Canadian Money Forum banner

41 - 60 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
I think you should see this as "portfolio diversification". The market (world) contains different sectors, industries, market caps, etc. (genders, ethnicities, wealth, cultures, etc.) and you want your portfolio to be diversified to represent the market properly so that you get the best of everything (different opinions).
Great phrasing.

I don't think that if you want different opinions, you should get people with different opinions and not settle for race/gender as proxies for those opinions.
I think not only is using race or gender as a proxy for different opinions technically wrong, particularly at the individual level. To presume so is racist and sexist.

Thinking that a particular group (race or gender) has a certain opinion, or acts in a certain way is discriminatory.
Also since it's well documented that intragroup scatter of most personal characteristics (ie intelligence, political perspective, philosophies etc) is significantly larger than the mean difference between groups, it isn't likely to provide the diversity in those characteristics you want anyway.

In short, I don't think discriminating based on race and gender is in any way a sound business strategy.
The basis that it will provide diversity of opinion is itself racist and sexist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
I don't think that if you want different opinions, you should get people with different opinions and not settle for race/gender as proxies for those opinions.
Well, even if some people may have different opinions without the needs of race/gender, they certainly won't have the same understanding than someone who's living that reality.

Even if a man thinks it's dangerous for women to walk the streets at 2 AM, he certainly won't ever have the same understanding than a woman that experienced walking the streets at 2 AM.

Even if a non-First Nations person strongly believes the situation of the First Nations is horrible, he certainly won't have the same understanding than a person born from generations of First Nations family.

There's the opinions, and there's the level of understanding backing up those opinions from experiencing that reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
Well, even if some people may have different opinions without the needs of race/gender, they certainly won't have the same understanding than someone who's living that reality.

Even if a man thinks it's dangerous for women to walk the streets at 2 AM, he certainly won't ever have the same understanding than a woman that experienced walking the streets at 2 AM.

Even if a non-First Nations person strongly believes the situation of the First Nations is horrible, he certainly won't have the same understanding than a person born from generations of First Nations family.

There's the opinions, and there's the level of understanding backing up those opinions from experiencing that reality.
I agree and disagree.

I would suggest that a person walking the streets at 2AM would consist of an incredibly wide set of experiences and that while "women" as a group may have a different typical experience as "men" as a group, it is likely that any particular "man" or "woman" would have similar experiences, or that one would have had better or worse experiences.
Also for the unique experiences, I would also hold that there is no experience so biased that nearly all of one group would have it, and nearly all of the other group would not have it.
As such gender is a poor proxy for that experience and you'd be better served by looking for someone with that particular experience.

Secondly, the boards and executive of any organization (including political leaders) have only had, collectively a miniscule number of the experiences of the larger population.
If anything, having had the experience may bias a person regarding the situation. It may bias them to the advantage or detriment of the situation.

I think it is important to have people who can find, understand and effectively communicate the concerns of those who have had experiences they have not had.
In many cases people who do not have the experience or issue may be able to more effectively communicate and advocate than the individuals themselves.

Finally I don't believe that you need to have experienced something firsthand to effectively address the issue. I've had gender based medical issues, and I feel that my opposite gender health professional did an excellent job dealing with it, despite them never having the issue themselves.


So in summary
If you want a particular point of view or experience, select someone with that point of view or experience or attribute. Don't use race/gender as a proxy for experiences.
I think it is more important to consider and communicate the issues relating to the experience or situations by disparate groups, which may or may not directly involve people from those groups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
I agree and disagree.

I would suggest that a person walking the streets at 2AM would consist of an incredibly wide set of experiences and that while "women" as a group may have a different typical experience as "men" as a group, it is likely that any particular "man" or "woman" would have similar experiences, or that one would have had better or worse experiences.
Also for the unique experiences, I would also hold that there is no experience so biased that nearly all of one group would have it, and nearly all of the other group would not have it.
As such gender is a poor proxy for that experience and you'd be better served by looking for someone with that particular experience.

Secondly, the boards and executive of any organization (including political leaders) have only had, collectively a miniscule number of the experiences of the larger population.
If anything, having had the experience may bias a person regarding the situation. It may bias them to the advantage or detriment of the situation.

I think it is important to have people who can find, understand and effectively communicate the concerns of those who have had experiences they have not had.
In many cases people who do not have the experience or issue may be able to more effectively communicate and advocate than the individuals themselves.

