FinEcon wrote:... I beleive that people's beliefs tend to be inherently intertwined with their own interests. I seriously doubt that any person, Grantham included, would believe the tar sands ought to stay in the ground if that same person owned the whole thing...
This really doesn't follow.
Even in the bizarre thought experiment you are imagining, say, where your long-lost and recently-departed Uncle Tex left you the deed to the entire oil sands - let alone a few shares of publicly-traded corporations operating there - it doesn't mean you are forced to own them ad infinitum. You could just sell the investment.
And yes, this is not the same as simply guaranteeing that they are shuttered and left in the ground by continuing to own 100% of them and refusing to develop any... But since you seem so dedicated to always maximizing your own economic advantage: selling an asset that you think should be shuttered and eventually worth zero - especially if you are going to actively work to make that come about - isn't even working against your financial self-interests. And you could actually use some of the wealth realized to fund projects and research to protect the environment. Like Grantham himself has done
Yes, I do get the idea that gambling and porn and tobacco and other vice stocks can carry a valuation penalty, as various individuals and institutions refuse to own them, and this may present opportunities for other investors with no such compunctions. Fair enough. But that wasn't your point about Grantham, which really doesn't follow.
The future is bright for jellyfish, caulerpa taxifolia, dinoflagellates and prokaryotes... rust never sleeps... the dude abides... the stupid, it burns. (http://bit.ly/LXZsXd)