5 ms·

It's a hedge fund that operates a university for the tax advantages.

by xapata 3y ago

jncfhnb 3y ago
I very much doubt that. I’m guessing the vast majority of the endowment is restricted. That is, even if it is invested for returns, the money and the returns on the money must be used for the intended purpose of the donor.
- detourdog 3y ago
  Which does describe one aspect of the lever. A group can have all sorts of hedges including a world class institution.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    I don’t think you understood what was said. The university is not part of the hedge fund. It’s a hedge fund that manages the Harvard endowment.
    - detourdog 3y ago
      I understood. I'm saying that large endowments no matter their mission has a group of people that control that endowment. A conservative endowment can be used to leverage other positions members of this group can hold.
- xapata 3y ago
  Salaries and other compensation can be considered part of the overhead of managing the money and the institution.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Restricted funds are not limiting to generally spending on the school. Many of them are more specific, I assume
    - xapata 3y ago
      Sure, but that's why universities like to ask for unrestricted donations.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        The big numbers rarely are though
belter 3y ago
For maximum tax optimization I normally recommend a Foundation or a Religion.
- scarmig 3y ago
  Foundations aren't too great; although you can maybe give a couple administrative jobs to your relations, ultimately the bulk of money still has to go to nonprofits, and a foundation faces additional taxes and administrative fees that e.g. a donor advised fund doesn't.
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    Maybe you just haven't found the right country to house your foundation for tax purposes? Charitable foundations in Canada seem to be a pretty decent deal. You end up having to use 5% of the assets each year for charity but that can include an awful lot of management expense and the charitable giving doesn't have to be to other charities. You end up paying a lot less than you would have had you exposed yourself to more taxation owning the assets in your name, plus you avoid inheritance taxation while still being able to stream income to your offspring through cushy foundation jobs pretty much perpetually.

It's a hedge fund that operates a university for the tax advantages.

by xapata 3y ago

It's a hedge fund that operates a university for the tax advantages.

I very much doubt that. I’m guessing the vast majority of the endowment is restricted. That is, even if it is invested for returns, the money and the returns on the money must be used for the intended purpose of the donor.

detourdog 3y ago
Which does describe one aspect of the lever. A group can have all sorts of hedges including a world class institution.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  I don’t think you understood what was said. The university is not part of the hedge fund. It’s a hedge fund that manages the Harvard endowment.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    I understood. I'm saying that large endowments no matter their mission has a group of people that control that endowment. A conservative endowment can be used to leverage other positions members of this group can hold.
xapata 3y ago
Salaries and other compensation can be considered part of the overhead of managing the money and the institution.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Restricted funds are not limiting to generally spending on the school. Many of them are more specific, I assume
  - xapata 3y ago
    Sure, but that's why universities like to ask for unrestricted donations.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      The big numbers rarely are though

belter 3y ago

For maximum tax optimization I normally recommend a Foundation or a Religion.

scarmig 3y ago
Foundations aren't too great; although you can maybe give a couple administrative jobs to your relations, ultimately the bulk of money still has to go to nonprofits, and a foundation faces additional taxes and administrative fees that e.g. a donor advised fund doesn't.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  Maybe you just haven't found the right country to house your foundation for tax purposes? Charitable foundations in Canada seem to be a pretty decent deal. You end up having to use 5% of the assets each year for charity but that can include an awful lot of management expense and the charitable giving doesn't have to be to other charities. You end up paying a lot less than you would have had you exposed yourself to more taxation owning the assets in your name, plus you avoid inheritance taxation while still being able to stream income to your offspring through cushy foundation jobs pretty much perpetually.