Responsible investing - just a marketing trick?
"You are correct that, barring an equity capital raise, your money doesn't actually end up in the company. However, interest in their stock can help a company in other ways; Management/board members hopefully own shares or options themselves, thus knowing that ""green"" policies are favorable for the stock price (as your fund might buy shares) can be quite an incentive for them to go green(er).  Companies with above average company share performance are also often viewed as financially healthy and so creditors tend to charge lower interest for companies with good share performance.  Lastly, a high share price makes a company difficult to take over (as all those shares have to be acquired) and at the same time makes it easier for the company to perform takeovers themselves as they can finance such acquisitions by issuing more of their own shares. There is also the implication that money flowing towards such green companies is money flowing out of/away from polluting companies, for these ""dirty"" companies the inverse of the previous points can hold true. Of course on the other hand there is quite an argument to be made that large enough ""green"" funds should actually buy substantial positions in companies with poor environmental records and steer the company towards greener policies but that might be a hard sell to investors." A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own  part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.
Rent should be nailed to costs + a pre-defined profit limit. Anything above the profit margin gets taxed away.  Instead, people are gouged of a good portion of their incomes while landlords make out like bandits.  Although I imagine the response to such a scheme would just be convoluted accounting tricks. Best as i can tell, the simple answer is: the smartest approach to investing for dividends is to pick a company that is, has, and will continue to make a solid profits. there are lots of them out there. specifically, companies with no debt, a history of long-term and steady growth and a stable market share will, almost always recoup any drop in stock valuation due to a dividend payout...and usually in short order. this is why dividends were created...as a mechanism for distributing profits back to investor without diminishing thier stake in the company. the trick then, is to find such companies with the best ratio between stock price and dividend payout. and again, there are a lot of good options out there.  All the trepidation is justified however, as many unscrupulous companies will try to pull investors in with high dividends as a means to simply generate capital. these companies have few of the quality attributes mentioned above. instead, High debt, fluctuating or negative profits, minimal market share or diminishing growth present a very risky long term play and will be avoided by this conservative investor. When purchasing a condo in a university town, it is almost guaranteed that the prices will be inflated as a result.  This is because you are competing not only with single-home, primary residence homeowners, but also with a multitude of investment buyers and landlords who want to purchase a rental property.  Universities are popular rental markets due to their stability (there will always be students looking for a place to live), and as a result the areas attract investors more than other markets. This can work in your favor, however.  If you don't mind sharing your residence with other students, and you don't mind the part time work that being a landlord requires, you can live much cheaper and even make money over the next few years as your roommates pay your bills.  Owning a primary residence rental property also brings a lot of tax benefits because you can claim expenses and depreciation against your income.  This could benefit your father who could be a co-owner and would certainly benefit from the write-offs against his higher tax bracket. The real trick that makes or breaks the experience is finding mature, responsible roommates who will cause the minimum amount of headache.  If this part of the equation is missing, it can lead to distractions from school and even legal worries when you have to think about things like unpaid rent and/or evictions. "&gt; Well they've ""created"" what $5trillion in the last few years  I agree with you technically, but they control both the quantity and the quantity times velocity of money so they are also responsible for the lack of cashflow.   The big thing I think you're referring to is that they did this weird maneuver where they temporarily injected money into the banks, basically so they could say they were solvent without actually being solvent. Because the injections were temporary, the money never moved and was simply deposited at the fed. If, like Adam Smith, you don't consider money to really exist unless it moves, they did not create effective money, as you point out. Critically, they did not create cashflow, which is the appropriate macro definition of money. The corresponding macro variable for this is NGDP.  But actually the fed also controls NGDP, as Ben Bernanke says every time the FOMC makes its report. They just choose not to increase it, because they think that ""monetary policy is sufficiently accommodative."" I would agree with you that the present level of cashflow is inadequate, but if the Fed fixes it at the present level, nothing will increase it. This is called the Sumner critique (Sumner was raising the issue to argue, contra Keynes, that the multiplier on fiscal policy is 0), if you google it you can probably find someone to defend it better than me. In any event, this means it's not very surprising that private spending and investment doesn't lift NGDP: nothing but the fed can lift NGDP. Because it cannot create new cashflow on its own (which it could under free banking, this would be the advantage of free banking), the market must now move to a new equilibrium NGDP level while it is saddled with a large number of contracts from before 2008 that were negotiated with respect to a higher expected NGDP level. This deleveraging process is responsible for the present slump and the disinvestment you describe." "Let's pretend that the author of that article is not selling anything and is trying to help you succeed in life.  I have nothing against sales, but that author is throwing out a lot of nonsense to sell his stuff and is creating a state of urgency so that people adopt this mindset.  It's clever and it obviously works. From a pure time perspective, most people won't make enough money to run their own business and be as profitable as if they worked for a company.  This is a reality that few want to acknowledge.  If you invested in yourself and your career with the same discipline and urgency as an entrepreneur, most people would be better off at a company when you consider the benefits and the fact that employees have a full 7.5% of social security paid by their employer (entrepreneurs see the full 15% while employees don't).  Why do I start here, because this author isn't telling you that the more people take his advice, the more their earnings will regress to the mean or below.  