Finally I don't believe that you need to have experienced something firsthand to effectively address the issue. I've had gender based medical issues, and I feel that my opposite gender health professional did an excellent job dealing with it, despite them never having the issue themselves.


So in summary
If you want a particular point of view or experience, select someone with that point of view or experience or attribute. Don't use race/gender as a proxy for experiences.
I think it is more important to consider and communicate the issues relating to the experience or situations by disparate groups, which may or may not directly involve people from those groups.
I understand your points. I'll also agree and disagree.

I find it hard to find the "right" way to address this kind of issue. And that's why it may be an eternal debate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
I understand your points. I'll also agree and disagree.

I find it hard to find the "right" way to address this kind of issue. And that's why it may be an eternal debate.
Well, in my opinion the debate is over and there are incredibly high levels of agreement.

Don't discriminate based on race or gender.

Sure there are many white supremacists and male supremacists who disagree, but while they've been strengthening in recent years, I hope they will remain in the minority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Well, in my opinion the debate is over and there are incredibly high levels of agreement.

Don't discriminate based on race or gender.

Sure there are many white supremacists and male supremacists who disagree, but while they've been strengthening in recent years, I hope they will remain in the minority.
I don't think the debate is over considering the current situation.

In the past, we had race/gender discrimination going under the radar.

Now, to avoid discrimination going under the radar, we added control to force equal representation of race/gender.

It's a bad for a bad. From an extreme to another. Hopefully, that oscillation from an extreme to another will damper over time to stabilise in a well balanced state without any discrimination, without any forced control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
I don't think the debate is over considering the current situation.

In the past, we had race/gender discrimination going under the radar.

Now, to avoid discrimination going under the radar, we added control to force equal representation of race/gender.

It's a bad for a bad. From an extreme to another. Hopefully, that oscillation from an extreme to another will damper over time to stabilise in a well balanced state without any discrimination, without any forced control.
It's still a bunch of racists and sexists arguing for discrimination, nothing has changed.

The problem is that we won't get a balanced state without forced control.
I'll let you in on a not so big secret, individual people like a variety of things, and their distribution of interests is not evenly distributed.

If you grab 100 people and ask their favourite ice cream flavour, you'll get interesting data.
I don't think it is a good idea to reassign people and telling them that in the interest of equality, that no you can't like chocolate, and you must now like vanilla.
There is nothing wrong with liking vanilla, and nothing wrong with liking chocolate,

What is the value in having a particular interest evenly shared and divided across the population by demographic group?
Can we just say that it's okay to like whatever flavour ice cream you want, and treat everyone with dignity, even if lots of people tend to prefer one to the other?
Does it really matter if women tend to like chocolate more?

Is it a problem, can't we just let women have their ice cream, or should we force some of them to have vanilla instead, for equity?

Do we want a free and fair system, or one that forces artificial "equity".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Do we want a free and fair system, or one that forces artificial "equity".
I want free and fair system. But unfortunately, at the moment, it seems like we have to force the things to give a message against the racism/sexism that was going under the radar.

I'm not saying it's good. I think it's very bizarre to fight racism/sexism with another form of racism/sexism.

When you were young, have you ever put aside your vegetables because you didn't like them? And then when your parents saw your behaviour, they forced you to eat them? And now you eat your vegetables without anyone forcing you?

That being said, I prefer education. But education is a slow process. And even the education system is broken because it's teaching a way to think and that's biased. There isn't a lot of unbiased education.

Unfortunately, I don't have solutions, so I can't critic a decision unless I have a solution with a strong belief that it's a better solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
I want free and fair system. But unfortunately, at the moment, it seems like we have to force the things to give a message against the racism/sexism that was going under the radar.

I'm not saying it's good. I think it's very bizarre to fight racism/sexism with another form of racism/sexism.

When you were young, have you ever put aside your vegetables because you didn't like them? And then when your parents saw your behaviour, they forced you to eat them? And now you eat your vegetables without anyone forcing you?

That being said, I prefer education. But education is a slow process. And even the education system is broken because it's teaching a way to think and that's biased. There isn't a lot of unbiased education.

Unfortunately, I don't have solutions, so I can't critic a decision unless I have a solution with a strong belief that it's a better solution.
Your vegetable example is flawed.
I assume by vegetables you mean "heathy food", and yes you should be encouraged.

