Dr. Desmond-Hellmann of the Gates Foundation should understand the Hippocratic imperative, "First, do no harm." "so she could begin to push Bill and Melinda Gates to restructure the Foundation endowment by starting close to home and direct the massive financial clout of the Gates Foundation that support, or at the very least do not subvert the stated humanitarian objectives of the Gates Foundation. After the tobacco investment episode, she and her husband pledged to "monitor our portfolio to ensure that it reflect our values," and barred further personal investments in alcohol and firearms.
Bill and Melinda Gates publicly oppose tobacco while the Foundation has held large investments in tobacco companies. Gates investments in manufacturers of military equipment and weapons and alcoholic beverage stock exceeds $1.2 billion.
The foundation says that it must guard against inevitably lower returns from a portfolio that tries to reduce social harm. That tired argument has long since been debunked. Not every mutual fund structured to reduce harm to the environment, to support good governance and fairness to a diverse labor force, and to create safe products outperforms funds designed purely to maximize returns. But many do. For example, the $10 billion Parnassus Core Equity Fund, one of the largest such investment vehicles, beat the annual returns of the booming S&P 500 index by 2 percent over the past three years--one of numerous large funds with social and environmental goals to outstrip the market in recent years.
Even if socially conscious investing shaved a thin slice from the bottom line, harm reduction would much better support the Gates Foundation's oft-stated goal, that "every person deserves the chance to live a healthy, productive life." In the financial world, you must analyze the total profit and loss to understand net gain.
ï � �Undeniably, there are shades of gray in the world of global investing. But to use economic complexity as an excuse for doing nothing--for rejecting the opportunity to lead into holistic philathropy--seems a shortsighted approach.
Through the Gates foundation, Bill, Melinda and Microsoft maintain pharmaceutical patent investments, tobacco investments, investments in alcoholic beverages, petroleum investments, investments in experimental and controversial GMO crops, and even investments in news/media that shape public perception of the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates need not pay tax in this structure, even though he keeps control of the assets and uses that control and influence private and public policy. Money talks and politicians can in turn be persuaded to buy from Microsoft and engage with other industries associated with Gates. This dependence/lock-in cascades down to Gates' many business interests, creating a revenue stream that would not exist in a free market. Gates is also able to bring public money to his operations through energy and public health policy. As Gates has diversified, his massive influence has spread to other portions of the economy" often with measurable social, economic and ecological harm.
Many philanthropic organizations are beginning to seriously look at both the net effect of their investments and the philantropic initiatives that they fund. Large organizations usually move much slower as they engage change.
A Local Example of how "Philanthropy" is not what it seems on the surface.
We have an example in Iowa of how what you see on the surface of the organizational "iceberg" does not tell the whole truth of what goes on under the surface. Liz Mathis, professional spin artist does all of the PR work for Four Oaks. On the surface, Four Oaks is presented as a "not for profit" doing good works. Below the surface, Four Oaks channels millions of dollars into for profit business interests" many of which have a direct connection to Four Oaks board of directors. "inside dealing" takes place, providing massive amounts of money to for profit business in projects with extremely inflated budgets. Four Oaks is a huge organization that controls large assets; they operate in all 99 Iowa counties and sit on a 80 million dollar endowment. Look below the surface to understand it.
Many small non profits do good work and struggle with inadequate funds, and no pay... or very little pay for the management team. -one local case in point is the not for profit "FEED IOWA FIRST", Inc. Feed Iowa first uses their meager funds for actual urban ag seeds and equipment. There are no salaried employees. All work is done by volunteers. Feed Iowa First has 22 plots of land in production, and the food produced is distributed without cost to families in need in Linn County. The huge contrast to this are large, well established not for profits, where management are often paid as much or more than private industry. Local examples, such as Four Oaks/Affordable Housing Network, also direct millions of dollars in contracts to area builders, contractors and others in projects with very inflated budgets; and spending well beyond what private enterprise would pay for the same thing.
The example of how Four Oaks works that I cited in the formal ethics complaint that I filed with the 5 member Cedar Rapids Ethics Board was the Brown Apartment project of Affordable Housing Network when then Four Oaks C.E.O. was also the Chairman of a City board distributing public city funds for housing development.
Here are the facts about The Brown Apartments adjacent to the "Medical District" in Cedar Rapids
1. $170,000 plus was spent by Four Oaks/AHNI to simply rehab existing apartments in an existing, structurally sound building. Not one existing wall; was moved, not one new wall was built. The Brown Apts. maintained all original floor plans in one to two bedroom apartments. This was simply cosmetic remodeling, yet the cost per unit was an astounding $170,000 per unit. The $170,000 funds came from City of CR, State of Iowa and Federal funds... (our funds, as taxpayers)
2. In preparation for filing on this issue with the City Ethics Board I did a survey of local contractors. The response was that this type of cosmetic rehab should cost in the range of $35,000 up to $50,000. $50,000" -if there were luxury features. How can the economics for private contractors be so much lower than a large not for profit? -because people spending their own money use tight financial controls, and do not waste funds. They get the job done efficiently.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
6
3
