Hobby Lobby Invests In Abortion Pill Manufacturers

[Slaskra]

When Hobby Lobby infuses capital DIRECTLY into these companies, this story will be legit.

Institutional investors that provide these investment options aren't exactly pumping money into Pfizer, etc, either.

Hell, I'm willing to bet that anybody here with a company 401(k) can find a fund offering that invests in companies that are in direct competition with their own.

[dehotz]

There's hypocrisy everywhere. Like the people who say that abortion is a private matter and yet support the contraceptive mandate.

How is that hypocritical to say that you feel abortion is a private matter but also that you feel that insurance companies should provide preventative care? No more so than me feeling that your medical problems aren't my business but still supporting the idea of insurance covering preventative care.

When Hobby Lobby infuses capital DIRECTLY into these companies, this story will be legit.

Institutional investors that provide these investment options aren't exactly pumping money into Pfizer, etc, either.

Hell, I'm willing to bet that anybody here with a company 401(k) can find a fund offering that invests in companies that are in direct competition with their own.

Yes and no. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread if this is such a sincerely held belief why didn't Hobby Lobby choose to invest with the stipulation that their funds not be going to businesses they disagreed with? It's also as direct a connection as the one to which they are objecting. Even more so in my opinion.

[BrerBear]

When Hobby Lobby infuses capital DIRECTLY into these companies, this story will be legit.

Institutional investors that provide these investment options aren't exactly pumping money into Pfizer, etc, either.

Hell, I'm willing to bet that anybody here with a company 401(k) can find a fund offering that invests in companies that are in direct competition with their own.

You're wrong on multiple points.
Hobby Lobby isn't infusing money directly into birth control providers either, but they have a problem with that.
And as others have already pointed out, Hobby Lobby could have chosen conservative targeting retirement institutions that would have kept the money out of companies they opposed, but chose not to. Probably because the returns were not as good.

[Slaskra]

Why didn't Hobby Lobby choose to invest with the stipulation that their funds not be going to businesses they disagreed with?

The funds that they invest in retirement plans don't at any point end up in the pockets of those companies.

If that was really how investing worked, the bank I work for wouldn't offer retirement funds that invest in JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc.

It's also as direct a connection as the one to which they are objecting. Even more so in my opinion.

Suppose that HL really was unaware of what companies their retirement funds invested in (which is highly likely, considering their retirement program is outsourced). Assuming this issue is just as much a "direct connection" as the issue to which they're currently objecting, HL can willfully and immediately opt out of *one* of these programs with little to no consequence. But for the reasons I stated above, the one issue they can opt out of is not really an issue at all.

[dehotz]

The funds that they invest in retirement plans don't at any point end up in the pockets of those companies.

If that was really how investing worked, the bank I work for wouldn't offer retirement funds that invest in JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, etc.

Suppose that HL really was unaware of what companies their retirement funds invested in (which is highly likely, considering their retirement program is outsourced). Assuming this issue is just as much a "direct connection" as the issue to which they're currently objecting, HL can willfully and immediately opt out of *one* of these programs with little to no consequence. But for the reasons I stated above, the one issue they can opt out of is not really an issue at all.

So your argument is that investing in companies doesn't benefit them, really? Why do companies solicit investments at all then? As to whether or not they can opt out of course they can, the point is that they didn't care enough about this issue to insure that they weren't investing in these companies to begin with.

[Slaskra]

Hobby Lobby isn't infusing money directly into birth control providers either, but they have a problem with that.

They aren't protesting ACA for forcing them to pay into corporations that provide birth control, they are protesting against being forced to provide a service that is contradictory with their religious belief. The primary issue has nothing to do with the exchange of money between hands. I think they are aware that they will pay the same expenses for health care with or without birth control.

And as others have already pointed out, Hobby Lobby could have chosen conservative targeting retirement institutions that would have kept the money out of companies they opposed

Its not necessary, because (for the third time) the funds they invest in retirement plans at no point ends up lining the pockets of those corporations.

- - - Updated - - -

So your argument is that investing in companies doesn't benefit them, really? Why do companies solicit investments at all then?

