Comic Relief money invested in arms and tobacco shares

[xxMATTGxx]

Millions of pounds donated to Comic Relief have been invested in shares in tobacco, alcohol and arms firms, BBC Panorama has learned.

It includes £630,000 in shares in arms firm BAE Systems and more than £300,000 in alcohol manufacturer Diageo.

The BBC has also seen evidence which suggests Save the Children censored criticism of energy firms to avoid upsetting corporate partners.

Both charities deny any wrongdoing.

Comic Relief

Comic Relief has raised nearly £1bn for worthwhile causes in the UK and abroad.

It pays out the money it receives to other charities, sometimes over several years.

That means Comic Relief holds tens of millions of pounds at any one time.

The charity uses a number of managed funds which invests that money on the charity's behalf, including in the stock market.

Panorama has learnt that between 2007 and 2009, some of these investments, amounting to millions of pounds, appear to contradict several of its core aims.

Despite its mission statement claiming it is committed to helping "people affected by conflict", in 2009 the charity had £630,000 invested in shares in weapons firm BAE Systems.

Comic Relief also had more than £300,000 invested in shares in the alcohol industry despite its mission statement saying it is "working to reduce alcohol misuse and minimise alcohol related harm".

The majority was invested in Diageo, which manufactures dozens of alcoholic drinks and was recently criticised by the Health Select Committee for exploiting weaknesses in the regulation of alcohol advertising.

Comic Relief also appeals for money to fight Tuberculosis and has given over £300,000 to a charity called Target Tuberculosis.

Target TB believes that smoking may be responsible for over 20% of TB cases worldwide.

While raising funds in 2009, nearly £3m of Comic Relief money was invested in shares in tobacco companies.

'Risking their reputation'

During that time, entrepreneur and Dragon's Den star Duncan Bannatyne was a full trustee of Comic Relief.

In 2008 he made a BBC documentary attacking a tobacco company for targeting African children.

He told Panorama he "wouldn't put donors' money into tobacco companies" and said charities should invest ethically.




Source: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25273024?post_id=558799933_10151929906179934

Thoughts?

[Inseriousity.]

Just read that myself, this is going to damage their reputation but not sure how much!

[MilksAreUs]

Thats bang out of order! We used to raise money for Comic Relief in Primary School and I hate to say it, but I wish I didn't now!

[Matt]

eugh that's so misleading. I'm glad this has surfaced so that people actually know what they will be/have already donated to.

[!:random!:!]

:O what the actual... >:( how dare they we raise that money for people that don't have it and need it we trust them to give our money to these people but now they have betrayed our trust and done this how dare they! i hope they will suffer regret for taking money away from those that most need it !!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sian]

And that's why I don't donate to these kinds of things. You never know where your money is going, and this doesn't really surprise me. Which is awful as it is charity.

[dbgtz]

And people wonder why I don't trust charities.

[Vodafone]

Hahaha, people making drama out of something that isn't really a big deal.

Stopped reading after:

The charity uses a number of managed funds which invests that money on the charity's behalf, including in the stock market.
Oh the horror!

[Yawn]

if the ppl want tobacco and firearms then they should get tobacco and firearms!

[peteyt]

I'm sure the fact that the money doesn't go to where the public expect it to is old news. I'm sure I've heard sometimes it ends up in corrupt government hands who keep it for their own use among other things.

I've never properly donated apart from paying for something like a non school uniform day when I was at school e.g. a pound. I'd rather pay for something that I know would actually go directly to the cause really.

This also reminds me of the "Kony 2012" campaign, when it was discovered the charity behind it, Invisible Children, Inc, was using most of the funds to pay its staff and fund their films, rather than actually going to the country involved in the incident itself.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And that's what I don't donate to foreign causes - as I said (amid much denial) money is best spent locally.

Always has been, always will be.

[FlyingJesus]

Investing in financially safe stocks isn't the same as funding those industries btw

[AgnesIO]

Thats bang out of order! We used to raise money for Comic Relief in Primary School and I hate to say it, but I wish I didn't now!


:O what the actual... >:( how dare they we raise that money for people that don't have it and need it we trust them to give our money to these people but now they have betrayed our trust and done this how dare they! i hope they will suffer regret for taking money away from those that most need it !!!!!!!!!!!!