In fact, most of my entrepreneur friends have to go back to work when their reality fails after they burn through their savings. 401ks are not a perfect system, but there are more 401k millionaires now than ever before this, and people who give the author's advice are always looking to avoid doing what they need to do - save for retirement.  Most people I know sadly realize this in their 50s, when it's too late, and start trying to ""catch up.""  I don't blame the author for this, as he knows his article will appeal to younger people who don't have the wisdom to see that his advice hasn't been great for most.  The reality is that for most people 401ks will provide tax advantaged savings that you can use when you're older; taxes will eat at your earnings, so these accounts really help. Finally, look at the article again especially the part you quote.  He says inflation will carve out what you save, yet inflation is less than 2%.  Where is he getting this from?  In the past decade, we've seen numerous deflationary spirals and the market overall has come back from the fall in 2009.  Again, this isn't ""good enough"" for this author, so buy his stuff to learn how to succeed!  There have been numerous decades (50s,70s) that were much worse for investors than this past one." "A brief review of the financial collapses in the last 30 years will show that the following events take place in a fairly typical cycle: Overuse of that innovation (resulting in inadequate supply to meet demand, in most cases) Inadequate capacity in regulatory oversight for the new volume of demand, resulting in significant unregulated activity, and non-observance of regulations to a greater extent than normal Confusion regarding shifting standards and regulations, leading to inadequate regulatory reviews and/or lenient sanctions for infractions, in turn resulting in a more aggressive industry ""Gaming"" of investment vehicles, markets and/or buyers to generate additional demand once the market is saturated ""Chickens coming home to roost"" - A breakdown in financial stability, operational accuracy, or legality of the actions of one or more significant players in the market, leading to one or more investigations A reduction in demand due to the tarnished reputation of the instrument and/or market players, leading to an anticipation of a glut of excess product in the market ""Cold feet"" - Existing customers seeking to dump assets, and refusing to buy additional product in the pipeline, resulting in a glut of excess product ""Wasteland"" - Illiquid markets of product at collapsed prices, cratering of associated portfolio values, retirees living below subsistence incomes Such investment bubbles are not limited to the last 30 years, of course; there was a bubble in silver prices (a 700% increase through one year, 1979) when the Hunt brothers attempted to corner the market, followed by a collapse on Silver Thursday in 1980.   The ""poster child"" of investment bubbles is the Tulip Mania that gripped the Netherlands in the early 1600's, in which a single tulip bulb was reported to command a price 16 times the annual salary of a skilled worker. The same cycle of events took place in each of these bubbles as well. Templeton's caution is intended to alert new (especially younger) players in the market that these patterns are doomed to repeat, and that market cycles cannot be prevented or eradicated; they are an intrinsic effect of the cycles of supply and demand that are not in synch, and in which one or both are being influenced by intermediaries. Such influences have beneficial effects on short-term profits for the players, but adverse effects on the long-term viability of the market's profitability for investors who are ill-equipped to shed the investments before the trouble starts." "Investing is not the same as illegal drugs.  One does not start with pot and progress to things like heroin in order to get a better high.  Penny stocks are a fools game and not an entry into the world of investing. The charts you mentioned are fake and likely the result of pump and dump schemes as my colleagues have pointed out in the comments.  They have no bearing on investing.  Good investment grade companies have many peaks and valleys over time.  Look at any company you are familiar with Apple, Google, Tesla, GE, Microsoft, etc... One has a few choices in getting ""into investing"" to name a few: All of those are valid and worthy pursuits.  Read books by Jack Bogle." "A great deal of analysis on this question relies on misunderstandings of the market or noticing trends that happened at the same time but were not caused by each other.  Without knowing your view, I'll just give the basic idea. The amount of active management is self-correcting.  The reason people have moved out of actively managed funds is that the funds have not been performing well.  Their objective is to beat their benchmarks by profiting as they correct mispricing.  They are performing poorly because there is too much money chasing too few mispricings.  That is why the actively managed industry is shrinking.  If it gets small enough, presumably those opportunities will become more abundant and mispricing correction will become more profitable.  Then money will flow back into active funds. Relevant active management may not be what a lay person is thinking of.  At the retail level, we are observing a shift to passive funds, but there is still plenty of money in other places.  For example, pension and endowment funds normally have an objective of beating a market benchmark like the Russell 3000.  As a result they are constantly trying to find opportunities to invest in active management that really can outperform.  They represent a great deal of money and are nothing like the ""buy and forget"" stereotype we sometimes imagine.  Moreover, hedge funds and propreitary trading shops explicitly and solely try to correct mispricings.  They represent a very, very large bucket of money that is not shrinking.  Active retail mutual funds and individual investors are not as relevant for pricing as we might think.  More trading volume is not necessarily a good thing, nor is it the measure of market quality.  One argument against passive funds is that passive funds don't trade much.  Yet the volume of trading in the markets has risen dramatically over time as a result of technological improvements (algorithmic traders, mostly).  They have out-competed certain market makers who used to make money on inefficiencies of the market.  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Well, prices are more efficient now and it appears that these computers are more responsive to price-relevant information than people used to be.  So even if trading volume does decrease, I see no reason to worry that prices will become less efficient.  That's not the direction things have gone, even as passive investing has boomed. Overall, worries about passive investing rely on an assumption that there is not enough interest in and resources for making arbitrage profits to keep prices efficient.  This is highly counterfactual and always will be.  As long as people and institutions want money and have access to the markets, there will be plenty of resources allocated to price correction."