Is Hillary Toast?

[Sam]

According to Forbes "Sanders and his wife also have money in retirement accounts and mutual funds, some of which focus on socially responsible investments." It sounds like he wasn't making wise investments but instead concentrated on investments that matched his personal political philosophy.

From the Motley Fool:

Source: Socially Responsible Investments: How Do They Stack Up? Charlie Kannel. The Motley Fool. 2012.09.14

The idea that SRI companies also perform better financially sounds great, but is it true? Luckily for investors, many studies have compared the performance of socially responsible assets with ordinary investments. For example, the FTSE KLD 400, an index of socially responsible stocks created in 1990, generated annual returns of 9.51% (through 2009), compared with the 8.66% return achieved by the S&P 500 over the same period. Countless other studies have demonstrated that SRI mutual funds are competitive with their non-SRI peers (many of these studies can be accessed here). Socially responsible funds performed spectacularly even during times of economic turmoil: Large-cap SRI mutual funds outperformed the S&P 500 by 6% in 2009. The only major concern is that some SRI funds have higher fees associated with the additional costs of SRI screening.

© Copyright Original Source

Whether or not Sanders is good with money relies on information that no one here has access to, I'm guessing. Useless to speculate.

[rogue06]

From the Motley Fool:

Source: Socially Responsible Investments: How Do They Stack Up? Charlie Kannel. The Motley Fool. 2012.09.14

The idea that SRI companies also perform better financially sounds great, but is it true? Luckily for investors, many studies have compared the performance of socially responsible assets with ordinary investments. For example, the FTSE KLD 400, an index of socially responsible stocks created in 1990, generated annual returns of 9.51% (through 2009), compared with the 8.66% return achieved by the S&P 500 over the same period. Countless other studies have demonstrated that SRI mutual funds are competitive with their non-SRI peers (many of these studies can be accessed here). Socially responsible funds performed spectacularly even during times of economic turmoil: Large-cap SRI mutual funds outperformed the S&P 500 by 6% in 2009. The only major concern is that some SRI funds have higher fees associated with the additional costs of SRI screening.

© Copyright Original Source

Whether or not Sanders is good with money relies on information that no one here has access to, I'm guessing. Useless to speculate.

The only thing that we have to go on is that he focused on socially responsible investments and after several decades has very little to show for it. Odd considering how the stock market has grown from between 600 and 800 back in 1974 to something like 17,000 today.

[Sam]

The only thing that we have to go on is that he focused on socially responsible investments and after several decades has very little to show for it. Odd considering how the stock market has grown from between 600 and 800 back in 1974 to something like 17,000 today.

And when you have insufficient data, a conclusion is unjustified, as NatSci greybeards are well aware. Especially if other data (e.g., SRI funds, on average, have outperformed traditional mutual funds) complicates or contradicts that conclusion.

This isn't a tough call to make: anyone spending a few minutes could come up with a list of reasons why a person might be fiscally responsible and still not have lots of wealth after many decades. Christians, especially, should not be the people criticizing others' tendency to let go of wealth without having good reason for that criticism.

[Teallaura]

Right. Except for you, Sparko.
And as soon as that happens, I'll have to take you and LPOT and JPHolding and Flimflamboyant and Apologia Phoenix off my "Dirty Dozen" list. (Anybody out there can remember the names of the others? I stopped praying for them every night years ago. Be advised that I did drop two off the list and replace them with two others, so there are actually fourteen all told.)

Wasn't Crow on it? And Dee Dee?

[klaus54]

According to Forbes "Sanders and his wife also have money in retirement accounts and mutual funds, some of which focus on socially responsible investments." It sounds like he wasn't making wise investments but instead concentrated on investments that matched his personal political philosophy.

"Also" have money?

Is this not counted in his net worth?

Most of mine was in a fixed rate annuity, which I wager accrued less average ROI than Socialist Sanders'.

Social choice mutual funds have done better than my annuity.

B.S. should have a net worth well over $2 million even if he were a conservative in investments as me.

And personal wealth management DOES matter as to how that person would run a huge economy.

