Comments on: Goldman Sachs’s not very charitable foundation

By: JohnJoebee

JohnJoebee — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:18:53 +0000

I am going to thank you Fabrikant for the tip.I am going to be getting a 501c3 soon and really want to send a proposal to them in a bad way.I hope their ethics is in order and they see the needs of these BABY BOOMERS who are disabled.I am on a mission from GOD and Goldman Sachs have sinned.GOD BLESS ALL

By: God

God — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:05 +0000

Commodianus (written in 240 A.D.) says
“You have lent on interest, taking 24 percent! Yet, now you wish to bestow charity that you may purge yourself … with what is evil. The Almighty absolutely rejects such works as these”

By: Allison

Allison — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:03:29 +0000

This article is misleading. As a previous commenter points out, it does look like the $100m difference could easily be accounted for by contributions. Besides that, maybe we should allow them a little bit of overhead? Just to keep a foundation running, even on a barebones budget, is pretty expensive. The Goldman Foundation’s 2007 tax filing (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/99 0search/ffindershow.cgi?id=GOLD029) shows almost $5 million in administrative expenses.

More importantly, the average giving rate for foundations is just barely above the legally mandated 5%. Foundations as a whole gave away only 6.5% of their assets in 2007. (See http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/ statistics/grantmakerinfo.html.) One can argue that foundations ought to donate more across the board, but it’s very misleading to imply that Goldman’s foundation is especially stingy.

And finally, this is just sloppy. All of the foundation’s tax filings since 2007 are available online at the Foundation Center. Investment gains and losses are publicly reported information. If you want to know whether Goldman’s Foundation made money or lost it over the last decade, just go look.

By: wendell

wendell — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:08:26 +0000

Well, that is indubitably God’s work…

By: monboddo

monboddo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:52:48 +0000

Fabrikant’s article was good, but as you point out, there is a bigger issue she may have missed: if the directors or trustees of the foundation are trading with Goldman, intending to benefit Goldman and not the foundation, or are carelessly allowing the foundation to trade with Goldman to its detriment, their actions violate their fiduciary duties (and may violate the corporations law, to boot). I would guess that the foundation is about to get a call from Andrew Cuomo.

By: Benquo

Benquo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:35:30 +0000

Am I missing something here?

$501M – $404M – $22M – $12.6M = $62.4M

$62.4M / 8 Years = $7.8M

Is it really reasonable, in the light of the 2007 and 2008 amounts, and the 5% minimum, to assume that the foundation gave away less than $7.8M/Year in the period 1999-2006?

By: Dollared

Dollared — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:30:24 +0000

A Charitable foundation. A creature of the law, and a thing with a set of rules and a theoretically beneficial purpose.

But in the hands of these nihilists it’s just another tool for maximizing revenue, minimizing tax expense, building profitable relationships and profitable influence.

A bit like the Constitution in the hands of Dick Cheney.

By: Teri Buhl

Teri Buhl — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:38:30 +0000

Great update question Felix. Any time I see the NY Times not linking to a document,that they have sourced as the center of their story theme, I have to wonder what part of the story they’re not telling you.
It’s refreshing to see you offer readers an actual insightful view on what’s really going on. I didn’t get that from the NY Times story.