[emckay]

Another similar idea is mission hedging.

If there is a company that you believe is causing some harm, you can buy shares of that company and donate any proceeds to a charity that cancels out that harm.

For example, if you are worried about climate change, you can buy shares of an oil company and pledge to donate the proceeds to an organization lobbying for a carbon tax.

If the oil company does well, the carbon tax lobby will need more financing, which you'll be in a position to provide as a shareholder of the oil company.

This idea was developed by economist Brigitte Roth Tran: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2017042pap... .

Hauke Hillebrandt also has a great write up: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/iZp7TtZdFyW8eT5dA/...

[legulere]

You still support the company with buying their shares though. Seems like a stupid idea.

[sertorius]

Buying shares doesn't necessarily mean you "support the company". You can be an activist and vote against current management. In many cases, activist investors have a big impact.

Realistically, it won't matter either way, but at least as an unhappy shareholder you have infinitesimally more power to influence the company than a grumbling outsider. Certainly more than the tiny amount of "support" that your stock purchase will cause should they issue more shares.

[totalZero]

Christ almighty, you are so totally wrong. Sorry to be blunt.

First of all, buying a stock generates upward impact (that is, contributes to an increase in market cap) and puts volume/liquidity on the tape, two things that generally benefit a company.

Activists push for shareholder returns, so that they can turn a profit on their investment. Do you know who else tends to hold shares? Board members and executives. But those activists don't generally accomplish their goals by voting their shares. No, they publicize their views, putting pressure on the board by making open arguments for why their plans are more profitable for shareholders. In reality, shareholder votes are generally not dominated by retail investors, who lack the clout to sway other shareholders.

Note also that many short-sellers do the same thing: position themselves quietly, publicize their short thesis, wait for the price to move, and then cover slowly. In either case, in my view it's hard to argue that this is market manipulation -- so long as the arguments are simple revelations of fact, or otherwise in the best interest of shareholders. But the fact remains, a retail investor is not in a position to make either such move.

I don't see what share issuance has to do with any of this. You generally buy shares in the secondary market, on an exchange. Companies don't have to issue new shares for you to buy part of the float.

[AnthonyMouse]

The greater risk is probably that if you succeed, it will cause the oil company's share price to decline dramatically. Which means you're essentially committing to losing the money. If you're willing to do that you might as well just donate the entire amount to advocating for a carbon tax to begin with, instead of only the dividends.

[sertorius]

Fair enough, but I doubt many individuals would be able to do much more than rein in the extremes - drilling in protected reserves, etc.

[hirundo]

When you buy share in a company you are either handing them capital to expand directly, or making it easier for them to raise capital by lifting the stock price. Weigh that against voting that share to change their business model. The net result will be highly contingent on the details.