And that's what I don't donate to foreign causes - as I said (amid much denial) money is best spent locally.

Always has been, always will be.

You'll be pleased to know that Comic Relief is involved in over 1900 projects in the UK then :)

--

Anyway, in response to all THREE posts that I have quoted, whilst it is obviously a poor social decision to fund such controversial industries (both of which are likely to damage the lives of many people abroad), people should NOT be surprised or outraged and charities making investments.

The way we look at charity is so wrong, as an excellent TED talk discussed. People hate it when charity CEO's get huge salaries; but do people expect them to work for free? If a charity wants to help as much as possible, investments (made by experts) can definitely be a good thing - money almost always needs to be spent to make more money.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The way we look at charity is so wrong, as an excellent TED talk discussed. People hate it when charity CEO's get huge salaries; but do people expect them to work for free? If a charity wants to help as much as possible, investments (made by experts) can definitely be a good thing - money almost always needs to be spent to make more money.

Which is exactly my point about donating the money as close to the source as possible. For example, in a pub for a friends birthday a few years back a woman came round asking for donations for a local bus that took old people out and about for the day. In doing this, it was an act of charity (most likely free on her behalf) and meant that all the money went directly to the good cause rather than on the salaries of CEOs.

That's the way we ought to start looking at charity. Localism.

[AgnesIO]

Which is exactly my point about donating the money as close to the source as possible. For example, in a pub for a friends birthday a few years back a woman came round asking for donations for a local bus that took old people out and about for the day. In doing this, it was an act of charity (most likely free on her behalf) and meant that all the money went directly to the good cause rather than on the salaries of CEOs.

That's the way we ought to start looking at charity. Localism.

No, paying a CEO makes sense. Sure, you can do small work, just like you can run a small business. However, if you want to extend your reach and help more people (whether it be in your own country or abroad), you need the best business brains. You also need to invest the £10 you earned, to aim to make it £20. Whether you do that via business investments, or by an advert - it makes sense to do it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, paying a CEO makes sense. Sure, you can do small work, just like you can run a small business. However, if you want to extend your reach and help more people (whether it be in your own country or abroad), you need the best business brains. You also need to invest the £10 you earned, to aim to make it £20. Whether you do that via business investments, or by an advert - it makes sense to do it.

Yes but you are not getting what I am saying. I am saying that it is more efficent for your donation to get to the source if you donate locally rather than internationally or even nationally.

Cut out the middle man and just donate straight to the (local) source, then virtually every penny is being used. The same applies when the money is actually spent too - a local Church will know better how to spend the money and use it more wisely than an international charity will on the other side of the world.

[AgnesIO]

Yes but you are not getting what I am saying. I am saying that it is more efficent for your donation to get to the source if you donate locally rather than internationally or even nationally.

Cut out the middle man and just donate straight to the (local) source, then virtually every penny is being used.

Which is all well and good if you believe the local pensioners minibus is a primary concern in ones life. For me, whilst it is a noble cause, it really isn't up in my list of priorities.

Add the middle man, make an investment, buy 10 minibuses.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Which is all well and good if you believe the local pensioners minibus is a primary concern in ones life. For me, whilst it is a noble cause, it really isn't up in my list of priorities.

It's called an example.


Add the middle man, make an investment, buy 10 minibuses.

Whereas 12 minibuses could have been bought without the middle man. No idea why you're arguing with this, it's a pretty standard economic rule that money spent closer to where it is raised is more efficent - that's why there is increasing debate across the western world concerning tax and spending powers & where they are allocated, ie what level of government should have those powers.

[AgnesIO]

It's called an example.



Whereas 12 minibuses could have been bought without the middle man. No idea why you're arguing with this, it's a pretty standard economic rule that money spent closer to where it is raised is more efficent - that's why there is increasing debate across the western world concerning tax and spending powers & where they are allocated, ie what level of government should have those powers.

Name charities that you have heard of. How many of these operate on a small, local scale without management on big salaries? Sure, you can help 5 people locally, but some people have big ambitions and want to help 5 million people internationally; I know which of the two I'd pick, and if you asked whether people wanted to help 5 locals, or 5 million I reckon the overwhelming majority would pick 5 million.