I think a fair society where people can freely choose what they want, without discrimination is good.
I don't think a scorecard of mathematically perfect representation across all fields by all groups is
1. A measure if society is fair.
2. Respectful of the individual.

In short if their goal is equality, they're using a flawed measure.
They're hurting people for no good reason. Remember they're not working towards a fair society.

When I say hurting people.
They are hurting the individuals they are "trying to help" by pushing them to do things they don't want to do, and may not be happy doing.
They're hurting the individuals being displaced from doing things they want to do.
They're hurting society by misallocating resources, putting the wrong people in the wrong place.

They're hurting everyone, nobody benefits and they're moving AWAY from their stated goal of fairness.
Discrimination is a lose, lose lose game.

I'll stop short of saying that people who support discrimination are all sociopaths, they are most likely simply ignorant.

Also if you think you need to force quotas, it's because you don't think those people are capable of making it themselves, it's the bigotry of low expectations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
Your vegetable example is flawed.
I assume by vegetables you mean "heathy food", and yes you should be encouraged.

I think a fair society where people can freely choose what they want, without discrimination is good.
I don't think a scorecard of mathematically perfect representation across all fields by all groups is
1. A measure if society is fair.
2. Respectful of the individual.

In short if their goal is equality, they're using a flawed measure.
They're hurting people for no good reason. Remember they're not working towards a fair society.

When I say hurting people.
They are hurting the individuals they are "trying to help" by pushing them to do things they don't want to do, and may not be happy doing.
They're hurting the individuals being displaced from doing things they want to do.
They're hurting society by misallocating resources, putting the wrong people in the wrong place.

They're hurting everyone, nobody benefits and they're moving AWAY from their stated goal of fairness.
Discrimination is a lose, lose lose game.

I'll stop short of saying that people who support discrimination are all sociopaths, they are most likely simply ignorant.

Also if you think you need to force quotas, it's because you don't think those people are capable of making it themselves, it's the bigotry of low expectations.
I totally agree with you, but what's the solution?

Discrimination is real. What's the solution against it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
Just saw this in my inbox

On January 11, 2021, prohibitions arising from Executive Order 13959 (“the Order”) related to investments in certain Chinese companies become effective. Pursuant to these prohibitions U.S. persons, and entities that are deemed U.S. Persons for purposes of the Order, may not transact in the publicly traded securities of certain Chinese companies identified by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury, or any securities that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities. Derivatives include ETF’s that contain any of the prohibited companies as a component. As such, the below securities will be halted from trading and there may be no ability to sell these shares after market close on January 7th.​
Ticker EXCH_CODE CNTRY_OF_DOMICILE LONG_COMP_NAME​
AVITF OTC US HK AVIC International Holding HK Ltd​
AVIJF OTC US CN AviChina Industry & Technology Co Ltd​
CGEGF OTC US HK CGN New Energy Holdings Co Ltd​
CGNWF OTC US CN CGN Power Co Ltd​
CHAEF OTC US HK China Aerospace International Holdings Ltd​
CCCGF OTC US CN China Communications Construction Co Ltd​
CCCGY OTC US CN China Communications Construction Co Ltd​
CJNHF OTC US HK China Jinmao Holdings Group Ltd​
FRSHY OTC US HK China Jinmao Holdings Group Ltd​
CHL New York HK China Mobile Ltd​
CHLKF OTC US HK China Mobile Ltd​
CAOVY OTC US HK China Overseas Land & Investment Ltd​
CHA New York CN China Telecom Corp Ltd​
CHJHF OTC US CN China Telecom Corp Ltd​
CHU New York HK China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd​
CHUFF OTC US HK China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd​
CEO New York CN CNOOC Ltd​
CRCCY OTC US CN CRRC Corp Ltd​
CRRRF OTC US CN CRRC Corp Ltd​
DIPGF OTC US CN Datang International Power Generation Co Ltd​
DIPGY OTC US CN Datang International Power Generation Co Ltd​
ELKEF OTC US NO Elkem ASA​
FEHZY OTC US HK Far East Horizon Ltd​
FEZHF OTC US HK Far East Horizon Ltd​
INPRF OTC US HK Inspur International Ltd​
KHDHF OTC US DE KHD Humboldt Wedag International AG​
NJGPF OTC US CN Nanjing Panda Electronics Co Ltd​
PLLIF OTC US IT Pirelli & C SpA​
PRLLY OTC US IT Pirelli & C SpA​
DEIPY OTC US BR Rio Paranapanema Energia SA​
DEIWY OTC US BR Rio Paranapanema Energia SA​
SIUIF OTC US CN Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp​
SMICY OTC US CN Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp​
SNFRF OTC US HK Sinofert Holdings Ltd​
SNFRY OTC US HK Sinofert Holdings Ltd​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
I totally agree with you, but what's the solution?

