All of Andy_Schultz's Comments + Replies

Would any of the funds be able to deploy additional donations quickly to projects that recently lost funding? Or is this an exceptional time where it might be more effective to donate directly to impacted groups, so they can receive donations faster?

Since Meta hasn't specified a start time for the match, should we assume you're eligible if you donate after midnight on Nov. 15 in your time zone?

4
Giving What We Can
1y
It's unclear to me when the match will begin exactly. In the past the match has started in Eastern Time - so I would assume ET is when the match will begin but this could be inaccurate.

Thanks for the update. If you have to donate twice, it's really a 50% match on up to $200 given per donor per organization, right?

4
WilliamKiely
1y
Edit Nov 5th: It indeed seems like it's a 50% match (you donate twice and only your second donation in December gets matched) though I wouldn't be shocked if it ends up being different (e.g. due to Meta changing the terms in the next 10 days). It's unclear to me. Meta just changed the terms here: I'm currently seeing: This read "$100" and "$25k per donor" a couple hours ago (when I first saw it).
2
Giving What We Can
1y
Yes, we think that's right. We've just quoted directly from Meta above about the match.  We're also trying to seek clarification about some thing from Meta but they are unlikely to respond based on past experience.

This was a great reference when the every.org match started and I needed to evaluate more organizations quickly. Thanks!

"Nov 2 8:43pm PT update - Amazing! Givers have rallied in less than 48 hours to unlock nearly $250k in matching. We are thrilled to announce that a generous donor has added an additional $100k into the Incentive Fund to keep the momentum going! Check out our realtime dashboard to see how much of the funds are left." https://blog.every.org/fall-giving-challenge/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/OMfCT

Thank you! I hadn't thought about the issue through this lens before. I will explore those resources.

Thank you! I will work on internalizing these ideas.

Any good face shields you can recommend? :-) Perhaps a shield of good relationships and overall good mental health?

2
RobertDaoust
3y
Mental health is a prerequisite. Denis Drescher's Dissociation for Altruists suggests great tips. If you work on suffering, you cannot deal with it as you do in normal life, because you have to hold the thing steadily in front of you, instead of embracing and dancing with it while you are naked. You have to look at it through a glass that does not let its too bright fire damage your eyes. I recommend goggles that let you see emotional negativity as a harmless abstract degree of unpleasantness/unwantedness: your cold reason will pretty quickly get used to the interpretation of the various shades. Likewise, take care to use gloves and even tongs when you handle suffering.

Hi, I did a minor in linguistics and enjoyed it. I also considered becoming an academic linguist but decided against it like you.

In case you haven't seen it, 80,000 Hours has some advice on how to try out software engineering at https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/software-engineering/. The "Next steps" section has a good summary on some options.

What do you think of waiting to give for now (investing in the stock market instead) and reassessing in a few years whether to donate, in the hope that we will have a better collective understanding of the relevant considerations by that time?

9
Owen Cotton-Barratt
3y
I definitely think it's relevant that we can get a better sense of the considerations, and that this will affect our future decisions. To a first order approximation, waiting a few years means passing on the immediate (non-financial) investment opportunities. There may have analogues later, but there could be low-hanging fruit which will remain forever unpicked if we pass now, and this is what drives the impetus to invest even given the rate of improving knowledge. Whether those are ultimately good enough to invest in now comes back to being a matter of messy empirics. As a meta-consideration, I'm particularly excited about investments which will help us in the future to assess which investments are worthwhile. This could mean early experiments with different types of thing, or putting work into measuring the effects of different investments. Overall I still feel in favour of a bit more spending at current margins, but far from wanting longtermists to spend down all of our capital this year. But I'm super interested to have discussion about which funded/unfunded things actually do or don't represent stock-market--beating investments for the community.

I agree it makes sense to spread the idea of effective giving widely. The only counterexample I can think of is the following, which was probably limited to affecting only one person's donations: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/yz5bqvG2sG92tLHmM/open-thread-4?commentId=pW684GoPXQE4YjdLs. Interestingly, this was a person to person interaction rather than through media. Overall it seems very good to share the idea of effective giving more.

For a simpler investment setup that is long-only and doesn't use leverage other than leveraged ETFs, how would you like to see additional altruistic funds allocated among the following?

