The $13 Billion Mystery Angels(businessweek.com)
businessweek.com
The $13 Billion Mystery Angels
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-08/three-mysterious-philanthropists-fund-fourth-largest-u-dot-s-dot-charity#p1
15 comments
> they don't need external recognition when they have the internal one.
If I may borrow a phrase from the Geto Boys:
"Real gangsta-ass niggas don't flex nuts, cause real gangsta-ass niggas know they got em"
It's an attitude I find quite endearing.
If I may borrow a phrase from the Geto Boys:
"Real gangsta-ass niggas don't flex nuts, cause real gangsta-ass niggas know they got em"
It's an attitude I find quite endearing.
> They live in good, but normal houses, and drive a 10 year car.
jeez, not this trope again. not all rich people are the same, because they are people.
first of all, to buy a "good, but normal" house somewhere like SF or west LA or NYC requires you to be nearly-rich. if you aren't worth double the house's value in assets and have at least triple the mortgage payment as annual income, you're not going to have much money left over for anything else. that's not even rich.
yes, some rich people are like warren buffet and live in a normal house and drive a 10 year old cadillac.
but who do you think owns all those yachts parked in every marina in the world? or the incredible, huge houses and apartments that exist in every major city?
who do you think buys all of the ferraris and lamborghinis and other exotics produced every year? who's buying private jet rides and, on a bad day, first class tickets at $10k a pop?
here's a hint: it's not the middle class.
jeez, not this trope again. not all rich people are the same, because they are people.
first of all, to buy a "good, but normal" house somewhere like SF or west LA or NYC requires you to be nearly-rich. if you aren't worth double the house's value in assets and have at least triple the mortgage payment as annual income, you're not going to have much money left over for anything else. that's not even rich.
yes, some rich people are like warren buffet and live in a normal house and drive a 10 year old cadillac.
but who do you think owns all those yachts parked in every marina in the world? or the incredible, huge houses and apartments that exist in every major city?
who do you think buys all of the ferraris and lamborghinis and other exotics produced every year? who's buying private jet rides and, on a bad day, first class tickets at $10k a pop?
here's a hint: it's not the middle class.
It might not be 'rare' but the exceptions definitely prove the rule.
Well said! Trenton - hat tip for the (on point) gets boys reference
IMO the media should leave these donors alone. Charity is a great thing, and anonymous donors should be encouraged. They are giving their money without seeking any fame or other publicity from their generosity.
> anonymous donors should be encouraged
This story is disturbing in that it shows how little financial privacy we have left in the US (and Western Europe and Canada too).
Just look at the incredible lengths these guys went to:
http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-05-09/billionaires-970-popup....
to preserve their privacy.
That the federal government and thousands of random people that work for the federal government have all your finances at their fingertips is bad enough, but then they also make this information available to basically anybody (a reporter with no subpoena power) if you're willing to make the magic incantation (FOIA request or whatever).
Transparency of government is good, but personal data government should be private. (Even better if we gave a whole lot less personal info.)
This story is disturbing in that it shows how little financial privacy we have left in the US (and Western Europe and Canada too).
Just look at the incredible lengths these guys went to:
http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-05-09/billionaires-970-popup....
to preserve their privacy.
That the federal government and thousands of random people that work for the federal government have all your finances at their fingertips is bad enough, but then they also make this information available to basically anybody (a reporter with no subpoena power) if you're willing to make the magic incantation (FOIA request or whatever).
Transparency of government is good, but personal data government should be private. (Even better if we gave a whole lot less personal info.)
I don't feel particularly disturbed by it, I guess. What proportion of a country's resources are controlled by whom seems like something the citizens of that country might legitimately want to know, especially when the proportions are large enough to affect matters of public policy.
