Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Valyooo (99.82)

The "morality" of PM and MO

Recs

16

February 15, 2011 – Comments (25) | RELATED TICKERS: PM , MO

This isn't going to be a long post, because I don't have too much to say about it.  I just truly don't understand why people would not own PM or MO because they sell cigarettes.  Now, if you are one of those people that is fine, I am not here to judge.  However, a lot of corporations do bad things.  A crapload of corporations pollute like crazy, or have some secretive connections with politicians, or have sweat shop labor overseas, or mistreat animals, or sell food products with loads of hormones and other junk,  or spill oil all over the place.  And those are things that are against peoples will....at least the people dying from PM products are choosing to do so.  If anything I see PM as one of the more responsible corporations in that they are loyal to shareholders. I am not sure how one can be against manufacturing cigarettes but support corporations that pollute heavily or make products produced by 5 year olds.

Anyway, just a thought, this is meant as discussion, i don't mean for this to turn into a heated debate or anything like that.

25 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 15, 2011 at 8:07 PM, russiangambit (29.94) wrote:

I am one of those, I don't invest in PM, MO or KO. There are plenty of other better choices. So, why do it.

Report this comment
#2) On February 15, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

I see you invest in oil drillers though...what about the pollution/global warming petroleum is causing?

Report this comment
#3) On February 15, 2011 at 8:23 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.77) wrote:

I will invest in the sin stocks, but I draw the line if a company abuses animals.

My dog gives me dirty looks if I even research them, if I ever bought I don't think he would ever forgive me.

(Yes I discuss stocks with my dog, He's generally optimistic : )

Report this comment
#4) On February 15, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

Is he a "bull"-dog? Har har har

Report this comment
#5) On February 15, 2011 at 8:32 PM, TheDumbMoney (58.69) wrote:

PM and MO are amongst my oldest holdings (dating to when it was just MO, pre the KFT and later PM spin-offs).  I sold my KFT shares shortly after they were spun off.  Since the late 1990s, when I purchased them while everyone else was, at the time, buying things like CSCO and CIEN and JNPR and KKD and EBAY, just to name a few that survived and/or thrived, MO/PM has obliterated the market, especially counting reinvested dividends.  PM in particular looks good going forward from here.  I added to MO and PM during the 2008/2009 market crash at around $16 and $48, respectively.  If I have any problem with them, it's with their debt levels, not their products!  As a shareholder, they are, so far, perhaps the greatest companies I have ever owned.  Everyone knows what smoking is at this point, everyone knows the risks, and it's a legal product, so if people want to lightem up, go wild I say.  I'll invest in any company, but I view them as vastly less sinful than military equipment companies (I'm guessing, but I'd hazard that weapons are probably America's single largest industrial export; if not, they're up there high on the list), while perhaps a little bit more sinful than oil companies and drillers.

Report this comment
#6) On February 15, 2011 at 8:35 PM, monksnake (40.99) wrote:

The way I see it, companies like MO and PM make money off of the morals of their customers.  Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, it's not like cig companies are trying to hide that fact.  The people that buy the cigarettes are the ones with the, for lack of a better phrase, "lower morals".  It's the customer's choice whether or not to buy, it's their responsibility. 

Personally I find cigarettes repulsive, but as long as people continue to smoke and companies that sell cigarettes make money (and give a handsome divy), I will buy into them.

Now companies like GS that make money by directly ripping people off, that's a "morality" issue for me.  I can't buy stock from companies like that.

Report this comment
#7) On February 15, 2011 at 8:41 PM, TheDumbMoney (58.69) wrote:

monksnake, the only reason why I won't buy GS is that it is run for the sake of the partners, not the shareholders.  The partners took it public at an opportune, frothy market lo about a decade ago, and GS's public status is, essentially, just another one of GS's schemes to enrich its employees.  In short, I think shareholder/owners of GS are, to some extent, patsies.  As a speculation, I'd buy it for a short run, like when it was down in the $80s or something.

Report this comment
#8) On February 15, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

Dumber, I agree with #7 completely.  I would love to share in GS profits, but they are untrustworthy management wise.

Report this comment
#9) On February 15, 2011 at 9:27 PM, russiangambit (29.94) wrote:

> I see you invest in oil drillers though...what about the pollution/global warming petroleum is causing?

Well, at least they have productive usefulness. Cigarettes and coke's only function is to poison us.

Report this comment
#10) On February 15, 2011 at 9:33 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

I am not going to bash someone for not wanting to invest in a company that sells a product they detest.  That's just personal choice.  You can make moral judgments regarding many companies.  But as long as they sell a legal product I won't condemn a person for investing in them either.

I smoked.  I suffered a brain hemorrhage and when I was wheeled into the hospital the first thing the Doctor said to me was quit smoking. I did.  I have been known to sniff that secondhand smoke near building doorways but is as far as I will ever go now.