  • QVAL/IVAL/QMOM/IMOM
  • AXS Chesapeake
  • EDC (3x emerging markets)
  • A different high-risk, high-return fund?
6
MichaelDickens
3y
If you're long-only, it probably makes more sense to buy VMOT than QVAL/IVAL/QMOM/IMOM. VMOT is a fund that holds those four funds, but also includes a tactical trendfollowing component, so it moves to market neutral under certain market conditions. This tends to reduce correlation to the broad stock market, particularly during downturns. Here's my basic thinking on the tradeoffs between those three options: * I would predict VMOT to have the highest forward-looking risk-adjusted return with moderate correlation to ordinary investments. * EDC probably has the highest expected return, but also the highest volatility, and pretty high correlation to ordinary investments. * AXS Chesapeake probably has close to zero correlation to ordinary investments, and with risk-adjusted performance that's not much worse than VMOT. I'm inclined to say AXS Chesapeake would make the most sense to buy, because getting low correlation is more important than getting the highest possible expected return.

What's the closest we can get to the global market portfolio with leveraged ETFs?

9
MichaelDickens
3y
I have no comment on whether it's a good idea to build the global market portfolio with leveraged ETFs, but since you asked: You can use the etf.com screener to find ETFs matching your criteria. I just searched on there and based on the 10 minutes I spent looking, I think this is about the closest you can get: 20% SPXL: 3x leveraged S&P 500 30% EFO: 2x leveraged MSCI EAFE (developed markets, excluding US) 5% EDC: 3x leveraged emerging markets equity 40% TMF: 3x leveraged 20+ year US Treasury bonds 5% UGL: 2x leveraged gold This is still not really the global market portfolio, but it's at least kind of close. Also a couple of these ETFs are really small, so they'll have high trading costs.

For "RPTP is a strong reason to consider giving later", I'd recommend linking to the forum version of the article since it has been updated, unlike the currently linked version. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/m85Ecd8QFE7muvojj/rptp-is-a-strong-reason-to-consider-giving-later

3
richard_ngo
4y
Done, thanks!

Welcome!

The Global Health and Development Fund that you mentioned would be a good choice. Note that the fund's 2 most recent payouts have been related to respiratory disease including COVID-19, which fits with what you're interested in supporting (see the Payout Reports section of the fund's page).

For more COVID-19 donation opportunities, see the post Prioritizing COVID-19 interventions & individual donations.

For charities working on global warming, see Founders Pledge climate change recommendations.

2
treeintheforest
4y
Thanks a lot for your advice!

Thanks, this was useful! A few comments:

  1. There was some more discussion on this topic in the following question: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/iyPQ9fSBGrweXAMLL/investing-to-give-beginner-advice

  2. You write that money should be added to DAFs in years when your marginal tax rate is high. What should we do with money earned in other years? I believe the answer is to invest in taxable accounts (i.e. your section "Mutual funds in a standard mutual fund advisor"). Then in years when you want to contribute to the DAF, you can move money from your t

... (read more)

Thanks! Yes, fortunately the message to cancel everything has gotten out.

It seems like Ben Todd is saying that increasing one's exposure to stocks increases risk, but Lifecycle Investing is saying this decreases risk when done early on. How should we reconcile these two views?

4
MichaelDickens
4y
Both are correct. The claim made by Lifecycle Investing is not that increasing stock exposure decreases risk in general. The claim is that by increasing stock exposure early in life and decreasing late in life, while keeping net lifetime exposure the same, you decrease risk. The argument for this claim is that you have more dollars when you're older, therefore market swings in later years have a bigger effect on your portfolio than in earlier years. But you can negate this effect by using leverage when you're young, thus effectively increasing how much money you're investing with, and holding more bonds/cash when you're older. Simplified example: suppose you have $100 today and will get another $100 next year. If you invest all your money in stocks during both years, then you are exposing $100 to equity risk this year, but $200 next year. If instead you invest with 1.5:1 leverage this year, and then next year you only invest 75% of your money, that means you're exposing $150 to equity risk during both years. Either way, you're investing $150 per year on average. But in the former scenario, you are taking twice as much risk in year 2, whereas in the latter scenario, you take the same amount of risk both years, which is better. I'm not sure I'm explaining it well, so let me know if that doesn't make sense.

I gave my 2018 quota of donations in early January 2019 in order to bunch my donations. I'm planning on doing this every other year, giving near the end of the alternate years. Should I report those donations in this survey or wait until next year?

4
Peter Wildeford
5y
Hi. I think it would be best for you to report donations made in calendar year 2019 in the forthcoming 2020 EA Survey (that will ask about 2019 donations) and for this year enter 0, but make a note of your bunching strategy in the "Any other additional details you'd like to share" section if you would like to note it.

Just wanted to give a quick note of encouragement that earning to give for long term future or EA meta causes can be very impactful. According to a survey of community leaders last year, donations to the long term future and EA meta EA funds were usually considered even more cost effective than donations to the animal welfare and global poverty funds.