Incomes aren't public here (Denmark), but our neighbors to the northwest publish lists of everyone's income and net worth once a year, which doesn't seem to have ruined Norway. I don't think I'd find it disturbing if Denmark did the same, though I don't know of any plans to do so. If anything it might increase some government transparency— there are some very large family fortunes (Mærsk, Carlsberg/Jacobsen, etc.) that have longstanding and often rather cozy relationships with the government. It might add some insight into things if the public better understood who controlled which parts of those fortunes.
Incomes aren't public here (Denmark), but our neighbors to the northwest publish lists of everyone's income and net worth once a year, which doesn't seem to have ruined Norway. I don't think I'd find it disturbing if Denmark did the same, though I don't know of any plans to do so. If anything it might increase some government transparency— there are some very large family fortunes (Mærsk, Carlsberg/Jacobsen, etc.) that have longstanding and often rather cozy relationships with the government. It might add some insight into things if the public better understood who controlled which parts of those fortunes.
What if Anonymous donors were funneling billions into causes that were immoral or unethical? Would you not want to expose and shame them?
We need this kind of transparency to keep people accountable for their actions.
We need this kind of transparency to keep people accountable for their actions.
Pretty sure you can hide your money if go through a for profit shell company but you don't get the tax deduction. Non profits are open.
Once you start creating trusts and shell companies, it's not personal data anymore.
You're assuming all this money finds it's way to benevolent causes that the majority might agree with (environmental sustainability, helping kids etc). Do we have any idea about how much of it ends up funding quackery and personal-agendas?
Of course, it is their money and they can do as as they want with it but if it has a large impact, I can see the argument for more transparency about the source of funds.
Edit: For example, less than a minute of online searching leads me to this kind of example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Gianforte#Social_and_Polit...
Of course, it is their money and they can do as as they want with it but if it has a large impact, I can see the argument for more transparency about the source of funds.
Edit: For example, less than a minute of online searching leads me to this kind of example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Gianforte#Social_and_Polit...
This is voyeurism, not journalism. These people are not interested in being public persons, and it doesn't take much thought to understand why. Leave them alone so they can do their work in peace.
In our brave new world where corporations are people and money is speech (and freely convertible to political power), it is in the public's interest to scrutinize who is hiding vast sums of wealth(power) where, for what purpose it is being used, and from where it came. A "donation" of $1B has the power to change laws that put people in jail, affect industries that people rely on for employment, and re-focus research away from things that could save people's lives.
The more layers of shell companies, shady law offices, and empty "foundations" these donations go through, the more scrutiny should be applied. How clean is all this money? Where did it come from?
The public has a legitimate interest in knowing what portion of a country's wealth(power) is controlled by what kind of people.
The more layers of shell companies, shady law offices, and empty "foundations" these donations go through, the more scrutiny should be applied. How clean is all this money? Where did it come from?
The public has a legitimate interest in knowing what portion of a country's wealth(power) is controlled by what kind of people.
Is there not a legitimate public interest in knowing the source of enormous contributions to charities and political causes?
The scale of these contributions mean they have the potential to significantly distort markets, and reorder societal priorities, arbitrarily refocusing vast resources from one cause to another on the whim of a single individual.
With great wealth comes great power, with great power comes great responsibility, and with great responsibility comes a great need for transparency and oversight.
The scale of these contributions mean they have the potential to significantly distort markets, and reorder societal priorities, arbitrarily refocusing vast resources from one cause to another on the whim of a single individual.
With great wealth comes great power, with great power comes great responsibility, and with great responsibility comes a great need for transparency and oversight.
If they realize they have to choose between charity and privacy, they may just stop donating. Less measurably, other potential large donors may never take the leap, knowing they could not possibly keep their privacy.
Why stop at contributions, when one could refocus resources just the same transacting with a corporation or partnership, or investing or loaning as well as donating?
And at the level of local politics (which in many cases has a greater impact on our day-to-day lives than national politics) you can become a high school or politician's largest donor for less than the cost of a house or high-end car.
And of course you wouldn't want large donors to disguise large donations by making them as many small, indirect donations!
