So what is your point OP?That we should stop donating to any charity that invests/saves a tiny fraction of its money in a way that you as an individual disagree with? And that will help who?
Well.. Yes, it stinks to high heaven IMO, your donations should be used for the cause your donating to,
Maybe that's a little naive judging by some of the responses so far..
If I give a pound I expect a pound to be used for the intended purpose, not 90p and 10p to the devil..
Well.. Yes, it stinks to high heaven IMO, your donations should be used for the cause your donating to,
Maybe that's a little naive judging by some of the responses so far..
If I give a pound I expect a pound to be used for the intended purpose, not 90p and 10p to the devil..
Welcome to my world.
In reflection it is/was naive to think this judging by what I'm reading here.
but the devil gives such good returns....If I give a pound I expect a pound to be used for the intended purpose, not 90p and 10p to the devil..
And there we have it.. 🙁
Right, final gambit before doing some actual work, Khani, Highclimber, you're not naive, that's how it should be......but charities, quite rightly-ish, appoint commercially aware individuals to their boards of trustees to manage the cash. You/I would think that those individuals would be briefed to invest that in benign (as far as can be reasonably established) organisations. They do maximise return for their charity however that may be at the cost of investing in businesses that may act contrary to the stated aims of the charity or the intent of the donators. This is an anathema and a consequence of monetising good will* as the markets are morally blind outside of legislative constraints*. Should we expect charities to have better scrutiny? In my view yes poportionate to the scae and resources of the organisation, local donkey sanctuary, not so much, CR, very much so.
*opinion
Ninja edit - what DONK said
Err if you have a pension you likely invest in tobacco and arms etc
If I give a pound I expect a pound to be used for the intended purpose, not 90p and 10p to the devil..
But what if it costs 10p to process that pound (be that fundraising overheads, transport costs, whatever). Where's that coming from? Would you rather 90p went to charity and 10p got lost in fees, or would you rather the 'devil' said "give me 10p now, I'll give you 20p back when you're ready to spend it"? Then every penny goes to charity, the people who need to be paid get paid, and the devil is 10p out of pocket.
Plus let's not forget, you're not actually giving it to the devil at all, you're giving it to someone who owns a devil's toenail. Ostensibly you're buying a bit of paper with "the devil" written on it, and selling it back for a profit later.
[quote=khani said]If I give a pound I expect a pound to be used for the intended purpose, not 90p and 10p to the devil..
Except that what you'll find actually happens is a pound to the devil who gives you 110p back to spend on the causes you wanted to benefit. Win, win.
Some people don't half seem to lack an understanding of the way finances work - and they work that way for charities as well. The charity would be failing in its duties if it wasn't investing the money to get the best returns - the only debate is over how rigorous it should be in making those investments. As mentioned, there is probably no such thing as a totally ethical investment, so it depends where you draw the line. For example would you think it OK to invest in a company supplying fuel systems to Rolls Royce for use on their engines (I was going to mention a specific company I once did some work for, but it seems that part is now effectively US owned, so this is a theoretical argument) - all those RR engines on Boeing and Airbus planes must be OK? Yet along with supplying stuff for RR Trent engines as fitted to airliners they also do stuff for the EJ200...
or would you rather the 'devil' said "give me 10p now, I'll give you 20p back when you're ready to spend it"? Then every penny goes to charity, the people who need to be paid get paid, and the devil is 10p out of pocket.
But what if the devil used my 10p to make 50p and after he's given me 20p he's got 30p to do his devilish work all the more?
You shouldn't trust the devil, he's a cunning foe..
He would be a pretty smart devil and smarter than most CEOs and fund managers!!!
Cougar, aracer, the point is that the devil is not out of pocket though is he? He's used your pound to generate 2 given you a bit and kept the rest himself to fuel his endeavours.
Not forgetting the pound was donated on the promise it was being used for good causes in the first place..
Need to type faster
They could just hold cash and use it as and when.
When i give my 5 ,10or20 pounds i don't expect it to be used at the casino first to try and make more money ( if you do not think the stock market is a casino then you need to wake up and smell the coffee).
If charity's are struggling to find where the money needs to be spent with all the problems we have in the world then i can only assume those problems are not as great as we are lead to believe.