Discrimination is real. What's the solution against it?
Identify cases of discrimination and pursue legal sanctions against the offender.

I simply think that in order to address discrimination, we have to actually find an instance of discrimination to address.

The problem is that they're skipping that "finding discrimination" step, because it's hard. Instead they're choosing poorly thought out proxies as they actually can't find much discrimination.

I'm not saying there isn't discrimination, just that it isn't nearly as widespread as some believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
The problem is that they're skipping that "finding discrimination" step, because it's hard. Instead they're choosing poorly thought out proxies as they actually can't find much discrimination.

I'm not saying there isn't discrimination, just that it isn't nearly as widespread as some believe.
I think we always tend to underestimate the complexity, context and issues of situations we are not accountable to solve ourselves.

We also always underestimate the widespread of what we don't see in our own environment.

A few years ago, I was telling my spouse how we were improving against bad behaviors in work environments. At that point, she started telling me every single bad behavior she was living or witnessing at her work, in the federal government. And asking me what should she do. She had stories for me every single day for years. There wasn't many solutions because those bad behaviors came from people in position of power, with lots of contacts, strategies and manipulation. We may believe that other people would not accept such behaviors because we live in a great society, yet those people with bad behaviors still have too many allies or too much people under their control/manipulation.

Also, some solutions are good on paper, in theory, but they take much more time before we see a positive impact. So we must balance out the solutions which are addressing a part of the problem on the short term, even if it's not a good solution on the long term.

Say you are about to get on a plane with your kid and suddenly he tells you he don't want to get on that plane. The plane is about to take off in two hours. What do you do? You talk with your kid, you try to understand what's going on, etc. Now say you are at the gate, the plane is taking off in 5 minutes and at that moment your kid says he doesn't want to get on the plane. What do you do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
I think we always tend to underestimate the complexity, context and issues of situations we are not accountable to solve ourselves.

We also always underestimate the widespread of what we don't see in our own environment.

A few years ago, I was telling my spouse how we were improving against bad behaviors in work environments. At that point, she started telling me every single bad behavior she was living or witnessing at her work, in the federal government. And asking me what should she do. She had stories for me every single day for years. There wasn't many solutions because those bad behaviors came from people in position of power, with lots of contacts, strategies and manipulation. We may believe that other people would not accept such behaviors because we live in a great society, yet those people with bad behaviors still have too many allies or too much people under their control/manipulation.

Also, some solutions are good on paper, in theory, but they take much more time before we see a positive impact. So we must balance out we solutions which are addressing a part of the problem on the short term.

Say you are about to get on a plane with your kid and suddenly he tells you he don't want to get on that plane. The plane is about to take off in two hours. What do you do? You talk with your kid, you try to understand what's going on, etc. Now say you are at the gate, the plane is taking off in 5 minutes and at that moment your kid says he doesn't want to get on the plane. What do you do?
A few things.
I think it's obvious that
1. Things aren't perfect
2. Things are dramatically better than they used to be.
Both you and your spouse are correct.

I want to make things better. I think the first step is to not take actions that make them worse.
You don't end bad behaviour by forcing more bad behaviour and hope that will somehow balance it all out. All you end up with is a whole bunch of people behaving badly.

Finally I don't get your example about a child on a plane.

I actually feel that corruption and discrimination and evil are competitive disadvantages.
In addition most of us agree that we should find and address acts of corruption and discrimination, and other evils.
You're not going to beat discrimination with more discrimination, and you're not going to beat corruption with more corruption. They are both categorically and unequivocally bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,321 Posts
I want to make things better. I think the first step is to not take actions that make them worse.
You don't end bad behaviour by forcing more bad behaviour and hope that will somehow balance it all out. All you end up with is a whole bunch of people behaving badly.
I agree.