Shouldn't we make everyone's finances totally public?
And at the level of local politics (which in many cases has a greater impact on our day-to-day lives than national politics) you can become a high school or politician's largest donor for less than the cost of a house or high-end car.
And of course you wouldn't want large donors to disguise large donations by making them as many small, indirect donations!
Shouldn't we make everyone's finances totally public?
I think it's perfectly fine for interested citizens and journalists to investigate those cases, too. There is quite a bit of investigative journalism like that that happens at the local level, at least in some places. For example, if a previously unknown company suddenly starts buying up a lot of local land, it's natural that residents would want to look into what this company is and where their money comes from. Is it a front for another company? Who are its investors? Does it have ties to politicians?
Even if your argument was true, the correct way to go about it was to make a law that required publicly declaring such contributions over a certain value threshold. Unless we formally accept this, in the form of a law, these people have the right to privacy and there is no legitimate public interest in violating that.
Sorry. I had to bail out on the second page when the author wanted to pivot from "hey look, all these billions showing up to save the world!" to "the public has a right to know how these people made their money and why they're spending it the way they are"
No, we do not.
Then there was an argument that if these people hadn't have spent their money anonymously, the money would be available to the government to spend as it chose.
At that point I decided my 20 minutes were best spent somewhere on the net that had a higher caliber of analytic thought.
No, we do not.
Then there was an argument that if these people hadn't have spent their money anonymously, the money would be available to the government to spend as it chose.
At that point I decided my 20 minutes were best spent somewhere on the net that had a higher caliber of analytic thought.
"No, we do not."
Why not? If I am rich enough to have my pick of the best researchers and doctors, and to divert their attention to a disease or condition of my choosing, then shouldn't there be some oversight of that?
Perhaps all that money could have been better spent on malaria or cancer, rather than a rarer condition.
I don't know why an arbitrary rich individual should be able to direct medicinal research better than a public body, and get the most benefit for humanity or, at a lower level, their fellow citizens,
Why not? If I am rich enough to have my pick of the best researchers and doctors, and to divert their attention to a disease or condition of my choosing, then shouldn't there be some oversight of that?
Perhaps all that money could have been better spent on malaria or cancer, rather than a rarer condition.
I don't know why an arbitrary rich individual should be able to direct medicinal research better than a public body, and get the most benefit for humanity or, at a lower level, their fellow citizens,
That's a horribly slippery slope to just blunder on to.
You, and the parent of my comment, are not backing up your arguments.
I posted a reasoned comment which does not worship the power of private enterprise, and asserts that the public sphere is better at some things than private wealth.
This is not an outrageous and thoughtless idea, and it is not one that deserves a downvote simply for being expressed.
Many enterprises in history have been organized by governments instead of wealthy capitalists. It is not unacceptable to suggest that medical research is one of those areas that could be done better in this way.
I posted a reasoned comment which does not worship the power of private enterprise, and asserts that the public sphere is better at some things than private wealth.
This is not an outrageous and thoughtless idea, and it is not one that deserves a downvote simply for being expressed.
Many enterprises in history have been organized by governments instead of wealthy capitalists. It is not unacceptable to suggest that medical research is one of those areas that could be done better in this way.
Surely the inverse slope - "rich people should be allowed to spend arbitrary amounts of money on things that markedly affect the direction of society solely out of self-interest without any oversight" - is equally slippery?
I suspect there are many many more very high net worth individuals who are unknown, and we can only hope that they act as well as these guys.
Off-topic question for the professional scientists in the room.
The OP reports individual donors contributing in excess of $100 million to particular causes. We've spoken often here about the various inefficiencies in the current research structures: top scientists spending too much time writing grants; disincentives for the curiosity-driven research that often leads to breakthroughs, etc.
So the question: is investment on the order of $100M+ sufficient to set up a private research facility with research "done right"? (By which I mean, of course, the way I would do it. :) ) It's easy to imagine a private facility that recruits top-notch but frustrated scientists from various schools, sets some important problems for them, and sets them free from grant writing, publishing pressures, etc.
The obvious objection is that the donor would call the shots and subvert the research... but on the other hand these sorts of donors are already willing to just fund research with no personal input into process.
The OP reports individual donors contributing in excess of $100 million to particular causes. We've spoken often here about the various inefficiencies in the current research structures: top scientists spending too much time writing grants; disincentives for the curiosity-driven research that often leads to breakthroughs, etc.
So the question: is investment on the order of $100M+ sufficient to set up a private research facility with research "done right"? (By which I mean, of course, the way I would do it. :) ) It's easy to imagine a private facility that recruits top-notch but frustrated scientists from various schools, sets some important problems for them, and sets them free from grant writing, publishing pressures, etc.
The obvious objection is that the donor would call the shots and subvert the research... but on the other hand these sorts of donors are already willing to just fund research with no personal input into process.
This is pretty much what Mike Lazaridis of RIM did to set up The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_Institute_for_Theoret...
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/
It was an initial donation of $100M in 2000, followed up by $50M in 2008. I believe Lazaridis' financial support has ended with the difficulties at RIM, but PI is by now self-sufficient and supported by the Canadian government.
The place is well known for hosting some pretty crazy and speculative research. It is the only institution I know of that has a Quantum Foundations department. But they have enough money that they have been able to attract some big names to lend significant degree of respectability to the place.
(I'm starting a postdoc at PI in the fall, and the complete freedom available there was a big part of the attraction.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_Institute_for_Theoret...
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/
It was an initial donation of $100M in 2000, followed up by $50M in 2008. I believe Lazaridis' financial support has ended with the difficulties at RIM, but PI is by now self-sufficient and supported by the Canadian government.
The place is well known for hosting some pretty crazy and speculative research. It is the only institution I know of that has a Quantum Foundations department. But they have enough money that they have been able to attract some big names to lend significant degree of respectability to the place.
(I'm starting a postdoc at PI in the fall, and the complete freedom available there was a big part of the attraction.)
To add to jessriedel's comment [1], the recently established Simons Institute at Berkeley [2] is another example of what is soon becoming a top research institute in CS theory, seeded with 'just' $60 million. There are also the Kavli institutes [3], but I'm not familiar enough with them to judge. (Warning: personal opinion ahead) And then you have, on the other hand, the chronically-underfunded and academically controversial Santa Fe Institute [4].
The key, it seems, is to keep the institute mostly private and independent, but with enough links to some established research university to lend it credibility, resources, academic/peer feedback, and long-term sustainability.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7725377
[2] http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/datascience/simonsaward
[3] http://www.kavlifoundation.org/institutes
[4] http://www.santafe.edu/support/the-history/emerges/
The key, it seems, is to keep the institute mostly private and independent, but with enough links to some established research university to lend it credibility, resources, academic/peer feedback, and long-term sustainability.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7725377
[2] http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/datascience/simonsaward
[3] http://www.kavlifoundation.org/institutes
[4] http://www.santafe.edu/support/the-history/emerges/
See also Calico, which is essentially what you describe. I think they have more than 100M.
In my estimation 100M is enough to set up and fund a large-scale research enterprise for 5 years. It's harder to get critical mass if you spread it out longer than that, and it's certainly not enough to establish an endowment for a research institute.
Purely theoretical or software research is cheaper.
In my estimation 100M is enough to set up and fund a large-scale research enterprise for 5 years. It's harder to get critical mass if you spread it out longer than that, and it's certainly not enough to establish an endowment for a research institute.
Purely theoretical or software research is cheaper.