Who'd have thought half of STW were devil worshippers, every days a school day..
[quote=thestabiliser said]Cougar, aracer, the point is that the devil is not out of pocket though is he? He's used your pound to generate 2 given you a bit and kept the rest himself to fuel his endeavours.
Actually no, because the charity part owns the devil along with lots of other people who have pensions etc. The ultimate beneficiary of any money made isn't the devil.
As I say, there's a debate to be had over the rigour of choosing where and how to invest money. No worthwhile debate over whether they should be investing money in the first place.
Cobblers. The shareholders get a share of profits, the bulk of the money is used by the business to perpetuate itself.
[quote=66deg said]They could just hold cash and use it as and when.
They could, but I suspect the charities commission might not be best pleased about the management if the did that. They are expected to use the money in the best possible way, and sticking it under the mattress doesn't count.
When i give my 5 ,10or20 pounds i don't expect it to be used at the casino first to try and make more money ( if you do not think the stock market is a casino then you need to wake up and smell the coffee).
I think it's actually you with a caffeinated drink aroma problem. Over the short term you might lose money on the stock market, but with the long term managed investments big charities are making, the return is pretty much guaranteed to outperform other alternatives. Presumably you're thinking about the 2008 crash? Well if you'd invested your money into a balanced share portfolio just before that you'd be able to pretty much get all your money back now, along with a steady dividend income over the past 5 years which easily beats the returns available from a bank.
Do you reckon they should have their money in the bank earning 0.5% instead?
[quote=thestabiliser said]Cobblers. The shareholders get a share of profits, the bulk of the money is used by the business to perpetuate itself.
Yeah all those nasty salaries they're paying out to workers. Devils.
Do you reckon they should have their money in the bank earning 0.5% instead?
Even that 0.5% comes from investment, and you have no way of knowing where.
thestabiliser said » Cobblers. The shareholders get a share of profits, the bulk of the money is used by the business to perpetuate itself.Yeah all those nasty salaries they're paying out to workers. Devils.
Yeah, from the proceeds of tobacco and arms sales, effin right.
the point is money donated in good faith to charity is being invested in company's who are in part causing the problems the the charity's are trying to eradicate..
It's not hard, wtf are they thinking..
I think you will find nothing in the stock market is guaranteed,in fact the most you can loose is 100% not likely but possible.
The point is that the charity is the middle man between the donor ,who has given money because they went to help which ever person , child or animal is suffering and any investment be it a fund or holding individual shares is at risk and must be held for a long time to see any benefit , not what the donor intended , meanwhile the person, child or animal dies, but hey you made a few quid.
It is a question of morals.
Bit of a sensationalist report of a naive mistake, I fear. Comic Relief has raised getting on for £1 billion, I defy any group or person to keep a full and morally coherent record of that some of money, with the charity commission breathing down your neck to maximise investment returns with minimal costs
As someone who works in the defense industry, I'd just like to thank you all for your continued generosity.
Legend
[quote=66deg said]I think you will find nothing in the stock market is guaranteed,in fact the most you can loose is 100% not likely but possible.
Nothing in life is guaranteed. Put it in the bank and the bank could go bust and you could lose all but £85k (I'm not sure if that even applies to non-individuals). You might argue that didn't happen when banks went bust as the government stepped in, but neither has anybody lost everything investing in a balanced stock market portfolio. You could of course stuff it under the mattress, but I don't think insurance will cover that.
You still appear to fail to understand that they're working on stuff long term and will always have money to invest - it's the best way for them to ensure they can carry out the work you want them to. If the morally correct thing to do is spend the money in the best way possible to help those in need, then they're doing the morally correct thing. It is pretty naive to think that you give them £10 and they instantly spend it on digging a well or building a hospital.
Yeah, it's not like anywhere needs any more wells or hospitals anyway..
Two things.
1:
But what if the devil used my 10p to make 50p and after he's given me 20p he's got 30p to do his devilish work all the more?
What if, indeed. So you decide not to donate, the devil is 30p worse off, and the charity is a whole pound worse off. Which is the greater evil here?
