UUA Moves Retirement Plan from Fidelity to TIAA-CREF


On May 21, 2010, Unitarian Universalist Association's Board of Trustees announced their unanimous decision to end their 10 year relationship with Fidelity and move their $178 million retirement accounts to TIAA-CREF in order to be genocide-free.

Read more here.

Voting on genocide-free investing at Fidelity in 2009


Despite Fidelity's active opposition, 6 more Fidelity funds recorded strong results in 2009 in favor of genocide-free investing, with results similar to those of the 14 funds that recorded votes in 2008.

Voting on genocide-free investing at Fidelity in 2008


Shareholders of 21 Fidelity funds voted their values and demonstrated unusually strong levels of support for the genocide-free shareholder proposals.
  • Despite Fidelity's active opposition, 14 funds recorded votes ranging from 31% to 20% in favor of genocide-free investing.  Click here to see all voting results and pending proposals on genocide-free investing.
  • Fidelity halted voting on genocide-free investing at 7 other funds.  Read the IAG statement and press release on Fidelity's position.
  • Click here for Eric Cohen's statement from the June 18 shareholder meeting.
  • Click here for Eric Cohen's statement from the May 14 shareholder meeting and here for press coverage.
  • Click here for details on the April 16 results, press conference, and press coverage.
  • Click here for details on the March 19 results, press conference, and press coverage. 
  • Fidelity claimed that it wanted to hear the voice of their customers, but they actively opposed the shareholder proposal, skewing the results of the voting.  Investors Against Genocide asked Fidelity to take a neutral stance on the proposal and let their customers tell them the right thing to do.  Fidelity declined.
  • Click here for a sample of the news coverage of the voting.

Fidelity's position


Fidelity rejected genocide-free investing, insisting on their flexibility to invest in genocide.
  • For the year and a half before shareholder proposals appeared on Fidelity's proxy ballots, Fidelity's consistent position was that Fidelity portfolio managers are expected to follow only two fundamental principles – make money and obey the law.
  • "Fidelity portfolio managers make their investment decisions based on business and financial considerations, and take into account other issues only if they materially impact these considerations or conflict with applicable legal standards."
    - Fidelity letter of October 5, 2006
  • "We believe the resolution of complex social and political issues must be left to the appropriate authorities of the world that have the responsibility, and capability, to address important matters of this type. And we would sincerely hope that they would do so wisely on behalf of all of the citizens of the globe."
    - Fidelity statement to CNN Money, published January 29, 2007
  • Fidelity's proxy statement in opposition to genocide-free investing was consistent with its earlier statements.  It did not attempt to deny the connection between PetroChina and genocide, nor argue that investing in genocide is somehow better. Instead, it simply noted that “this proposal would limit investments by the Fund that would be lawful under the laws of the United States.”  Click here for the text in the SEC filing by Fidelity.
  • On June 18, 2008, the day of the shareholder meeting, Fidelity released a statement, rejecting genocide-free investing and, for the first time, suggesting that the reason it decided to retain its investments in companies that help to fund genocide was to help effect change in Sudan.  (The complete text of the IAG and Fidelity statements are available here.)
  • Here is Investors Against Genocide response from June 19: 
    Eighteen months after Investors Against Genocide first highlighted Fidelity’s investments in companies that help to fund genocide, and after millions of Fidelity’s shareholders voted for our genocide-free investing proposal preventing such investments, Fidelity claims that it remains invested to serve as a positive influence in Sudan.

    Over the last three months, millions of Fidelity customers voted to adopt the genocide-free investing proposal. In spite of this unprecedented level of shareholder support, Fidelity continued to actively oppose the proposal and insisted upon maintaining its flexibility to invest in genocide. Yesterday, the company announced its decision to halt the voting process for 7 of its funds, before the final results are recorded.

