3 ms·
Rightfully? I mean the goal is a non-profit is to help with a specific problem in one way or another. Often long term goals are involved, so I don’t see any pr
by enchiridion 5y ago
Rightfully? I mean the goal is a non-profit is to help with a specific problem in one way or another.
Often long term goals are involved, so I don’t see any problem with holding appreciating assets so the power and influence of the organization can be maintained into the future.
Of course using non-profits for investing shell games is probably a whole different problem I am not familiar with. But holding assets as a whole doesn’t seem like a big issue to me.
- jvanderbot 5y agoI believe it is right to provide recommendations against non-profits that hold significant assets in investments. I don't think it should be illegal or anything, but I do think that potential donors should be cautioned about this. Most people have the expectation that they are donating to fix a problem or keep an organization running, not increase the returns on investments. If a non-profit has a long-term strategy, that should probably involve setting up _other_ institutions that can self-sustain, rather than "We'll get rich first". The _problem_ is that this translates to some expectation that every dollar given should go immediately to purchasing something, and that somehow it's "more effective" for a person to go purchase things than to donate to, say, red cross. That's dead, dead wrong. Give money, let them invest in solutions. However, from the donor's perspective, donating stock, and other valuable stuff, is a good tax dodge. You don't have to pay capital gains taxes and then send money to the org. So usually the org is happy to accept these gifts, but yes, they'll sell them.