Report this comment
#11) On February 15, 2011 at 10:57 PM, valunvesthere (< 20) wrote:

What we've got here is MORAL vs. ECONOMICS and MORAL vs. POLITICS.

MORAL LOST!!!

Morality is defined differently in any jurisdiction especially by individual, association, corporation, group, organization and etc.

This comment is not to offend some peoples moral beliefs but to give example of MORAL vs. SCIENCE and MORAL vs. POLITICS.

For example in the United States of America there's heavy opposition against STEM CELL RESEARCH which may lead to discoveries to cures and etc. but in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Finland, Israel, Japan, Singapore, United Kingdom, and etc. it is heavily encouraged and in some cases government subsidized research, thus possibly becoming the new leaders in health sciences if stem cells is a stepping stone to new cures and etc.

MORAL in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WON!!!

Valunvestere

Report this comment
#12) On February 16, 2011 at 1:42 AM, checklist34 (99.79) wrote:

test

 

 

Report this comment
#13) On February 16, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

success!

Report this comment
#14) On February 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM, leohaas (93.60) wrote:

If you think investing in Company X is immoral, go ahead and don't invest in it. Don't buy the products Company X makes. Go ahead and scream it from the top of the tallest building.

Just don't make a law that says I cannot invest in Company X or I cannot buy the products Company X makes. And don't force me to defend that I do so. It is none of your business.

PS  Do I sound like a Libertarian here?

Report this comment
#15) On February 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM, truthisntstupid (95.85) wrote:

awallejr

Secondhand smoke....mmm.  hehe I know what you mean.  I've quit (again)  but when someone's smoking around me I sure don't mind taking a whiff.  

Report this comment
#16) On February 16, 2011 at 2:28 PM, HooDaHeckNose (98.40) wrote:

As a former smoker, I periodically have this conversation with myself.

PM been berry berry good to me. I doubt I will be divesting myself any time soon.

Report this comment
#17) On February 16, 2011 at 3:16 PM, jesusfreakinco (29.61) wrote:

Valyooo

Eveyone has different morals.  In the end, each person has to sleep at night knowing his investing or other decisions that day add to or detract from the morals they have.  This is called personal choice and what makes this country great.

I've made my comments - I can't invest in anything that I believe allows the Fed to continue its theft of the American people and the destruction of the country I love.

Now as it relates to $ being spent on what some believe would find immoral, that is another thread altogether.

Report this comment
#18) On February 16, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Option1307 (30.47) wrote:

MO has been one of the best companies to own over the past ~20 years. Seriously, look it up.

So put your morals aside, this is investing Fools!

I despise cigarettes, especially because I am in the medical field and see there terrible adverse effects, but damn I'm sure glad I've been a shareholder of MO for the better part of eternity!

Report this comment
#19) On February 16, 2011 at 7:07 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

There is another thread on a bio company DSCO.  I did a little research on the company and found this profile snippet amusing:

The company has a license agreement with Philip Morris USA Inc. to use its capillary aerosolization technology for use with pulmonary surfactants for the respiratory diseases and conditions;

So PM makes money off of getting people sick from their product and then makes money in trying to treat and cure them!

Report this comment
#20) On February 16, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

I own DSCO, this is amazing!

Report this comment
#21) On February 17, 2011 at 12:06 AM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

So try to kill em then cure em heheh.

Report this comment
#22) On February 17, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Valyooo (99.82) wrote:

How can you go wrong with a strategy like that?

Report this comment
#23) On February 17, 2011 at 2:33 AM, valunvesthere (< 20) wrote:

Mission: Impossible II

Directed by John Woo

Starring Tom Cruise, Richard Roxburgh, Dougray Scott, Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames

Distributed by Paramount Pictures

Release date(s) May 24, 2000 (2000-05-24)

Running time 123 minutes

Country UnitedStates

Language English

Budget $125 million

Gross revenue $546,388,200

Report this comment
#24) On February 18, 2011 at 11:18 AM, smankle (< 20) wrote:

I'm a recovering smoker; I've been back on the wagon again for a month now.  I'm beginning to consider an MO position for my Roth because I want some the money I blew on cigarrettes back. Maybe I'll start a new trend - revenge investing ;-)

Report this comment
#25) On February 18, 2011 at 11:35 AM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

To quote Gordon Gekko from Wall St "If you want a friend in business, get a dog." If you want morals, don't look for them anywhere remotely close to Wall Street. It's about making money. PM/MO has consistently outperformed the markets, and both are gobbled up in both good and in bad markets as one of the few consumer staples with relatively little competition and enormous market share. So to those who want to chase those high-flying techs, be my guest, but when the market turns south, PM and MO do well as a safe place to hide. I could care less if they lag the market on the way up. Oh, PM is now at an all-time high of $61.30.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement