https://finance.yahoo.com/
We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion -- during our lives to advance this mission. We know this is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others.
Small
contribution - is that like humble bragging? :) All US corporations
give about $15-20B/year, so Zuck can spot corporate America for like 3
years. We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion -- during our lives to advance this mission. We know this is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others.
https://www.charitynavigator.
---
I'm imagining a time 20 or so years from now when we find that the extremely well funded pet projects of these super rich are found to be counterproductive in those communities. Similar to food aid to Africa destroying local food economies. So hopefully he, and others, donate to well established orgs instead of koch style spending.
---
Yeah I guess the impacts are yet to be seen. But I think Zuck will
be more like Gates than Koch (btw the Gates Fdn. is generally hailed as
the best run philanthropic NGO in the world). The mission is
sufficiently vague/broad that they could invest in almost anything
though. Maybe Zuck is already at the point in his career where he is
less concerned with his business empire and more focused on "moonshot"
projects and impacting humanity (like Gates circa 2000 and Page now). I
don't think selling more FB ads is what fires him up every morning (or
if it ever did).
On a side note, I do think that the IRS
should abolish all tax incentives for charitable giving (or maybe have a
very low cap on deductions like $1,000/pers and $100K per company).
That might impact the total amount of giving, but at least it sends the
message that rich people can't get "paid" to support their Koch-esque
pet project causes that are really political spending. Also, I don't
think rich donors should be rewarded for giving millions to some
orchestra (whose customer base is almost exclusively rich people) or a
university so their name can be on a bldg -> causes like that which
have questionable overall social benefits.---
I just heard something on PRI that hasn't made it to the web yet re: Zuck's donation: http://www.pri.org/search/
As
I said in the OP, it's could be a double-edged sword when stock shares
are donated to NGOs, or when those orgs invest their endowments in the
markets. Of course these groups would prefer to make (tax free) cap
gains so they can advance their mission more, but there can be a tension
between their mission and how their cap gains are generated.http://www.newyorker.com/news/
---
His
fund called Generation (a tiny $12B under mgmt. but growing) is gaining
attention because it only invests in ostensibly green, sustainable,
ethical businesses. These businesses also happen to be outperforming
their dirtier (in many senses of the word) rivals. But maybe it has less
to do with ethics/cleanliness and more to do with "proper capitalism" -
firms that preserve and grow value with a long-term horizon in mind
(i.e. businesses that Buffet types like), not the quick buck companies
at the mercy of the quarterly earnings report (to show short-run gains,
they often have to sacrifice long-term value and social/environmental
good).
We know that the average fund manager
(even hedge funds) barely outperform passive index funds (way to earn
their salaries), and most definitely don't sustain abnormal performance
over time (regression to the mean). But so far Generation's global
equity fund is earning 12% returns vs. 7% for index funds and
traditional funds (after mgmt. fees). And Generation is one of the least
volatile funds of its class, which investors also love to see.
Unfortunately they won't take investors with less than $3MM to
contribute. :P
No comments:
Post a Comment