There was another discussion about this on the forum a couple of years ago: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Ebjm8rNFP4mGEjtFD/is-the-community-short-of-software-engineers-after-all

To automatically invest money each paycheck so that you don't have to remember, mutual funds are another option besides ETFs (it's not always possible to automatically invest in an ETF). Mutual funds have higher account minimum balances, though.

Interesting that the Long Term Future Fund is thought of as the most cost effective fund, even though the cause area is considered one of the least funding constrained. Sounds like there are still some pretty amazing opportunities for donations in that area!

In the linked Summary of Evidence document, in the section "Farmed animal vs. wild animals vs. general antispeciesism focus", some of the rankings in the grid do not match the explanations below. For example, under Scale, the grid has Farmed animal focus as rank 1, but the explanation below has General antispeciesism as rank 1.

0
Jacy
7y
Thanks, Andy. That table had the values of the previous table for some reason. We updated the page.

How much more helpful would it be to take the full survey vs the abridged one, for those who have taken the survey in prior years? I'm willing to take the full survey if it's helpful.

3
Peter Wildeford
7y
I'd personally prefer if everyone who is interested in taking the full survey do so, so that we can track how beliefs and attitudes change (along with donations).

Any word on the global health budget decisions?

One argument for saving more is that it could allow you to have a higher risk tolerance, since you could afford to lose some of the money. If you planned to donate any excess savings after some time, this could increase the expected value of your donations. I wrote about this here: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/rz/increasing_risk_tolerance_by_growing_your/

Let me know if you have any questions about this.

One consideration is that you should have enough saved to live on in case you temporarily stop working. Here is 80,000 Hours' view on this: https://80000hours.org/2015/11/why-everyone-even-our-readers-should-save-enough-to-live-for-6-24-months/

It looks like 2 posts that were created while the bug was occurring are not showing up on the main page: "Donor coordination under simplifying assumptions" and "What does the election of President Trump mean for EA?"

0
Peter Wildeford
7y
Yep, that's right. I've reached out to both the authors and invited them to repost.

If you waited until Jan 2017, would you ask about both 2015 and 2016 donations?

The section "Where does the money go?" says it goes to AMF, but it says the charity treats parasitic worms.

0
Tom_Ash
8y
Good catch, that was in from before we switched to AMF and away from CauseVox!

I had to click on View More under Add a section to your profile, and then a tile appeared called Causes you care about. I checked the Other checkbox and typed effective altruism.

If you donate the stock directly to a charity without selling it first, you don't pay taxes on long-term gains. In your example, if you donate $100 of stocks and reinvest the $100 in cash, then you don't pay taxes on the $25 capital gain. When you sell the $125 in two years, you pay taxes on a long-term capital gain of $25, compared to the gain of $50 if you donated the $100 in cash instead.

Here's an article that describes this in more detail: http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2010/04/30/reset-your-investment-cost-basis-with-charitable-donations/ It also menti... (read more)

I have a couple questions about donating stock to charity in the U.S. Particularly I'm wondering about the case where someone has cash available to make a donation, but they want to instead donate an equivalent amount of appreciated stock and invest the cash in the same stock. This would decrease the cost basis of their stock, reducing the amount of tax owed when selling shares of the stock in the future.

  1. When is the best time to invest the cash: as you receive the money, right before you donate, or after any restricted period after you donate (some funds
... (read more)
2
Rohin Shah
8y
I don't know much about taxes -- can you explain why this would help? I might want to do it myself :) Currently though, it seems like you would pay the same amount of taxes in either case. Let's take a small example -- suppose you invested $75 two years ago, which is now worth $100. And let's suppose it would be $125 in another two years, at which point you would sell it all. Now currently you have to decide whether to donate $100 in cash, or to sell the $100 of stock and reinvest the $100 of cash into the stock. (I've heard of some law that prohibits you from re-buying the exact same stock, to avoid gaming the tax laws, but let's ignore that for now -- in any case, you could buy a different but similar stock.) If you donate the $100 in cash, then: * You get a deduction of $100 on your taxes this year because of your donation * When you sell the $125 in two years, you realize a long-term gain of $50, which you pay taxes on If you sell the $100 of stocks and reinvest the $100 in cash, then: * You get a deduction of $100 on your taxes this year because of your donation * You realize a long-term gain of $25 this year, which you pay taxes on * When you sell the $125 in two years, you realize a long-term gain of $25, which you pay taxes on In both cases, you get a deduction of $100 this year, and you pay long-term capital gains taxes on $50 (albeit at different times). So unless you expect that your tax rate will be a lot higher in two years, it doesn't seem like this is really helping. In fact, since you sold and re-bought your stocks, you've reset the buy date, and now it's possible that any gains you make will be short-term capital gains (if you sell the stock within a year), which would then be taxed at a higher rate.