2:
The plural of "charity" is "charities." It is not, and never will be, "charity's." Stop it, all of you, you're making my eyeballs itch.
There's a few misunderstandings in this thread that would benefit from clearing up:
1) Trustees - they aren't there to "manage" things, they provide governance, set strategy and scrutinise other people's management (i.e. the managers). Running a charity is a full time job, trustees put in probably a dozen days per year. The trustees will make decisions like: setting the investment policy, including saying that we don't want to invest in this or that sector (based on the charitable objects etc.), we don't want any risky derivatives, or whatever. They may also appoint the fund managers. There will be finance people who's actual job it is to manage stuff, Duncan Ballantyne doesn't rock up to the office once a week to process the purchase ledger invoices and prepare the management accounts.
2) Fund managers - if a charity says to them - here's £xM to invest, and we don't want it in booze, fags or risky derivatives, then they need to follow those instructions. It's not hard, there are lots of products on the market, and lots of off-the-shelf products like index trackers that are designed for charities, including ones that avoid "dodgy" investments. Do you think comic relief is the only charity that wants to avoid booze, fags and arms when it invests? No, there's loads, and the industry is ready to meet that demand.
3) What counts as booze, fags and arms? This is where it can get a bit more difficult. We don't want to invest in people who make profits from booze and fags, right? Okay, well that's pretty much the whole retail sector ruled out as well as the manufacturers and distributors then. (Tesco sells fags, presumably at a profit..) Or what about companies who provide services to other businesses. Financial services - best avoid anyone who provides any of their services to anyone in the booze and fags industry (including, as we have already seen, the retailers). Do you even know who that is? Anyone know Tesco use for their insurance? Me neither, but since Tesco profits from fags, then whoever profits from Tesco by providing their insurances is also profiting from fags.... you see the problem?
4) Investing at all. Of course they bleeding well should. There's a variety of legitimate approaches to this that a charity can reasonably take, from out-and-out maximisation of financial returns, through to investment in things close to their mission that might not even generate a positive return, and a variety of flavours in between (or a mixture of different flavours).
What if, indeed. So you decide not to donate, the devil is 30p worse off, and the charity is a whole pound worse off. Which is the greater evil here?
There's other charities, 😉
People generally don't give to charity in the belief that the charity should maximize returns they do it to help others that are in need .
so if their need is not so great and they can wait for ten years for investments to come good then i can assume that the charity concerned is not in need of many donations.
There's other charities,
Sure. I'm certain it's only Comic Relief who have the audacity and moral bankruptcy to invest 0.3% of its proceeds into shares in tobacco companies, or 0.06% into shares in an aerospace company.
In seriousness I do take your point, and it seems to be an ill-conceived move on Comic Relief's part. But it whiffs of a "slow news day" story to me, it's certainly not the ZOMG COMIC RELEIF IS BUYING GUNS!!1! that the headline would have you believe.
People generally don't give to charity in the belief that the charity should maximize returns they do it to help others that are in need .
Perhaps not. But if that's the case then it's a failure on behalf of the people donating, not the charity.
Do you really think any charity could take your money, have the opportunity use it to raise [i]even more money[/i], and go "nah, we'll just spend it all immediately instead"? Moreover, do you think they [i]should?[/i] Which is the most responsible, effective use of donations?
0.3 and 0.6 of a billion is a lot of money, I see your point though, but now these things are coming to light it might change a few attitudes on how these things are managed.
The plural of "charity" is "charities." It is not, and never will be, "charity's." Stop it, all of you, you're making my eyeball[b]ie[/b]s itch.
FTFY
My belief is that charities should not be trying to behave like corporations constantly striving to maximize the bottom line , the impression given by charities is that the money is needed now ,Geldoff thumping the table springs to mind .
If it is going to be spent anywhere in the short to medium term then stocks and funds are not very wise.If it is to be kept for the long term then the worlds problems are not that great or can simply wait.
I also get the impression that the problems in Africa for example have been ongoing for decades surely the charities know where money need's to be spent after all they have been doing it for a very long time.
[quote=khani said]There's other charities,
There are
[quote=Cougar said]Do you really think any charity could take your money, have the opportunity use it to raise even more money, and go "nah, we'll just spend it all immediately instead"? Moreover, do you think they should? Which is the most responsible, effective use of donations?