I think the article raises some legit questions on how nearly $50B of tax money is being managed, not by the government, but by the criteria of private donors. The author also implies some lack of coordination in between scientists' and donor's priorities. I wonder how the public could measure philanthropy's performance. Having competing or independent research groups a productive thing? Or is it better to centralize efforts? Could it end up raising health care costs due to increased demand on biotech resources? Are there flaws in Gates' education initiatives? How can the public get a better saying on how this money is funneled into public institutions or even politics?
Not that I think government is immune to uncoordinated, flawed spending. Or that we need regulation. Or that we need to tax the rich to the fullest. Charity is a great thing. But imagine the absurd: that private donors donated to road construction foundations, and you end up getting two parallel highways that go from A to B. Wouldn't that be just a plain waste of a country's wealth, even if it belongs to private donors?
This reminds me of the story about how certain NGOs took used clothes from rich countries straight to Africa, only to realize how that was damaging these countries' textile industry. Nowadays many NGOs have adopted a more constructive approach in Africa or countries simply banned these shipments [1].
TGS Management's money is also somewhat exaggeratedly, if not suspiciously, split into many cascading foundations and companies, which also should raise an eyebrow or two whatever their reasons may be. Investigative journalism, and hopefully the transparency and insight it provides, can be powerful for setting long-term, effective goals for donors and charity that are in everyone's interest.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-char...
Not that I think government is immune to uncoordinated, flawed spending. Or that we need regulation. Or that we need to tax the rich to the fullest. Charity is a great thing. But imagine the absurd: that private donors donated to road construction foundations, and you end up getting two parallel highways that go from A to B. Wouldn't that be just a plain waste of a country's wealth, even if it belongs to private donors?
This reminds me of the story about how certain NGOs took used clothes from rich countries straight to Africa, only to realize how that was damaging these countries' textile industry. Nowadays many NGOs have adopted a more constructive approach in Africa or countries simply banned these shipments [1].
TGS Management's money is also somewhat exaggeratedly, if not suspiciously, split into many cascading foundations and companies, which also should raise an eyebrow or two whatever their reasons may be. Investigative journalism, and hopefully the transparency and insight it provides, can be powerful for setting long-term, effective goals for donors and charity that are in everyone's interest.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-char...
"For any prime number larger than 3, prove that p^2-1 is always divisible by 24."
That seems like an easy interview question.
That seems like an easy interview question.
Yeah. Quick sketch of proof: Any prime is 1 or 2 mod 3, and 1, 3, 5, or 7 mod 8. Squaring each value means that every p^2 is 1 mod 3 and 1 mod 8, which must be 1 mod 24 (Chinese remainder theorem).
Or you could algebraically bash it out.
Or you could algebraically bash it out.
Ah. Little clever realisations like any prime is 1,3,5 or 7 mod 8, that's something that comes very hard to me even though when I see it it looks so trivially true. Did you just realize that property for solving this question or was the property taught to you (directly or through solving some homework assignment)?
Here's an "elementary" proof :
If n is prime>3 then it's definitely odd.
n^2-1 = (n+1).(n-1)
But n is odd, so (n+1) and (n-1) are both even. So overall, we have a factor of 4.
But, since one of those two is 2 different from the other, it must also be divisible by 4.
Now, looking at this sideways too, we also have a run of 3 numbers {(n-1), n, (n+1)}. So one of them must be divisible by 3. But n isn't (since it's prime). Therefore at least one of the other two is.
So,overall, we have 2.4.3 as a minimum set of factors...
If n is prime>3 then it's definitely odd.
n^2-1 = (n+1).(n-1)
But n is odd, so (n+1) and (n-1) are both even. So overall, we have a factor of 4.
But, since one of those two is 2 different from the other, it must also be divisible by 4.
Now, looking at this sideways too, we also have a run of 3 numbers {(n-1), n, (n+1)}. So one of them must be divisible by 3. But n isn't (since it's prime). Therefore at least one of the other two is.
So,overall, we have 2.4.3 as a minimum set of factors...
