If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Mark Zuckerberg donates $500 million to a Silicon Valley charity, nothing to the Human Fund   (sfgate.com) divider line 30
    More: Spiffy, Silicon Valley, CEO  
•       •       •

826 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Dec 2012 at 12:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-19 12:38:48 PM
Donating stock is kindof a dick move
 
2012-12-19 12:43:49 PM
Headline conveniently leaves out that it's $500m in stock, for one.

Secondly, does anyone with a clue think that the mega-rich would be donating these sums if it didn't garner them a huge tax benefit?

Thirdly, I assume that the "stock" (numbers in a computer) has just been leveraged or resold or whatever and the charity is supposed to generate revenue from it based on the pool of asset, not the asset itself; doesn't that make any of their actual utility to be gained from the pool of asset subject to fairly significant capital gains tax? Or does none of this apply b/c its a nonprofit charity?
 
2012-12-19 12:50:47 PM

Lost Thought 00: Donating stock is kindof a dick move


Like to back that up with some real analysis and not some facebook/zuckerberg fake outrage?  By all accounts Facebook is a well run organization that has a lot of potential.  Its a decent long term investment at its current price.
 
/owns FB stock - bought in at 28
 
2012-12-19 12:53:17 PM

gingerjet: Lost Thought 00: Donating stock is kindof a dick move

Like to back that up with some real analysis and not some facebook/zuckerberg fake outrage?  By all accounts Facebook is a well run organization that has a lot of potential.  Its a decent long term investment at its current price.
 
/owns FB stock - bought in at 28


Not an issue specific with Mr. Facebook. It's because charities can't spend stock right away. They have to sit on it at least a year to not get destroyed in taxes. Most charities don't sit on large bankrolls, they spend it immediately on whatever their cause is.
 
2012-12-19 12:53:47 PM
I wish I could give away imaginary money. It's not like it cost Zuck any money since he made the shares up himself.
 
2012-12-19 12:57:47 PM

TNel: I wish I could give away imaginary money. It's not like it cost Zuck any money since he made the shares up himself.


This.
 
2012-12-19 12:58:08 PM
SELL, SELL, SELL!!!
 
2012-12-19 01:08:36 PM

Lost Thought 00: Not an issue specific with Mr. Facebook. It's because charities can't spend stock right away. They have to sit on it at least a year to not get destroyed in taxes. Most charities don't sit on large bankrolls, they spend it immediately on whatever their cause is.

 
And you are basing this on what?  Now - based on their publically available independent auditor report - they already have $2billion in investments.   Zuckerbergs gift will just add to that.  And since its a multi-billion dollar charity - there is a darn good chance they have these people called investment bankers and accountants on staff that is pretty darn good at managing that money.  And a governance board who is responsible for setting up long term objectives to meet the goals of the charity.  
 
/now if you are talking about a food kitchen you might have a point
 
2012-12-19 01:51:46 PM

gingerjet: Lost Thought 00: Not an issue specific with Mr. Facebook. It's because charities can't spend stock right away. They have to sit on it at least a year to not get destroyed in taxes. Most charities don't sit on large bankrolls, they spend it immediately on whatever their cause is.
 
And you are basing this on what?  Now - based on their publically available independent auditor report - they already have $2billion in investments.   Zuckerbergs gift will just add to that.  And since its a multi-billion dollar charity - there is a darn good chance they have these people called investment bankers and accountants on staff that is pretty darn good at managing that money.  And a governance board who is responsible for setting up long term objectives to meet the goals of the charity.  
 
/now if you are talking about a food kitchen you might have a point


Part of the issue is that this isn't a real charity (by my own, admittedly arbitrary, definition of charity), it's just a middleman between charities and rich people.
 
2012-12-19 01:55:54 PM

Lost Thought 00: gingerjet: Lost Thought 00: Donating stock is kindof a dick move

Like to back that up with some real analysis and not some facebook/zuckerberg fake outrage?  By all accounts Facebook is a well run organization that has a lot of potential.  Its a decent long term investment at its current price.
 
