James Heilman wrote: > > I personally invest in stuff that gives 1.5% to 1.7% returns....
Whether you call it fake news, disinformation, public relations, manufactured consent, astroturfing, propaganda, or simply clever advertising campaigning, bankers are thrilled when people think such returns are reasonable, because they make so much money by turning around those investments into payday loans, overdraft fees, student loans, and high credit card interest rates to the vast majority of the population which has already depleted their savings: https://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/data-americans-savings/ However, that such returns are reasonable is a false narrative which only serves to increase economic inequality. Many nonprofits (and some people) are in a precarious financial condition and therefore should invest in government bonds (or cash accounts.) But the WMF is among the most financially solvent nonprofits in the history of civilization, and certainly beyond the level of the wealthiest educational institutions because of the lack of physical plant overhead. For what such institutions with competent financial management typically earn, please see e.g. Figure 1 on page 2 of: https://institutional.vanguard.com/iam/pdf/EndowmentPerformanceResearch.pdf Individuals should be earning the same high rates too, and easily can, but bankers and fund managers hate it when their customers are savvy enough to ask for endowment-grade returns. Please see: https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s342.pdf Disclaimer: I have no financial, familial, or other ties to Vanguard, but I like them more than their competitors, in part because of the "number two tries harder" effect, and in part because of the fact Renaissance was behind the effort, which shows to me that they have lost focus on fundamental value investing because arbitrage over politicians is (temporarily?) more lucrative, shown here: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7090/5653 > Why is it assumed we should be investing in stocks? I am not recommending stocks. I recommend managed endowment-grade mutual fund(s) with divestitures using short sales with limit orders to remove the short sale risk. > And where is the evidence that "brilliant minds" do better at > stocks than random chance? Again, unless one has the resources to keep current investigations on the fundamental financial conditions of stocks such as the top performing endowment fund management fund companies do, I am not suggesting one should be picking stocks. However, the evidence that those funds are superior to what a small team (such as the Wikimedia Endowment Advisory Board) is completely clear; see: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rzeckhau/EndowmentsPaperPartI.pdf and https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rzeckhau/EndowmentsPaperPartII.pdf > The endowment is under separate management from the WMF, with > the people running the endowment specialized in that area. While my questions are about the Foundation's primary investments for which an endowment-grade fund is most appropriate, but not the nascent endowment itself, I have been trying to follow the Endowment news. Has its Board even met yet? I have absolutely no confidence that they have the resources necessary to outperform a top-5 endowment-grade mutual fund. If you don't agree, please see for yourself: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/133/133947823/133947823_201312_990PF.pdf Annette Campbell-White's Kia Ora Foundation made $73K interest, dividends, and capital gains on $2.8 million cash, savings, and investments, only 2.6%. Peter Baldwin's Arcadia Fund doesn't even disclose their endowment financials: http://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/media/10233/Arcadia-triennial-report-2013-2015.pdf Nor have they ever. They are also not listed in GuideStar UK, Charity Financials, nor http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/registerhomepage.aspx While they are listed at https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/IC000448 their financials are missing, and the referral has no information at all: https://register.fca.org.uk/shpo_nosearchresultpage?search=IC000448 In any case, the thought that Wales, Campbell-White, and Baldwin have the resources to investigate the fundamentals of tens of thousands of investment choices is absurd, and the thought that they have any hope of outperforming any of the top-5 endowment mutual fund is even less likely. If there is any evidence to the contrary I would like to read it. Best regards, Jim _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