That's the one I thought of once I wondered how hard it could be. I was more amused by the idea of the question appearing in Businessweek and wondering how many of their readers attempted to answer it versus the average HN reader.
If not hiring people like me is your goal..
edit: I sincerely hope you were making a joke.
edit: I sincerely hope you were making a joke.
What is my middle name?
That's a fairly easy question as well. Every single person in my immediate vicinity knows it. My daughter who is less than 36 months old knows it.
Don't you?
That's a fairly easy question as well. Every single person in my immediate vicinity knows it. My daughter who is less than 36 months old knows it.
Don't you?
If you are hiring math PhD's I would think most of them would find the question almost insulting, or at least assume that you had tougher questions to throw at them once they spit that one out.
You are absolutely right. I didn't read the context of the question. I have left my comment un-edited to remind me not be such a smarta$$.
Bear with me as I'm an econ neophyte, but if as Wikipedia suggests the US stock market holds about 20 trillion USD, and the average rate of return is 10%, is 2 trillion a good estimate for how much is made in the US stock market annually?
It depends what you mean by "made in the US stock market".
The ROR can include capital gains (the price of your stocks rise) and income (you get paid a dividend). These are different, but both contribute to your returns.
The ROR can include capital gains (the price of your stocks rise) and income (you get paid a dividend). These are different, but both contribute to your returns.
His investing success, he told the newspaper, was “all a matter of chance. It certainly wasn’t because I worked 5,000 times as hard as the average person, or was 5,000 times smarter than the average person.”
Huh, turns out he's about 5,0000 times smarter than the average billionaire that never realizes this.
Huh, turns out he's about 5,0000 times smarter than the average billionaire that never realizes this.
The world needs more people like these 3 angels...Great story.
No, what the world needs is a system of finance where these "angels" could not earn a single dime by pushing around numbers instead of parasitically skimming billions off the real economy of companies that actually produce stuff, and where they would instead use their intellectual resources to do something useful.
That they use their gains for good is wonderful, but should not be necessary, and is not as great as transparent and accountable charity that is coordinated by democratically determined public policy would be.
That they use their gains for good is wonderful, but should not be necessary, and is not as great as transparent and accountable charity that is coordinated by democratically determined public policy would be.
The finance market provides needed liquidity. I'm glad these guys took the risk to offer their resources. That they are relatively better at it than you or I is no skin off my back.
They are relatively better at playing a zero-sum game. Not that algo/hft traders are any worse than most of the rest of Wall Street, but it really is skin off the back of retirement funds of every mom & pop.
Oh those parasites...
Hmm.. yup.. looks like the stock market is just chalk full of Robin Hoods who are so humble they don't want any recognition.
Either that or some guys got filthy rich using questionably legal means, felt guilty so they started giving a lot of it away, and are worried they might get caught if they become well-known.
Either that or some guys got filthy rich using questionably legal means, felt guilty so they started giving a lot of it away, and are worried they might get caught if they become well-known.
[deleted]
Mind = Blown! One of the most exciting stories I read on the internet. Not only the story is awesome, the writing also stands out. Kudos to the author: Zachary R. Mider.
Most people believe what mass media tells them. The media talks about the actors, but not about the producers, they talk about the young sport star but not so much about the owner of the team, and so on.
And the main reason is: Most of them don't want to be famous, they don't want people stalking them for money whenever they go, or someone kidnapping their children. They don't need to show off their money. They live in good, but normal houses, and drive a 10 year car.
Most of them already made themselves, they don't need external recognition when they have the internal one. Most of them were naysed when they started their business(most people tell you "it wont work") or wanted to create something new and survived extreme negativity, so they are quite indifferent about what other people think about them(when you are super rich everybody wants to be your friend and the same person who told you "it wont work" the most now tells you "I always believed you were going to make it").
You have lots of them writing in HN with pseudonym. Like writers they want their words to carry a message from itself, not from the authority of the person who writes them, and it lets them interact with intelligent people in an equal level.