan.
5-07-2007 @ 1:38PM
working mom said...
I agree with Cambridge, MA. I can't believe your nihilistic attitude towards the innocent mothers raped while their children are being tossed alive in to fires. All underwrited by PetroChina. I guess it marks how white intellectuals favor corrupt Asians over Black Africans. Down with financial funded racism and murder!
5-08-2007 @ 3:57PM
idealist said...
Waiting for our government and the UN to act has proven to be disastrous. 4 years have gone by with an estimate of 450,000-600,000 people SLAUGHTERED. Not to mention the brutal rapes and mutilations. Rape survivors are mentally scarred for life, but they are physically branded for life as well. If they become pregnant with their rapist(s) baby, what are they to do? If they get HIV or an STD from their rapist(s), what are they to do? Maybe you should tell them they should wait for the UN or our government.
To whom would we turn if our government attacked us?
I hope that day never comes because they might pay us back -dedd for deed.