Capitalism At Its Best

John Uskglass

Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Warren Buffet to give away most of worth to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Warren Buffett gives away his fortune
FORTUNE EXCLUSIVE: The world's second richest man - who's now worth $44 billion - tells editor-at-large Carol Loomis he will start giving away 85% of his wealth in July - most of it to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
FORTUNE Magazine
By Carol J. Loomis, FORTUNE editor-at-large
June 25, 2006: 1:42 PM EDT

NEW YORK (FORTUNE Magazine) - We were sitting in a Manhattan living room on a spring afternoon, and Warren Buffett had a Cherry Coke in his hand as usual. But this unremarkable scene was about to take a surprising turn.

"Brace yourself," Buffett warned with a grin. He then described a momentous change in his thinking. Within months, he said, he would begin to give away his Berkshire Hathaway fortune, then and now worth well over $40 billion.

This news was indeed stunning. Buffett, 75, has for decades said his wealth would go to philanthropy but has just as steadily indicated the handoff would be made at his death. Now he was revising the timetable.

"I know what I want to do," he said, "and it makes sense to get going." On that spring day his plan was uncertain in some of its details; today it is essentially complete. And it is typical Buffett: rational, original, breaking the mold of how extremely rich people donate money.

Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world's largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett's (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).

The Gateses credit Buffett, says Bill, with having "inspired" their thinking about giving money back to society. Their foundation's activities, internationally famous, are focused on world health -- fighting such diseases as malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis -- and on improving U.S. libraries and high schools.

Up to now, the two Gateses have been the only trustees of their foundation. But as his plan gets underway, Buffett will be joining them. Bill Gates says he and his wife are "thrilled" by that and by knowing that Buffett's money will allow the foundation to "both deepen and accelerate" its work. "The generosity and trust Warren has shown," Gates adds, "is incredible." Beginning in July and continuing every year, Buffett will give a set, annually declining number of Berkshire B shares - starting with 602,500 in 2006 and then decreasing by 5% per year - to the five foundations. The gifts to the Gates foundation will be made either by Buffett or through his estate as long as at least one of the pair -- Bill, now 50, or Melinda, 41 -- is active in it.

Berkshire's price on the date of each gift will determine its dollar value. Were B shares, for example, to be $3,071 in July - that was their close on June 23 - Buffett's 2006 gift to the foundation, 500,000 shares, would be worth about $1.5 billion. With so much new money to handle, the foundation will be given two years to resize its operations. But it will then be required by the terms of Buffett's gift to annually spend the dollar amount of his contributions as well as those it is already making from its existing assets. At the moment, $1.5 billion would roughly double the foundation's yearly benefactions. But the $1.5 billion has little relevance to the value of Buffett's future gifts, since their amount will depend on the price of Berkshire's stock when they are made. If the stock rises yearly, on average, by even a modest amount - say, 6% - the gain will more than offset the annual 5% decline in the number of shares given. Under those circumstances, the value of Buffett's contributions will rise.

Buffett himself thinks that will happen. Or to state that proposition more directly: He believes the price of Berkshire, and with it the dollar size of the contributions, will trend upward - perhaps over time increasing substantially. The other foundation gifts that Buffett is making will also occur annually and start in July. At Berkshire's current price, the combined 2006 total of these gifts will be $315 million. The contributions will go to foundations headed by Buffett's three children, Susan, Howard, and Peter, and to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.

This last foundation was for 40 years known simply as the Buffett Foundation and was recently renamed in honor of Buffett's late wife, Susie, who died in 2004, at 72, after a stroke. Her will bestows about $2.5 billion on the foundation, to which her husband's gifts will be added. The foundation has mainly focused on reproductive health, family planning, and pro-choice causes, and on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Counting the gifts to all five foundations, Buffett will gradually but sharply reduce his holdings of Berkshire (Charts) stock. He now owns close to 31% of the company-worth nearly $44 billion in late June - and that proportion will ultimately be cut to around 5%. Sticking to his long-term intentions, Buffett says the residual 5%, worth about $6.8 billion today, will in time go for philanthropy also, perhaps in his lifetime and, if not, at his death.

Because the value of Buffett's gifts are tied to a future, unknowable price of Berkshire, there is no way to put a total dollar value on them. But the number of shares earmarked to be given have a huge value today: $37 billion.

