Talk:Divestment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ywrhea.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hilariously Overwritten and Overly Complex

Divestment: A company sells, or stops paying for something.

Purpose: Increase profits.

Complexity Factor: Should be minor?: If divestment of any segment of a financial endeavor results in loss, physical/electronic logistics, plus analysis of the actions as purpose-guided, (and the math) will prove that the relationship between the divested and subsequent percentage change in profitability were tied in an easy to describe way.

Clear correlations in business are the only viable basis for a business model... any disagreements?

Auditors, now is the summer of your recompense! --subparwikiguy

Efficacy of social divestment?

Granted that divesting from morally repulsive companies can make an investor feel better -- one's no longer profiting from evil, if you will --, can someone provide some references to arguments and research about whether divestment is also an effective way to change corporate policy? People may intend to change policy through divestment, but whether or not change of desired sort takes place, that's another question. --Ryguasu 6 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

I'm also be interested in this. Anyone got studies either way? --65.112.10.81 22:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

--subparwikiguy: management guides / shapes / forces policy which is most profitable. The more evil the company the less likely they are to "accept losses" by divesting of anything profitable. So take the next step - say you manage to divest your company of some profitable evil sector. If the prevailing balance of directorial power is still overbalanced toward Evil, then the motivation will create a dynamic force of evil behind some existing/invested segment. The conclusion would be that unless the directorial change toward good is enforced, divesting of evil segments will cause furious activity to restore the lost profitability in whatever segments remain - corrupting reliable and sound investment and propagating a wider range of consumers who will apply branded or correlated consumables, even if the consumer is an intra-business operational one. The only sustainable profitability evil enjoys is in geographies where no documentation or enforcement - for ANY reason - are leveled on individuals responsible for the guidance and direction of the concern. (as an aside, this range of discussion has been my main concern for the well being of the global community in it's adoption of some US economic models, particularly the Pay vs Penalty model and Pay vs Morality model in top down performance incentives.)

NPOV

Is it just me or is there a clear pro-Israel slant to this article? --Lee Hunter 03:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just you. -- Anonymous

For sure the links section has a POV. Someone want to clean that up? 65.112.10.81 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)