I think though that the reasoning behind forcing fair representation of race/gender comes from this example:

Say you work in company A. Your friend works in company B. Both great companies, very well managed, but very different cultures and experiences. Same number of employees. Then both companies merge into a single company. After the "selection" process from the president, it ends up that all the CxO are from company A. Do the employees from company B feel well represented?

Finally I don't get your example about a child on a plane.
Yeah, it was a bad example, I was about to remove it. I was just trying to illustrate that sometimes "you have time to take your time". And in other situations, you must force it and only afterwards you come back on the situation and take your time.

Anyways, I'm having a language barrier on explaining myself properly on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
I agree.

I think though that the reasoning behind forcing fair representation of race/gender comes from this example:
I think you're mixing "fair" and "proportional".

Say you work in company A. Your friend works in company B. Both great companies, very well managed, but very different cultures and experiences. Same number of employees. Then both companies merge into a single company. After the "selection" process from the president, it ends up that all the CxO are from company A. Do the employees from company B feel well represented?
I understand (and have had this experience)
I don't think it's the same. It is quite possible, and even likely that the company A staff are more in line with the management strategy of the new company.
I'd actually suggest that Company A executives will have the attributes for Company A managements style, and similarly with Company B.
If the goal is to have Company A style, there should be an overrepresentation of Company A style executives to make that happen.



Yeah, it was a bad example, I was about to remove it. I was just trying to illustrate that sometimes "you have time to take your time". And in other situations, you must force it and only afterwards you come back on the situation and take your time.
I understand, but maybe even in that case forcing isn't the appropriate solution.
It really matters what the problem is.

Anyways, I'm having a language barrier on explaining myself properly on this.
That's why free speech is so important.
When you're restricted from saying certain things, it becomes even harder to communicate concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,313 Posts
Imagine that the year is 1935 and the world has learned that Germany has concentration camps, and is exterminating Jews. At the same time, there are very strong business conditions in Germany, especially among businesses which cooperate with the Nazis. The stocks perform well, and many capitalists shrug off the moral issues.

Question: would you hold onto your German stocks? Should you have held them? There was no war at the time... they were legal, and very lucrative.

Today, the emerging market ETFs have a huge weight in China. We've known for about 1-2 years now that China also has concentration camps, and the US just determined that the Chinese government is committing a genocide against Uyghurs. This is a very strong statement that is likely to have many consequences in the coming months and years.

I think it's a serious concern. Again this is why I stay close to home turf, with concentration in US & Canada (allies).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,313 Posts
I don't see emerging markets as all that different from the North American markets. If I had to guess, they would be equivalent to the Russell 2000.

In terms of corruption, companies of North America aren't exactly squeaky clean either. Even the Vatican isn't immune to corruption. Here are some names to remind you:
No, there are big differences. In North America and Europe, I can actually sue these companies (we investors do this all the time). I can also sue individual directors, executives, accounting firms, etc and I have a reasonable expectation of justice. I can shame them in the media and launch broader actions for justice.

And when I do, I don't have to fear an autocratic regime sending hit men after me. Try this in Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia and see what happens when you challenge the government-linked corporations. You might end up, quite literally, hacked into pieces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,576 Posts
No, there are big differences. In North America and Europe, I can actually sue these companies (we investors do this all the time). I can also sue individual directors, executives, accounting firms, etc and I have a reasonable expectation of justice. I can shame them in the media and launch broader actions for justice.

And when I do, I don't have to fear an autocratic regime sending hit men after me. Try this in Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia and see what happens when you challenge the government-linked corporations. You might end up, quite literally, hacked into pieces.
I agree there are big differences in each country.
Remember Venezuela nationalized a lot of stuff too. It's a risk in these types of countries.

I think there is a lot of added risk. I think the corruption etc is something that needs to be considered.
Of course you can outsource all this management by owning stock in a large multinational, these guys are better positioned and more aware of the issues with the jurisdictions than you are.

Also there is well known corruption and issues even in western G7 countries. It just tends to be smaller, or restricted to specific parts of the economy.

I think that you should consider and account for the additional risk, and it is potentially too high.
For example I think the risk of investing in Venezuela is too high
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,286 Posts
This from a country that buys Saudi oil instead of stuff produced in Canada? Don’t start pretending to care now.
 
41 - 60 of 66 Posts
Top