    During this period, Fidelity has done nothing to leverage its large investments to engage with the companies that are underwriting this crime against humanity. As recently as the May 14 shareholders meeting, when asked what steps the company had taken to engage with the problem companies, Fidelity had no reply. Now, Fidelity has adopted the stance that it wants to “retain the ability to oppose practices that it does not condone.” If its intentions are sincere, Fidelity, acting as a large concerned investor, should promptly and publicly arrange for a high level meeting with the president of PetroChina asking that it, along with its closely related parent, CNPC, immediately engage with the genocidal government of Sudan on behalf of the Darfuri people. If after three months, PetroChina is unresponsive, Fidelity should divest its holdings with a public announcement regarding its reasons. Any lesser actions will demonstrate that Fidelity’s stated reasons for retaining these investments are disingenuous.

    Investors Against Genocide believes that engagement can be an effective strategy in helping effect change. The genocide-free shareholder proposal that was supported by so many of Fidelity's shareholders explicitly endorses engagement. The shareholder proposal states, "If the fund can effectively influence the problem company's management, then this may be an appropriate action. If not, the security should be sold." The proposal, and our position, are clear. Engagement can be an effective strategy for large shareholders if such engagement is vigorous with clear time limits and real consequences applied to unresponsive target companies.

    We look forward to Fidelity's public disclosure regarding its plans for a vigorous engagement effort with firm deadlines and meaningful consequences if no substantial progress is made to help end the genocide. If Fidelity truly wants to effectively engage with the problem companies as well as respond to the concerns of millions of customers who do not want their savings tied to the genocide, they will make the commitment to genocide-free investing as outlined in the shareholder proposal.

Support genocide-free investing at Fidelity

  • Submit a shareholder proposal to a Fidelity fund, or other mutual funds where you invest, to ensure they are genocide-free. We've made it easy to play a part in the campaign.
  • Send a message to Fidelity. You don't have to be an investor to object. Financial companies want your business now or in the future, so your voice will matter. 
  • Take Action. See this page for more that you can do to help.
  • Click here if the automated email didn't work or if you want to contact the company by phone or mail.

Fidelity's holdings

  • Fidelity holds PetroChina primarily in its mutual funds from Fidelity Investments and Fidelity International. In 2007 and 2008, some of the funds from Fidelity with major PetroChina holdings were Southeast Asia fund, China Region fund, China Focus fund (FIL), Southeast Asia fund (FIL), Southeast Asia fund (FIL-UK), and Institutional Southeast Asia (FIL-UK). 
  • Fidelity's  worldwide holdings of PetroChina were approximately $600 million in early 2008, with at least another $300 million invested in Sinopec (China Petroleum).
  • Fidelity's worldwide holdings of PetroChina were worth $604 million, estimated based on information accessed by the Sudan Divestment Task Force through Bloomberg LP and market-valued as of August 1, 2007.
  • The Sudan Divestment Task Force research using Bloomberg LP also showed Fidelity with $308 million of Sinopec, $33 million of ONGC, and $6 million of Petronas.
  • Until the first half of 2007, Fidelity had been the largest holder of PetroChina on the New York Stock Exchange and the largest holder overall of PetroChina of all the mutual fund companies, counting shares held on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, in addition to the NYSE.
  • In its February 2007 SEC filing, Fidelity's global holdings of PetroChina topped $1.3 billion. Since then, Fidelity has significantly reduced its holdings in PetroChina and Sinopec on the NYSE, but continues to be a very large holder of these stocks.
  • Read about Fidelity's first step to divest from PetroChina and Sinopec and the Fidelity Out Of Sudan campaign's response here. Fidelity's action, while significant, is only a first step; Fidelity is still a massive shareholder in PetroChina by virtue of shares purchased on the Hong Kong stock exchange, called H shares, which represented more than half of its previous holdings in PetroChina.
  • Since Fidelity has made no statement or commitment regarding divestment from PetroChina and Sinopec, investors entrusting their money to Fidelity mutual funds continue to risk inadvertently investing in these companies helping to fund the genocide in Darfur.
  • Click here for background on engaging Fidelity.  Click here for historical details on Fidelity's holdings over time.