This was actually taken into account in the article I linked to. Using their definition of a moderate-risk portfolio, looking at historical data it is unlikely that the account would drop below $20,000.

Thanks so much for writing this guide! I was able to use many of your suggestions to run a successful fundraiser, raising $2,680 for SCI. I really liked the overall idea of using this as an opportunity to connect with people. It was great reconnecting with people I hadn't talked to in a while.

0
Peter Wildeford
9y
Congrats!

Thanks for making this! I would like if the stories in the RSS feed included the name of the website where the content came from.

Would it be worthwhile for aspiring effective altruists to download BOINC or World Community Grid to run on their computers? These are distributed computing programs that try to tackle problems that take a lot of computing power to solve. The software runs in the background on your computer and works on part of a project of your choice.

If so, would it be possible to estimate the best project to participate in? Here are the lists of projects available for BOINC and World Community Grid. At first glance, the project Malariacontrol.net looks most closely rela... (read more)

1
Evan_Gaensbauer
9y
Christian raises a good point. Still, though, we could ask how much money does this sort of thing really use? Well, Gwern is a man who will analyze something to death if he feels like it, and he disparaged SETI@home from the perspective of effective altruism. That's as close to a full answer as I know of. I don't know how Malariacontrol.net compares. I figure it would be worth doing a whole new cost-benefit analysis for Malariacontrol.net by plugging in the numbers to calculate new rates using Gwern's original formula(s).
1
ChristianKleineidam
9y
Running your computer at full power costs you electricity. That costs money that you could also donate directly to a cause.

Here is Jeff's post about John Wesley: http://www.jefftk.com/p/history-of-earning-to-give-iii-john-wesley

If you have any questions about the Methodist church, feel free to ask - I am a United Methodist.

What would be good advice for people who say they would only be happy with a career in the arts?

1
Ervin
9y
Also, it would be worth trying to work out what about a career in the arts they think is required for their happiness and seeing whether you could find higher impact alternatives that provided this.
1
Ervin
9y
Depending on what you mean by the arts I suspect that would be very likely to be low impact. That would suggest trying to convince them to change course though I think that's not likely to be successful, meaning it would be best to focus on other people.

I know Citi Forward and Citi Thank You cards earn donatable points, but the Citi Forward card is no longer being issued. For people looking for a new credit card, it looks like cash back cards like Citi Double Cash would beat Citi Thank You. Maybe the EA action could be to look for a cash back or reward card that will give you the most money to donate to charity, depending on your spending habits. For example, a cash back card offering 5% back on certain categories might beat the Citi Double Cash's consistent 2% back if you tended to spend money in those categories.

For those of you that earn credit card points, you might want to check if your points can be used to donate money to charity. For my credit card, I'm able to donate more money per point than if I redeemed the points for cash. I believe these donations are tax deductible in the U.S. (I think they would go on line 17 in Schedule A).

2
Tom_Ash
9y
Do you know of any credit cards that do this Andy? We could add it to the lists of EA actions on EA Hub and the EA Wiki.

Do you think it is better to decide each year where to donate, or to give organizations multi-year commitments of what you expect to donate?

2
Evan_Gaensbauer
9y
Short Answer It's better to decide each year where to donate if you're donating less than several thousand dollars per year, and you don't have very high confidence where to donate. If you donate several thousand dollars per year, or in excess of that, and you don't believe your donation preferences will change much, it may make sense to let organizations know you expect to donate to them for several years. Long Answer The following answer is based on my experience as having previously worked for a charity fundraising company, been a regular monthly donor to World Animal Protection, and the experiences of myself and other supporters of effective altruism as donors. Donations In General Based on work and personal experience, it seems most charities, and non-profits, are much more concerned with their short- and medium-term operation and goals. That's because the continuance of the organization is based on meeting these goals, and achieving long-term goals is based upon the organization still existing, e.g., several years from now. Thus, my impression is that most charities and non-profits are relieved enough that their base of doors lets them know they'll continue to donate on a monthly basis, never mind an annual one. Of course, organizations want this information because it gives them a confidence interval for much funding they'll receive, which in turn dictates their budget for operations and projects. The biggest donors to an organization will have the greatest impact on an organization's budget, and its expectations of future funding. These donors are the ones organizations will focus on getting information on donation plans from on a year-to-year basis. Ask yourself: are you among the biggest donors to an organization? As an example, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute publishes a [list of its top donors] over its history. A 'top donor' is someone who has donated =>$5000 USD to the MIRI. Animal Charity Evaluators[2] also publishes a list of [top
Load more