No, no, no - you've got it all wrong. When they get 66deg's tenner they should nip down the market and buy whatever they can get for it straight away. Better that than risk being morally bankrupt.
[quote=66deg said]My belief is that charities should not be trying to behave like corporations constantly striving to maximize the bottom line
Oh, so you'd rather they wasted your donations?
the charity's know where money need's to be spent
Your doing it on porpoise now are'nt you?
Do you really think any charity could take your money, have the opportunity use it to raise even more money, and go "nah, we'll just spend it all immediately instead"? Moreover, do you think they should? Which is the most responsible, effective use of donationsJust because you have money and opportunity does not mean that any investment will go up .
Before anyone gets on their high horse i know this is an extreme example but decades of donations and billions of charities cash was lost by one Bernie Madhoff.
If you've got a surplus of apostrophes it would be better to invest them, rather than splurging them in a single post.
My belief is that charities should not be trying to behave like corporations constantly striving to maximize the bottom line
Charities do behave much more corporately these days, and will strive to maximise the value of the funds they have available (like a business would). I fail to see how this can be a bad thing.
If it is going to be spent anywhere in the short to medium term then stocks and funds are not very wise.
In reality they will probably have a mixture of different types of investment, suitable for both short and long term cashflow requirements. You can assume that professional advice will be involved in those decisions.
I also get the impression that the problems in Africa for example have been ongoing for decades surely the charity's know where money need's to be spent after all they have been doing it for a very long time.
I think you will find that problems don't behave like that - if they were static and constant it would be a lot easier though. However, they (charities) will have a fair idea what would be a useful way to deploy resources, and when they plan that, and identify that some of the required funding doesn't need to be released for a while yet, what would be the best thing for them to do with that money in the meantime?
In reality they will probably have a mixture of different types of investment, suitable for both short and long term cashflow requirements. You can assume that professional advice will be involved in those decisions.
I think you will find that problems don't behave like that - if they were static and constant it would be a lot easier though. However, they (charities) will have a fair idea what would be a useful way to deploy resources, and when they plan that, and identify that some of the required funding doesn't need to be released for a while yet, what would be the best thing for them to do with that money in the meantime?I am not against low risk short term sensible investing while money is waiting to be deployed , and professional advice should be taken ,my personal belief is that shares on their own or in share only funds are high risk and the FSA disclaimer is their for a very good reason.
Any fund manager will tell you that when buying shares the strategy is long term buy and hold. In order to get a return you must be prepared to be in it for the long term , money that may need to be released in the short to medium could have lost a fair whack in the stock market.
I would have thought that the needs of recipients would be on a short to medium term basis not in ten years time.
Donation=> charity=> funds management=> dodgy investments=> Interest earned => charity funds increase=> [u]research to more save lives[/u] => many lives saved=> fat pay cheques => executives and jobworths.
Dodgy investments=> create misery=> [u]more lives terminated[/u]=> fat pay cheques=> executives and jobworths.
Research to save more lives = more lives terminated = square one.
No donation=> no more increase in lives save = no increase in lives terminated due to dodgy investment = square one.
[b]The winner = executives and jobworths. i.e. bureaucrats.[/b]
🙄
My belief is that charities should not be trying to behave like corporations constantly striving to maximize the bottom line
I'm guessing You aren't responsible for running a charity.
Which is a good thing
because maximising the potential of the donations seems pretty important.
66deg - MemberI would have thought that the needs of recipients would be on a short to medium term basis not in ten years time.
But the charities will be holding funds regardless. It doesn't have to be the same money- let's imagine they receive £10 of donations, and decide to spend it on a 5 year project that costs £2 per year. Now they only have £8 to invest, on a longest scale of 4 years. In isolation, simple.
But next year, they get another £10 donation. And next year, another. So they will have an ongoing base of committed funds which, even though they're from multiple sources and committed on varying timescales, gives them a relatively consistent purse. Money they invested years ago can be used to fund commitments they made last year, and so on.
Northwind, stop being logical and actually knowing how things work.
Be outraged !!!1!
