4 ms·

He didn't actually give away money though, he gave stock which has since decreased in value dramatically. So he got a huge tax break because of the original wor

He didn't actually give away money though, he gave stock which has since decreased in value dramatically. So he got a huge tax break because of the original worth, but if the stock continues dropping it might not even be worth anything by the time anybody gets around to considering distributing it. So why should he get that tax break when he really hasn't actually donated to charity and may not get to either?

downandout 8y ago
You're making that statement with the benefit of hindsight. The stock also could have gone up, in which case he would actually have cost himself some of the potential tax deduction by donating too early. The deduction is locked in at the value of the shares on the day they are donated. I doubt he was cheering for the stock to tank, just so that his tax deduction would be significant compared to the lower value of the stock years later. That would be insane, given that he only donated about 20% of his shares. So yes, in this case, it didn't work out for the general public. That indicates no intention of wrongdoing, nor does it indicate that the system is broken. Equity values on the whole tend to rise over time, which means that charitable stock gifts overall (especially those that are held for long periods of time) are actually better for the public than cash donations.
- Woberto 8y ago
  From the article: "News of his donation sent GoPro shares tumbling as much as 14 percent the next day, as investors interpreted the move as a lack of confidence in the stock." It's not about wanting the stock to do poorly; as the chief executive, he knows where he plans to go with the company, and if he doesn't see it going far, then at least he can save some money. The fact that investors interpreted the move this way indicates that it's not about hindsight, but a poor forecast. Your point about values rising on average is a good one though - it means that though some of the rich may be getting away with more money, overall donations are still going to balance that. There are still some other issues though.
  - downandout 8y ago
    The fact that investors interpreted the move this way indicates that it's not about hindsight, but a poor forecast. Investors appear not to have interpreted it that way. That interpretation was disingenuously rendered by this article’s author in support of his premise for it. See [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17693797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17693797

downandout 8y ago

You're making that statement with the benefit of hindsight. The stock also could have gone up, in which case he would actually have cost himself some of the potential tax deduction by donating too early. The deduction is locked in at the value of the shares on the day they are donated. I doubt he was cheering for the stock to tank, just so that his tax deduction would be significant compared to the lower value of the stock years later. That would be insane, given that he only donated about 20% of his shares. So yes, in this case, it didn't work out for the general public. That indicates no intention of wrongdoing, nor does it indicate that the system is broken. Equity values on the whole tend to rise over time, which means that charitable stock gifts overall (especially those that are held for long periods of time) are actually better for the public than cash donations.

Woberto 8y ago
From the article: "News of his donation sent GoPro shares tumbling as much as 14 percent the next day, as investors interpreted the move as a lack of confidence in the stock." It's not about wanting the stock to do poorly; as the chief executive, he knows where he plans to go with the company, and if he doesn't see it going far, then at least he can save some money. The fact that investors interpreted the move this way indicates that it's not about hindsight, but a poor forecast. Your point about values rising on average is a good one though - it means that though some of the rich may be getting away with more money, overall donations are still going to balance that. There are still some other issues though.
- downandout 8y ago
  The fact that investors interpreted the move this way indicates that it's not about hindsight, but a poor forecast. Investors appear not to have interpreted it that way. That interpretation was disingenuously rendered by this article’s author in support of his premise for it. See [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17693797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17693797