/owns FB stock - bought in at 28

Not an issue specific with Mr. Facebook. It's because charities can't spend stock right away. They have to sit on it at least a year to not get destroyed in taxes. Most charities don't sit on large bankrolls, they spend it immediately on whatever their cause is.


From one of my favorite charities:

WHY DONATE STOCK?

Most people think of cash when they consider a charitable contribution, but a gift of securities may be a wiser choice. By contributing appreciated securities to Humane Society Silicon Valley, you make a significant community impact while potentially gaining valuable tax advantages.

If you have owned appreciated securities for at least a year and a day, your contribution can offer significant benefits! To enquire about donating stock, please contact Steve Glavan, Major Gifts Officer at ste­v­e*glavan[nospam-﹫-backwards]vss­h­*org or 408-262-2133, ext. 106.


If it's good enough for the Humane Society Silicon Valley, it should be good enough for the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. They already manage $2 billion in assets. If I read their "About Us" page correctly, if Zuckerberg gave them cash instead of stock, they would've invested it in something else, anyway.
 
2012-12-19 02:02:51 PM

Lost Thought 00: gingerjet: Lost Thought 00: Not an issue specific with Mr. Facebook. It's because charities can't spend stock right away. They have to sit on it at least a year to not get destroyed in taxes. Most charities don't sit on large bankrolls, they spend it immediately on whatever their cause is.
 
And you are basing this on what?  Now - based on their publically available independent auditor report - they already have $2billion in investments.   Zuckerbergs gift will just add to that.  And since its a multi-billion dollar charity - there is a darn good chance they have these people called investment bankers and accountants on staff that is pretty darn good at managing that money.  And a governance board who is responsible for setting up long term objectives to meet the goals of the charity.  
 
/now if you are talking about a food kitchen you might have a point

Part of the issue is that this isn't a real charity (by my own, admittedly arbitrary, definition of charity), it's just a middleman between charities and rich people.


True dat; they seem like a mutual fund for charities. Rich people give them money to set up endowments for their philanthropic goals. Currently, they claim to achieve a 12.3% ROI over three years with operating expenses that total 0.70% of total assets. Since they manage $2 billion in assets, their operating costs are $1.4 million/year.
 
2012-12-19 02:47:15 PM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Currently, they claim to achieve a 12.3% ROI over three years with operating expenses that total 0.70% of total assets. Since they manage $2 billion in assets, their operating costs are $1.4 million/year.


.7% of $2 billion is $14 million. Somebody's making serious bank if they're just handling market securities.
 
2012-12-19 03:07:04 PM
Well-remembered, submitter. Truly, Hurley was a man ahead of his time.

/and then behind his time
 
2012-12-19 03:09:56 PM

El Pachuco: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Currently, they claim to achieve a 12.3% ROI over three years with operating expenses that total 0.70% of total assets. Since they manage $2 billion in assets, their operating costs are $1.4 million/year.

.7% of $2 billion is $14 million. Somebody's making serious bank if they're just handling market securities.


Ha, it's a good thing I'm not handling the money ;-)
 
2012-12-19 03:32:59 PM
Donating something you were going to lose anyway to the impending tax hikes doesn't impress me.
 
2012-12-19 03:41:09 PM
Still not going to use Facebook.
 
2012-12-19 04:48:22 PM
Ted Turner donated a billion to the UN.

Some shell game .I think he was looking to have Turner real estate holdings declared a sovereign nation or something.
 
2012-12-19 05:12:47 PM
this thread got out of control rather quick for a non-poltics tab..maybe they got lost
 
2012-12-19 05:19:55 PM

TNel: I wish I could give away imaginary money. It's not like it cost Zuck any money since he made the shares up himself.


The shares have value and they were his. He gave them away. So it has cost him something. Mot necessarily $500 million though - I imagine that if $500 million of stock was placed for sale the stock price would fall due to the law of supply and demand.
 
2012-12-19 06:14:44 PM

kg2095: TNel: I wish I could give away imaginary money. It's not like it cost Zuck any money since he made the shares up himself.