The overwhelming majority of mutual funds are created to index and mimic the market. These funds aren't the ones that add or subtract value to a company's stock.

As to whether or not they can opt out of course they can, the point is that they didn't care enough about this issue to insure that they weren't investing in these companies to begin with.

I was referring to ACA. Did you think I was talking about ACA when I said "HL can opt out with little or no consequence"?

[dehotz]

They aren't protesting ACA for forcing them to pay into corporations that provide birth control, they are protesting against being forced to provide a service that is contradictory with their religious belief. The primary issue has nothing to do with the exchange of money between hands. I think they are aware that they will pay the same expenses for health care with or without birth control.

Its not necessary, because (for the third time) the funds they invest in retirement plans at no point ends up lining the pockets of those corporations.

- - - Updated - - -

The overwhelming majority of mutual funds are created to index and mimic the market. These funds aren't the ones that add or subtract value to a company's stock.

I was referring to ACA. Did you think I was talking about ACA when I said "HL can opt out with little or no consequence"?

I'm not an expert in investing by any means but it seems to me that if a company is soliciting investments they are doing so for a reason. If you're claiming that the company receives no benefit from it I don't understand how that would possibly work, and would very much like to hear your explanation.

From my very basic grasp of index funds I understand them to be essentially investing in the entire market with the goal of spreading out the risk across the market. This doesn't change that a portion of what you're investing in would be each company, or am I wrong on that?

[Reeve]

But probably don't give as good of a return as what they currently have. Would people be criticizing Hobby Lobby next for not providing the best retirement benefits they could to their employees?

We're criticizing Hobby Lobby for not applying that same logic to their health care, even taking that disconnect all the way to the SCOTUS.

[Felya]

To be fair, a lot of companies outsource for that. Retirement plans are usually operated by a different company, and that company has investors who handle the well, investing.

To be fair, they also do not run the insurance provider, gynecologists or the pharmacy that fills the prescription.

- - - Updated - - -

But probably don't give as good of a return as what they currently have. Would people be criticizing Hobby Lobby next for not providing the best retirement benefits they could to their employees?

Now apply that to their employees insurance...

- - - Updated - - -

There's hypocrisy everywhere. Like the people who say that abortion is a private matter and yet support the contraceptive mandate.

The mandate is to provide excess to it, it's still a private mater. The mandate is not for corporations to take contraception, it's not within the capacity of a corporation to reproduce via sex.

[Slaskra]

I'm not an expert in investing by any means but it seems to me that if a company is soliciting investments they are doing so for a reason. If you're claiming that the company receives no benefit from it I don't understand how that would possibly work, and would very much like to hear your explanation.

From my very basic grasp of index funds I understand them to be essentially investing in the entire market with the goal of spreading out the risk across the market. This doesn't change that a portion of what you're investing in would be each company, or am I wrong on that?

The solicitation isn't targeted at fund managers whose funds are built to snapshot segments of the market, because as long as a company has some sort of market share, those fund managers will buy up shares regardless, usually from whatever investment bank initially holds the stock. These funds make up almost all retirement funds, since expenses are low due to such passive management.

Solicitation is for individual investors and advisers with big money who are more at liberty to move money in and out of particular investments at a whim. These are the guys that actually affect valuation because they are investing based on the company's merits, not market share. They are also the ones that have the opportunity to purchase directly from the company or own special classes of shares...which would never be sold into a fund for an average joe's 401k.

[BrerBear]

Its not necessary, because (for the third time) the funds they invest in retirement plans at no point ends up lining the pockets of those corporations.

That is a very disingenuous statement. Yes, it's true that buying shares in a company--whether or not done directly on the open market or through an investment firm--does not put money directly in the pockets of the company.

But it drives up the demand(price) of the company stock, giving the company more power in many ways. One of many effects: increases in the value of the company's stock gives that company more purchasing power. Look at Facebook's recent acquisitions using its own inflated stock as just one example of this.

Not to mention that you are missing the point entirely when you try to argue that Hobby Lobby is not being hypocritical for investing in these companies... It's not about Hobby Lobby directly giving money to companies they have moral disagreement with, it's profiting from the companies they have moral disagreement with that makes them hypocrites.

[Lenonis]

If a company cared so much about their money going towards these contraceptives that they took a case all the way up to the supreme court then it is a fair expectation that they would have evaluated all of their benefit offerings to ensure that they didn't have any money going towards those contraceptives.

We know that prior to 2012 their insurance covered them.

And now we know that they fund the stock of these companies via mutual funds.

And yet people are still trying to put forward Hobby Lobby as a legit complaint. Seriously?

[spinner981]

I am still sticking to my original statement, in that other thread. Why should companies be forced to provide specific aspects of healthcare at all? Shouldn't they make up their own healthcare plans for their employees, and then the employees themselves can decide whether they want to work for them or for somebody else?

Why are people bashing hobby lobby for wanting the freedom to actually choose what healthcare plans they give to their employees?

[dehotz]

The solicitation isn't targeted at fund managers whose funds are built to snapshot segments of the market, because as long as a company has some sort of market share, those fund managers will buy up shares regardless, usually from whatever investment bank initially holds the stock. These funds make up almost all retirement funds, since expenses are low due to such passive management.

Solicitation is for individual investors and advisers with big money who are more at liberty to move money in and out of particular investments at a whim. These are the guys that actually affect valuation because they are investing based on the company's merits, not market share. They are also the ones that have the opportunity to purchase directly from the company or own special classes of shares...which would never be sold into a fund for an average joe's 401k.

They were investing somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 million if I remember right. I would think that would be enough money, but could be wrong, to be able to get a fund without investments in things that they supposedly object to, and judging from what other posters have mentioned there are people that specifically cater to that type of investing.

It seems to me that they simply didn't care about the issue enough to do that, or that they thought they could make more money, with less fees, by not utilizing that form of investing, either weakens their claim that this issue is a sincerely held belief in my mind.

- - - Updated - - -

I am still sticking to my original statement, in that other thread. Why should companies be forced to provide specific aspects of healthcare at all? Shouldn't they make up their own healthcare plans for their employees, and then the employees themselves can decide whether they want to work for them or for somebody else?

Why are people bashing hobby lobby for wanting the freedom to actually choose what healthcare plans they give to their employees?

I wasn't bashing them for that, not in this thread. Here I'm pointing to their hypocrisy.

[Kraenen]

The mandate is to provide excess to it, it's still a private mater. The mandate is not for corporations to take contraception, it's not within the capacity of a corporation to reproduce via sex.

but corporations are people!

- - - Updated - - -

Why are people bashing hobby lobby for wanting the freedom to actually choose what healthcare plans they give to their employees?

why are you bashing people for criticizing hobby lobby?

[Kujako]

Why are people bashing hobby lobby for wanting the freedom to actually choose what healthcare plans they give to their employees?

I'm bashing hobby lobby because they are trying to claim that a fictional entity created for the purpose of limiting liability has religion and thus can be exempted from laws. The specific law they are trying to get around is irrelevant to me.

[Lenonis]

Why are people bashing hobby lobby for wanting the freedom to actually choose what healthcare plans they give to their employees?

The owner of the company is restricting options to his employees based on his religion. If you can't see the ramifications of if this were allowed to happen and the dangers it brings about then you need to think about it a bit more.

[Zython]

They aren't protesting ACA for forcing them to pay into corporations that provide birth control, they are protesting against being forced to provide a service that is contradictory with their religious belief. The primary issue has nothing to do with the exchange of money between hands. I think they are aware that they will pay the same expenses for health care with or without birth control.

Uh, Hobby Lobby is upset that they have to pay money to insurance providers that cover contraceptions. No one's forcing Hobby Lobby themselves to do it. That's what the whole compromise that they were OK with before they weren't was about. So yes, they are, in fact, protesting the ACA for forcing them to pay into corporations that provide birth control; and has everything to do with the exchange of money between hands.

[Wells]

But probably don't give as good of a return as what they currently have.

A) If Hobby Lobby is being honest they wouldn't care. B) Their performance is pretty much the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I am still sticking to my original statement, in that other thread. Why should companies be forced to provide specific aspects of healthcare at all?

Irrelevant. Hobby Lobby isn't arguing against the mandate. They're arguing it shouldn't apply to them.