nbisfuor

So essentially Donor Advised Funds are better in every way for the donor, including but not limited to being more private, way less arbitrary restrictions (donate 5% a year -- why?) and allowing them control of where they donate. And this is competition for non-profits of other kinds, that are mostly just a way for people to pay themselves giant base salaries, relative to a donor-controlled fund. And further, this article is basically calling out a person in particular for putting $500M into a fund for the purpose of philanthropy (sooner or later) and then not having made enough donations (it would better if he had to donate 5%/year -- again, why?). Then goes on to quote a professor calling it fraud, despite it still being legitimately a way for people to donate assets like stock to charity in a one-way vehicle that they control, as if that is bad somehow. Evidently people are so angry at successful people at this point, they are not going after their charity too, again not clear on why.

The only way to get big returns is secrets, just like always. Insider trading has given way to insider investing or insider hiring, which is insidery just like always. The problem with the stock market is that it is too easy for people to invest in, relative to other options (private companies) where you are still welcome to (encouraged?) to learn about secrets. So people blindly buy indexes (past returns = future results somehow, even though by definition people are overvaluing whatever is in the bucket) instead of finding secrets.