There are few worthier targets for divestment than Iran. Still, I wonder about the propriety of divestment in general. Its practical effects are few, and can in fact be counterproductive.

A share of stock is not just some wispy thing that disappears into the ether when you decide to sell it. Rather, if you decide to sell a share of stock without any reference to an economic context, you are probably doing someone else — the company, another investor, etc. — a big favor. If the practical consequence of a “moral” divestment is 1) an economic gain to some less moral party and 2) an economic loss to a fund meant to secure retirees’ livelihoods — well, someone who doesn’t march to the drum of Kant might begin to find the situation morally vague.

(Indeed, one consequence of the feel-good campaign that led to the divestment of many university endowments and pension funds from the Chinese oil companies that do business in Sudan was a reconsolidation of those shares into the hands of Chinese investors.)

For my part, as far as a basic moral question — sure, fine, whatever: Divest away. I certainly wouldn’t choose to invest in these things by my own initiative. (The most daring I get is ConAgra.) But as a moral statement, divestment is little more than a washing of hands, a play from the Pontius Pilate book of ambivalent morals.

Finally, I take the word of a fund manager above that of an assemblyman when determining financial risk is the question. That particular argument for divestment strikes me as especially dubious.