In a real estate trade magazine, I just read about a fellow in Beverly Hills who recently announced a real estate investment fund that will be focused on making loans to "adult entertainment firms" (read "strip clubs"). The name of the firm/fund is "Adult Vest."

Francis Koenig, the founder, points out that most banks and traditional lenders won't lend to these clubs, so there is a huge unmet demand for loans.

It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Koenig makes a lot of money. But here are today's questions, for anyone to answer:

If you felt the numbers were good and the sponsor was solid, is there a moral dimension that would stop you from investing in a fund like Adult Vest? (Don't worry, this is not a focus group and this is *not* a lead-in for a solicitation--"Pssst. I am sponsoring a strip-club real estate fund called 'Jay's Hot and Exotic Fund' Want to invest?").

Speaking of which, does the name matter, or is it just semantics? For example, would you feel differently about investing in a strip club real estate fund if the name of the fund was "Urban Opportunities Fund IV," or some other bland name?

And more broadly, on the flip side, what do you think about "socially responsible" investing? For example, there are a bunch of "socially responsible" mutual funds with a broad range of goals and track records. Would you be willing to accept slightly lower returns from a mutual fund whose social goals aligned closely with your own? (e.g., lower returns than a fund that invests in, for example, tobacco stocks).

There is an ongoing debate about "do you really have to sacrifice investment returns when you invest in a socially responsible fund?" with predictable answers coming from both sides of the debate.

And how about public employee pension funds pulling out of their investments in companies who do business in Sudan? It helped in South Africa, right?

Here's how my undercooked philosophy shakes out: I would not directly buy stock in a cigarette maker (even though cigarette companies are often excellent buys from a pure financial perspective) nor would I buy stock in a coal company that actively ignores emerging "clean" and/or "cleaner coal" technologies, and/or tries to prove global warming is a bunch of hooey. But I may own mutual funds that own cigarette makers and coal companies. Hypocritical?

A complicating factor is that all the mutual funds I own are either in my 401k plan or my 529 plan, and none of the funds that I can choose from in those plans are "socially responsible." A solution to "just get my company to add a socially responsible fund" is not particularly viable because (a) it's not that easy; and (b) even if we had one to choose, I still wouldn't put all my eggs in that one basket.

Anyone have thoughts on any of these topics? Bueller? Bueller?