That alone would be the largest philanthropic gift in history. And if Buffett is right in thinking that Berkshire's price will trend upward, the eventual amount given could far exceed that figure.

So that's the plan. What follows is a conversation in which Buffett explains how he moved away from his original thinking and decided to begin giving now. The questioner is yours truly, FORTUNE editor-at-large Carol Loomis. I am a longtime friend of Buffett's, a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder, and a director of the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.

I think pretty soon the Gates foundation will have one of the largest economies in the world.
 
Because Bill Gates doesn't have enough money, haha
at least it is going to a good cause
 
He should see how many universities he can found with that money. Break a world record or something.
 
Bill and Melinda should use all that money to make the world's biggest ball of twine.
 
[i said:
Rattus Rattus[/i]]Bill and Melinda should use all that money to make the world's biggest ball of twine.

haha, that would be awesome. A ball of twine with its own gravitational pull, nations would bow before its might!
 
This makes me sad Sweden isn't one of the united states (for once). My university could use some of that money.
 
Hah! Unless you have classes from 7 am to 9 pm because there are too many students and not enough proffesors and classrooms you need to STFU.
 
So, wait, capitalism is at its best when it does what socialism proposes to do; spreading wealth?

I am the confused!
 
Kharn said:
So, wait, capitalism is at its best when it does what socialism proposes to do; spreading wealth?

The State is not capable of Charity; it turns a pious, good act into a bureaucracy.

And state sponsored charity is rarely as effective as private charity.
 
Kharn said:
So, wait, capitalism is at its best when it does what socialism proposes to do; spreading wealth?

I am the confused!

I think it's more the fact that he had all that money to begin with that Mr. Uskglass is talking about.
 
John Uskglass said:
The State is not capable of Charity; it turns a pious, good act into a bureaucracy.
So it's about piousness when donating money? Seems a bit self-centered.

And state sponsored charity is rarely as effective as private charity.
...
Because....money from the state is TEH TAINTED?
 
John Uskglass said:
And state sponsored charity is rarely as effective as private charity.

Hmm... It seems to me that state sponsored charity (or redistributivie income or w/e) has potential to be more effective than private charity.

Let's say it's a shitty year and Katrina, the Tsunami, and Asian Bird Flu all hit at the same time - all of these people need money and they need it now.

With private charity distribution is going to be random - McD's has a spare change can for Katrina, Subway has one for the Tsunami, and so forth. Charity is collected in a haphazard manner. The Katrina refugees have enough for 5 star hotels, while people are starving from the Tsunami (or vice versa).

If the Government takes charge, on the other hand, and imposes an extra tax that year of $5 per citizen (let's say it's the average of what would have been donated anyway - only difference is now everyone's paying equally), and then distributes the money as needed to the various disasters - the Tsunami is affecting an entire coast, it will need more than the one city affected by Katrina. This seems far more effective to me.

Just food for thought :lol: besides, given Gate's wealth it's hardly charity so much as Oligarchic Socialism.
 
I think this new "style" that Gates have taken on is just a cover up to raise allot of money ( in a good cause name ) to build a super imperium and roole da world!!! :roll:
 
keyser Soeze said:
I think this new "style" that Gates have taken on is just a cover up to raise allot of money ( in a good cause name ) to build a super imperium and roole da world!!! :roll:
Meh, he's been like this since he got married. He's too busy being ruled by Melissa Gates to rule the world. Not that it's a bad thing, it's good to see that money going somewhere useful.
 
So it's about piousness when donating money? Seems a bit self-centered.
They both help people. One is an empty act of a machine, one is not.

Because....money from the state is TEH TAINTED?
Yes. Governments are inherintly consumers of capital, inefficent and useful only as they promote liberty, a stable economy and basic human rights and needs. Having them hand out global charity funds is proven to be ineffficent, as is redistribution of wealth.
 
John Uskglass said:
One is an empty act of a machine, one is not.

Would you throw away food that reached you via an "empty act of a machine" if you were starving? Would you wait for food that arrived from an act that was not?

I thought not.

The fact of the matter is that while one may have more metaphysical value -- and metaphysics are always personal and therefore a matter of opinion -- people in need don't have time to sit around and split philosophical hairs over the value of one aid as opposed to another. They need aid not arguments...

Greetings from the Left,

OTB
 
Back
Top