For some time, Answers in Genesis (AiG), the group behind the Creation Museum, has had its sights set on establishing a theme park focused around a replica of Noah's Ark. Originally viewed as a $172.5 million project, the park's plans have been revamped to entail a $73 million initial phase due to slower than expected funding. It is this first phase that has recently been submitted for approval of tourism sales tax rebates from the state of Kentucky. Given this background, I thought I would share a few thoughts about the project's finances, thoughts that are admittedly limited due to the paucity of publicly-available information. I have no interest in speaking about the underlying religious and scientific debates or whether tourism tax rebates are appropriate, but instead will stick to the accounting as it pertains to the project's funding...
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
It's hard to escape the constant discussion and conjecture about LeBron James' basketball future. While I have nothing serious to offer about that conversation, I will at least seek to address the question about his loyalty to Ohio. What better way to consider where loyalties lie than to follow the money trail, and The LeBron James Family Foundation gives us such an opportunity. Using the IRS Form 990 filings for the foundation since his departure from the Cleveland Cavaliers, I categorized each year's program expenditures based on their target recipient: national programs, state/local programs, or other unidentified targets. Although some targets cannot be identified from the public data, a pretty clear picture nonetheless emerges: while LeBron's skills may have been brought to South Beach in 2010, his charitable endeavors have remained and even become more focused in Ohio. The percentage breakdown for each year is summarized in the following figure.
Am I saying this is evidence of King James' possible basketball future? No, I have no idea about that. What I am saying, though, is that it's clear that wherever he plays basketball, his real loyalties remain in Ohio.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
While the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been subject to public and media criticism before, the recent uptick in critical coverage (starting with this article in the Washington Post) on its efforts to influence education policy are noteworthy. Also noteworthy is the fact that shortly after the round of criticism, the foundation's stance took a sudden turn, with a call for delay in implementing "Common Core" education standards.
The purpose of this post is not to add or refute criticisms of the Gates Foundation's priorities or policies (I will leave that to others). Rather, it is an attempt to provide some perspective on these criticisms. In a world where many nonprofits face consistent scrutiny and pressure, the Gates Foundation has actually largely avoided the public eye. Perhaps the nonpartisan mission of the organization and giving attitude of the founders has something to do with this. Nonetheless, the lack of criticism is striking. To provide context, consider these 8 nonprofits in the public eye (3 of which are private foundations): ACLU Foundation; Ford Foundation; Gates Foundation; Heritage Foundation; Livestrong; NRA; Planned Parenthood; and the Walton Family Foundation.
The next figure shows each of these organization's total assets (in millions) as of their most recent Form 990 tax filing.
The message: Gates has much more potential influence than any of these thanks to its wealth, with more than 100 times the assets of ACLU, Heritage Foundation, Livestrong, NRA, or Planned Parenthood. Yet, many of these are constantly criticized and second-guessed (some seemingly have entire cable channels devoted to critiquing them). For a rough view of this level of scrutiny, consider the number of google hits for a search on each organization's name and "criticism". The next figure presents the results of this exercise.
The message: despite its size, Gates receives much less criticism than most of the others. In other words, what is surprising is not the recent spate of criticism and scrutiny the Gates Foundation's policies have garnered, but that it has taken so long. Those at the Gates Foundation should expect more in the way of scrutiny and criticism, not less, in the coming years. Their size and potential influence make this virtually inevitable.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Recent years have seen several charities rise quickly to the top of public awareness. It's anecdotal evidence, but it seems many of these popular charities follow a similar course: their rapid rise in popularity first brings quickly rising donations; next, over time the public's obsession turns into scrutiny; the scrutiny, in turn, breeds disenchantment with the organization and donations dry up.
The next chart demonstrates this point using four recent cases, plotting each organization's gifts, grants, & contributions as a percentage of that in their peak year. The pattern is remarkably similar though the underlying story of each is, of course, very different.
|Gifts, Grants, & Contributions as a Percentage of Peak Amounts|
Does this pattern signal an overly fickle public? Or, does it represent a public slow to examine an organization before supporting it? I'm not sure, but maybe it does signal to other charities that find themselves in the spotlight that just because the public is fully supportive doesn't mean they won't soon be harder to persuade.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
As I approached my local Whole Foods parking lot, I saw what is now becoming a familiar sight, a clothing donation bin. This time, my curiosity got the better of me, and I wondered what happens to these donations?
Monday, April 28, 2014
Perhaps you've seen the headline that is making rounds and has investment managers elated – actively managed endowment funds outperform their peers. The conclusion comes thanks to a study by the Commonfund Institute (available here) that examined data from the NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments Dataset (covering 2006-2013).
While the conclusion is an intriguing one that runs counter to conventional wisdom about active vs. passive investment approaches, I don't think the conclusions are supported by the methodology. To elaborate on this, I will first explain what the study's approach was and then consider its flaws.