Opinion: If tobacco companies are a good investment, CalPERS owes it to beneficiaries not to shun them

To the editor: Your position that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System should not invest in tobacco companies will have only a “moral” effect and no “financial” effect at all on Big Tobacco. (“Tobacco is — still — a bad investment for pension fund,” editorial, Dec. 19)

Private parties and institutions are the only buyers and sellers of tobacco shares. Big tobacco companies are not selling shares to finance themselves. In fact, they are buying back shares.

Your justification for CalPERS ignoring its fiduciary duties is incorrect. Buying or owning Big Tobacco shares does not “support evil, corrupt or destructive forces.” Divestment will have no effect because the tobacco companies are not dependent on selling their shares.

Allan Baker, Morongo Valley

..

To the editor: What about the moral obligation of Congress? It provides tax breaks for the companies that produce tobacco products. Also, many states use taxes on these products to supplement their state budgets.

CalPERS should invest where the return is the greatest for the pension plan. The bottom line is if the people of this country want to engage in risky behavior, why should retirees have to suffer the economic burden that might result from divesting from these industries?

What might be better is for no one to be able to invest in the tobacco industry. Why should CalPERS restrict itself this way if other funds do not? What is good for them should be good for all, morally speaking. By the way, being moral does not pay the bills.

Harlan McWhorter, Rialto

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook