4 ms·

Humm .. understood point #1. Yes, the original goal was to bring money to a fund through sales.. but if the sales are diverted to a for-profit, ultimately benef

• eragnew 14y ago
  I think you may want to examine the assumptions in 'but if the sales are diverted to a for-profit, ultimately beneficiaries will not enjoy it.' Is that the truth, or is that what you think the truth is? There is an important difference between the two.
  • kelu124 14y ago
    Good point as well, maybe biaised. However, beneficiaries can get returns through a partner who has experience and ensures the right return to beneficiary, when they are not transparent -- so unsure. You're right!
  • polyfractal 14y ago
    Agreed. There is a very real chance that being a for-profit company can propel to you making more money for both the company and for your beneficiaries since you can hire more talented individuals. It's pretty well known that non-profits often starve for top talent simply because a lot of the top talent also wants to make more money than a poor college kid. Making money doesn't have to be orthogonal to doing good things in the world. There are plenty of companies that manage to do both.