James Heilman wrote:
>
> I personally invest in stuff that gives 1.5% to 1.7% returns
Whether you call it fake news, disinformation, public relations,
manufactured consent, astroturfing, propaganda, or simply clever
advertising campaigning, bankers are thrilled when people think such
returns
10% would imply a pretty high risk or a strategy which is not compatible
WMF's values.
3-4% would balance risks with profits, there are pretty safe senior bonds
with a 2-3% yield which could balance some less-than-best rated bond giving
up to 6%.
Anyway WMF's mission imply low risks in
I personally invest in stuff that gives 1.5% to 1.7% returns (the Canadian
government mostly). If that is what the foundation is getting it sounds
reasonable to me.
Some "bankers" do really well as they have inside details / are building
the financial instruments that they are betting against.
Over the past decade, the Foundation's low rate of return on
investments has been dismal and embarassing, in part because it
reflects poor choices in the use of donors' money and sets a terrible
example. The ease with which the Foundation can raise funds is simply
not compatible with purchasing