Of course, you are right about the basic economics; but you can only help so many people if you keep everything local.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Name charities that you have heard of. How many of these operate on a small, local scale without management on big salaries? Sure, you can help 5 people locally, but some people have big ambitions and want to help 5 million people internationally; I know which of the two I'd pick, and if you asked whether people wanted to help 5 locals, or 5 million I reckon the overwhelming majority would pick 5 million.

Of course, you are right about the basic economics; but you can only help so many people if you keep everything local.

There are a lot of charities that operate on a local basis, the local Church will donate funds to certain sectors of the community and so on - just because it doesn't have Angelina Jolie and Bono bleating on the television doesn't mean they're useless or don't exist.

For the rest, it's doesn't work like that. Who said those 5 million people should all be helped in one go? Indeed, I would argue that it is near impossible for a group of individuals in one charity to help 5 million people without there being a lot of waste and the misallocation of funding.

The question you should be asking, again, is whether those 5 million people in need can be helped locally - ie, instead of building a dam in Africa that is estimated to help 5 million people, why not focus on far more local projects such as a water pump for a village or paying for basic tools so that locals in villages can dig their own drainage systems? Or make it even more local and send the tools yourself to a certain village.

It's not elaborate, it doesn't result in feel-good celebrations - but it works best.

[!:random!:!]

Honestly, i wouldn't mind as long as the charities are up front with us... I mean don't we have the right to know where our money goes?

[AgnesIO]

There are a lot of charities that operate on a local basis, the local Church will donate funds to certain sectors of the community and so on - just because it doesn't have Angelina Jolie and Bono bleating on the television doesn't mean they're useless or don't exist.

For the rest, it's doesn't work like that. Who said those 5 million people should all be helped in one go? Indeed, I would argue that it is near impossible for a group of individuals in one charity to help 5 million people without there being a lot of waste and the misallocation of funding.

The question you should be asking, again, is whether those 5 million people in need can be helped locally - ie, instead of building a dam in Africa that is estimated to help 5 million people, why not focus on far more local projects such as a water pump for a village or paying for basic tools so that locals in villages can dig their own drainage systems? Or make it even more local and send the tools yourself to a certain village.

It's not elaborate, it doesn't result in feel-good celebrations - but it works best.

I totally agree that we should do small scale projects. If that is what you mean by local, then go for it; but I suspect your idea of local is England and England only. WaterAid, for example, does this brilliantly. WaterAid, by the way, spends 22p of every pound donated on fundraising and governance; if it never did this I think it would be a safe bet to assume it wouldn't be anything like as big as it is now.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I totally agree that we should do small scale projects. If that is what you mean by local, then go for it; but I suspect your idea of local is England and England only. WaterAid, for example, does this brilliantly. WaterAid, by the way, spends 22p of every pound donated on fundraising and governance; if it never did this I think it would be a safe bet to assume it wouldn't be anything like as big as it is now.

Well it makes even more sense to donate here in Britain as the rule still applies - plus personally i'd much rather help my fellow countrymen in need. But if people are doing to donate abroad, then yeah absolutely they should donate to schemes like the one you've outlined there rather than the typical charities like Comic Relief etc. :)

[AgnesIO]

Honestly, i wouldn't mind as long as the charities are up front with us... I mean don't we have the right to know where our money goes?

Yes. And if you had ever bothered to make a simple search on Google you could easily find this information out.

"Charity Commission guidelines require the trustees of a charity with broad objects like Comic Relief to maximise the amount of money its investments generate at the lowest appropriate risk."

Comic Relief investments made a profit of £4.6m between 2011 and 2012 (according to their financial report (http://d9qxl5lq7yz8y.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/V9NfLlawV1mnX4oldb-m1gkBWUBuPYzGmG3yrjOHsr0/deploymtime:1369234108/sites/comicrelief.com/files/doc/accounts/Annual_Report.pdf))

- - - Updated - - -


Well it makes even more sense to donate here in Britain as the rule still applies - plus personally i'd much rather help my fellow countrymen in need. But if people are doing to donate abroad, then yeah absolutely they should donate to schemes like the one you've outlined there rather than the typical charities like Comic Relief etc. :)

In which case I totally agree. My main point was simply that money going towards investments and management can be a necessity for a growth in a charity; not been a fan of Comic Relief for a while anyway - I much prefer charities such as WaterAid - just didn't want people in this thread to be outraged at the fact a charity is investing money - be outraged at the fact they invested in an arms firm, sure :)

[!:random!:!]

