The notion of giving stocks to kids for Christmas is, of course, absurd. As a vehicle for deferring consumption into the future, investment sits uneasily with the Christmas spirit of consumerism. More practically, the stock market is an abstract thing most adults struggle to grasp; children don't stand a chance. Give your toddler a share certificate and you risk tears over the turkey.
But the debate raises interesting questions. Most flippantly, what is a Christmassy stock? One in a company that makes products consumed at Christmas? A more extreme case than Disney and Mattel would be Aim-listed International Greetings (IGR), which produces Christmas crackers, wrapping paper and greetings cards. Many retailers are also infamously dependent on December trading. Majestic Wine (MJW) and Card Factory (CARD) are obvious examples, but even clothing chain SuperGroup (SGP) hopes to make about 80 per cent of this year's profit in the November to April half.
Or is a Christmas stock one that can be reconciled with the Christian message of love and peace? It was mainly on this basis that our editor struck BAE Systems off the list. Ethical stock screens, which have their roots with the pacifist Quakers, almost invariably rule out investments in arms manufacturers.
This takes us to a more serious - and difficult - question: what is an ethical investment? One problem is that investors may interpret Christian values differently. The Quakers do not approve of alcohol, and many ethical stock screens therefore exclude drinks groups such as SABMiller (SAB) and Diageo (DGE). Yet many churches are happy to serve mulled wine, potentially from Majestic, at Christmas - not to mention communion wine all year round.
Another problem with ethical stockpicking is that most companies try to spread their bets by serving more than one market. Avon Rubber, for example, makes milking equipment for the dairy industry as well as defence equipment. Shareholders cannot choose to invest in the dairy business but not in defence. Even if they could, ruling out defence on purely sectoral grounds seems rather high-handed. Now, in the UK, milk may be a more obvious match for children than gas-masks. But in the London of 1940 - or the Syria of 2014 - perceptions were probably different.
But perhaps we are barking up the wrong Christmas tree entirely with these ethical concerns; perhaps we should simply focus on long-term wealth preservation. This was Julia's rationale for including BAE Systems in her list: as Europe's largest defence contractor it has a very strong market position, and also pays generous dividends, so its shares stand a decent chance of turning into a nest-egg capable of funding a child's education or home deposit. The financial security afforded a child by a profitable investment is surely a worthy - indeed, Christmassy - end in itself?
This brings me to another recent office debate: which company to include under the 'old reliable' banner in our 'Tips of the Year' issue, due to be published on 8 January. Investors have been risk-averse since the spring, so shares in companies with a reputation for reliable returns are trading at an even greater premium than usual. The thorny question is what price is too high for quality?
I won't jump the gun by revealing how this debate ended, except to say that for reasons of portfolio balance my suggestion - West End landlord Shaftesbury (SHB) - was passed over. Happily, this allows me to propose it as a suitable Christmas present. Shaftesbury qualifies on many levels. With properties in London's key areas for shopping, eating and entertainment, it benefits from the Christmas spirit. It lovingly restores period streetscapes, which surely counts as socially useful. And its properties have such scarcity value that they will surely retain their value as long as London continues to thrive. To my mind, that makes Shaftesbury the perfect share for a merry Christmas and - perhaps more pertinently for readers of Investors Chronicle - a prosperous new year.