[JimL]

The only thing that we have to go on is that he focused on socially responsible investments and after several decades has very little to show for it. Odd considering how the stock market has grown from between 600 and 800 back in 1974 to something like 17,000 today.

Honestly, what difference does it make? Who cares how much money he has or what he does with his own money, Its his own money, what he does with his own money is his own business, perhaps he gave it away. It has nothing to do with anything.

[Starlight]

This isn't a tough call to make: anyone spending a few minutes could come up with a list of reasons why a person might be fiscally responsible and still not have lots of wealth after many decades. Christians, especially, should not be the people criticizing others' tendency to let go of wealth without having good reason for that criticism.

"Giving as much as possible to charity" seems to have been supplanted by "store up wealth for yourself on earth", in the list of conservative virtues. Because the presence of wealth proves morality in their minds, which is why Trump is good by definition.

[klaus54]

The only thing that we have to go on is that he focused on socially responsible investments and after several decades has very little to show for it. Odd considering how the stock market has grown from between 600 and 800 back in 1974 to something like 17,000 today.

Sam's post on SRI definitely confirms what I intimated in my previous post.

B.S. must be a TERRIBLE wealth manager.

I can hear the BEP's printing presses running non-stop already.

[rogue06]

"Giving as much as possible to charity" seems to have been supplanted by "store up wealth for yourself on earth", in the list of conservative virtues. Because the presence of wealth proves morality in their minds, which is why Trump is good by definition.

So you're speculating that Sanders was "Giving as much as possible to charity." Let's take a look at that then.

According to a story in the Washington Post

[Adam]

Wasn't Crow on it? And Dee Dee?

I remember Crow, and am confident I did not put him on the list. I don't even remember disliking him, but I may have fought him, I don't recall.
Dee Dee Warren I POSITIVELY did not have on my "Dirty Dozen" list. Partial Preterism is where I started out towards becoming a Christian, and I find it a particularly enlightened form of Christianity, just not something I could verify by further research. Similarly Restorationism is rather extreme, but is inherently more humane than such traditional forms of Christianity as Dante's Inferno or Calvinism. No, I had put people on the list for two different reasons. I found abhorrent the ten people who gloried in how many more people went to eternal excruciating Hell than went to Heaven (typical of Double-Predestination Calvinism). I also listed two who insulted and calumniated their opponents, namely JPHolding and LPOT. I never found their views abhorrent, just their means of defending them. It seems most of the first type (the ten) aren't around any more (I would recognize their names, if they are using the same names on the new TWeb)--though Apologia Phoenix "outed" himself (revealed his name) and is a notable Christian apologist now with views I find now more tolerable. Nick somebody, right? And one or two made the list BOTH ways.

[Psychic Missile]

So you're speculating that Sanders was "Giving as much as possible to charity." Let's take a look at that then.

According to a story in the Washington Post

To be fair, isn't forgoing higher gains in favor of socially responsible investments a kind of charity?

[Cow Poke]

"Giving as much as possible to charity" seems to have been supplanted by "store up wealth for yourself on earth", in the list of conservative virtues. Because the presence of wealth proves morality in their minds, which is why Trump is good by definition.

I hope you didn't break an ankle in that spectacular leap of logic.

[Cow Poke]

To be fair, isn't forgoing higher gains in favor of socially responsible investments a kind of charity?

The Bible tells us that the reason we should work is so that we can have to give to those in need.

When our friend desperately needed a liver transplant, it was our richest member who gave me $10,000 to get him in the hospital.

[One Bad Pig]

I remember Crow, and am confident I did not put him on the list. I don't even remember disliking him, but I may have fought him, I don't recall.

Crow is a woman.

[KingsGambit]

I'm kinda wondering what I am these days, because I still consider myself a conservative, but not a Republican, but my actions locally are more along the lines of a social gospel kind of thing.

I think I've given up on labels.

I was thinking about this the other day and I think I'm with you on labels. People want to label everything as "liberal" or "conservative" when maybe the more appropriate label for these kind of things is "Christian" or "gospel".