Yes. And if you had ever bothered to make a simple search on Google you could easily find this information out.

"Charity Commission guidelines require the trustees of a charity with broad objects like Comic Relief to maximise the amount of money its investments generate at the lowest appropriate risk."

Comic Relief investments made a profit of £4.6m between 2011 and 2012 (according to their financial report (http://d9qxl5lq7yz8y.cloudfront.net/cdn/farfuture/V9NfLlawV1mnX4oldb-m1gkBWUBuPYzGmG3yrjOHsr0/deploymtime:1369234108/sites/comicrelief.com/files/doc/accounts/Annual_Report.pdf))

- - - Updated - - -



In which case I totally agree. My main point was simply that money going towards investments and management can be a necessity for a growth in a charity; not been a fan of Comic Relief for a while anyway - I much prefer charities such as WaterAid - just didn't want people in this thread to be outraged at the fact a charity is investing money - be outraged at the fact they invested in an arms firm, sure :)


Well thats fair enough but most people wouldn't know this if we are told to donate by text... it would be much better if we was told when the charity event was on... however i do see the point in there investing and aslong as they are using the money they make to fund charities then i am happy :) but i wish they would make there point across on tv as then many people would know

[AgnesIO]

Well thats fair enough but most people wouldn't know this if we are told to donate by text... it would be much better if we was told when the charity event was on... however i do see the point in there investing and aslong as they are using the money they make to fund charities then i am happy :) but i wish they would make there point across on tv as then many people would know

Doubt half the people who watch comic relief would understand the need for investments, nor what investing really is. They can hardly explain the entire process on tv, I hate to say it, but the population of Britain is not smart enough to fully understand it; heck I only really get the ins and outs at a basic level after studying this sort of thing for two years and watching hours of various talks..

[-Moniquee.]

Not surprised. So many of these charities would do bad stuff that we don't know about.

[GommeInc]

The way we look at charity is so wrong, as an excellent TED talk discussed. People hate it when charity CEO's get huge salaries; but do people expect them to work for free? If a charity wants to help as much as possible, investments (made by experts) can definitely be a good thing - money almost always needs to be spent to make more money.
Interestingly, charities need more volunteers than money these days - chucking money at a problem won't make it go away. It's strange, why these CEOs are allegedly sat behind their desks making money is beyond rational thought when they should be getting out there being busy. It's like having people with no expertise in education, finance or the military taking up high ranking/advisory roles in Government *glares at the Cabinet*

It's why I always ask if it's possible to volunteer for some charities, rather than chuck money at them. The only charities that require money to operate are ones that deal with research.


Honestly, i wouldn't mind as long as the charities are up front with us... I mean don't we have the right to know where our money goes?
It's interesting you say this. Comic Relief doesn't disclose their finances unlike other charities (Charity Commission UK (http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/) - Government department dealing with charities). I believe Children In Need does disclose information, but they may break their funds into different charities. It is very dodgy, seeing as transparency is always called upon the BBC.

[AgnesIO]

Interestingly, charities need more volunteers than money these days - chucking money at a problem won't make it go away. It's strange, why these CEOs are allegedly sat behind their desks making money is beyond rational thought when they should be getting out there being busy. It's like having people with no expertise in education, finance or the military taking up high ranking/advisory roles in Government *glares at the Cabinet*

It's why I always ask if it's possible to volunteer for some charities, rather than chuck money at them. The only charities that require money to operate are ones that deal with research.


It's interesting you say this. Comic Relief doesn't disclose their finances unlike other charities (Charity Commission UK (http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/) - Government department dealing with charities). I believe Children In Need does disclose information, but they may break their funds into different charities. It is very dodgy, seeing as transparency is always called upon the BBC.

But you also need someone who knows how to operate these volunteers; sure, have 10,000 volunteers - but you need guidance, not just 10000 people running around like loonies. Why would someone with an MBA from somewhere like Stanford work at a charity for $100,000 per year, when he could earn $300,000 per year, give more than $100,000 of that to the charity he supports and STILL make more money? You simply wouldn't. A charity however needs to be run with order, and people with experience if it is a huge charity - someone who can make big decisions, and lead the charity. I also firmly believe in volunteering, for the record.

Also, Comic Relief does have a financial report which gives some brief guidance on where their money is going, as quoted above.