Mary Davey

Thanks for reading the interview and sharing your views. Its good to get all sides to a story. I can't speak for Dr. King, but here is how I think one could argue against your view.

1. Yes, ofcourse, cancer or harm to one's health can be caused by more than one factor, but it is an established fact that smoking is harmful to one's health and it is a cause that can be avoided.

2. The case against tobacco is both economic and ethical, and both types of considerations are relevant for investors depending upon their mandates.

3. It is no argument to say that "With the benefit of hindsight, I can tell you that you could have made a lot of money had you bought that tobacco stock back then." For instance, with the benefit of hindsight, you probably could have made more much more money by selling your tobacco stock and putting that money in a leveraged short position in oil futures. The research paper "The Price of Sin Aversion” says that “the alcohol, tobacco and sin portfolios do not exhibit any significant outperformance, and the gambling portfolio underperforms."

4. Yes, one has to draw the line on exclusions somewhere, that is, who should exclude and how far to go in pursuit of that exclusion. The interview makes it clear that Dr. King is talking about pension funds and excluding tobacco manufacturers.

5. Whether or not excluding tobacco is consistent with fiduciary responsibility is an ongoing debate. CFA Institute does not have a position on this specific issue. That a number of Australian pension funds have already excluded tobacco implies that they have found why and how excluding tobacco is consistent with their fiduciary responsibility.

Thank you again for reading the interview and sharing a different perspective.

Regards

Usman