If we assume that everyone thinks like this then charitable fund would not receive as much funding as it needs. I don't see why charity do not have access to the same kind of investment as you do. Is there a law that prevent them from having access? Also, you are assuming that charity have some reserve left over. It could be that they use all their fund to the maxium possible by distributing it out as soon as possible.
--- Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Suppose I have some money that I don't want to > spend, and I'm sure I'll > never want to spend it. Should I give it to charity > now, or put it in an > index fund and bequeath it to charity in my will? > > Here's my argument in favor of charitable > procrastination. The typical > recipient of charity does not have access to the > kind of investment > opportunites (e.g., low cost U.S. mutual funds) that > I have, and his other > investment opportunities usually have a lower > (perhaps even negative) rate > of return. Charitable organizations are legally > forced to spend a certain > percentage of their assets per year, so they can't > invest the money > indefinitely either. By holding on to my money, I'm > actually increasing > the present value of the gift from the perspective > of the recipient. > > Can anyone find a flaw in this argument? > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