The shares have value and they were his. He gave them away. So it has cost him something. Mot necessarily $500 million though - I imagine that if $500 million of stock was placed for sale the stock price would fall due to the law of supply and demand.


It didn't cost him anything. He didn't buy the shares so donating them didn't have a cost. He gets a giant good PR, a tax right off and not a damn thing came out of his pocket. I'm sure there's a good insider reason for that amount to that charity and not any of the numerous other ones that everyone has heard about.

If I found $100 and gave it to the bell ringers that $100 didn't cost me anything, same thing here he made those shares up and then gave them away, it didn't cost anything.
 
2012-12-19 06:48:30 PM
I don't care about how or why he donated the money. But man, if you are going to donate money, it should probably be for something more important than Silicon Valley Community charity. Silicon Valley is rich compared to the rest of the nation (I know, I'm trying to buy a house here and I'm getting outbid everytime by CASH buyers). Palo Alto doesn't need another multi-million dollar community center for rich wives lol. Try donating your money to cancer or aids research buddy. It will go much farther.
 
2012-12-19 06:57:23 PM

Barry McCackiner: I don't care about how or why he donated the money. But man, if you are going to donate money, it should probably be for something more important than Silicon Valley Community charity. Silicon Valley is rich compared to the rest of the nation (I know, I'm trying to buy a house here and I'm getting outbid everytime by CASH buyers). Palo Alto doesn't need another multi-million dollar community center for rich wives lol. Try donating your money to cancer or aids research buddy. It will go much farther.


This, IMO, is why the argument to let charities handle things instead of gov't falls flat. Charities allow rich people to support only those things that they agree with. Taxes force rich people to support things like education for poor people, public transit for poor people, etc.
 
2012-12-19 07:30:28 PM

stewbert: Barry McCackiner: I don't care about how or why he donated the money. But man, if you are going to donate money, it should probably be for something more important than Silicon Valley Community charity. Silicon Valley is rich compared to the rest of the nation (I know, I'm trying to buy a house here and I'm getting outbid everytime by CASH buyers). Palo Alto doesn't need another multi-million dollar community center for rich wives lol. Try donating your money to cancer or aids research buddy. It will go much farther.

This, IMO, is why the argument to let charities handle things instead of gov't falls flat. Charities allow rich people to support only those things that they agree with. Taxes force rich people to support things like education for poor people, public transit for poor people, etc.


And that's exactly why Republicans hate taxes and love charities.
 
2012-12-19 09:11:37 PM

TNel: kg2095: TNel: I wish I could give away imaginary money. It's not like it cost Zuck any money since he made the shares up himself.

The shares have value and they were his. He gave them away. So it has cost him something. Mot necessarily $500 million though - I imagine that if $500 million of stock was placed for sale the stock price would fall due to the law of supply and demand.

It didn't cost him anything. He didn't buy the shares so donating them didn't have a cost. He gets a giant good PR, a tax right off and not a damn thing came out of his pocket. I'm sure there's a good insider reason for that amount to that charity and not any of the numerous other ones that everyone has heard about.

If I found $100 and gave it to the bell ringers that $100 didn't cost me anything, same thing here he made those shares up and then gave them away, it didn't cost anything.


The fact that you found the $100 makes it your $100. If you subsequently gave it away it is no longer yours. So it cost you $100 of your money.

Also, consider that this Zuckerman fellow invested his time, energy and probably money into building his business and so the money realized from the shares is fully his.
 
2012-12-19 09:45:06 PM

grinding_journalist: Secondly, does anyone with a clue think that the mega-rich would be donating these sums if it didn't garner them a huge tax benefit?


Oh, jumping FSM on a pogo stick. Really? Why didn't he donate $5 billion then?

Durrrr. Idiots who think tax benefit is 100% are unreal.
 
2012-12-19 11:06:01 PM
Money for people.
 
2012-12-20 03:59:00 AM
Even 'the zuck' knows the stodck is truly worthless, but he's already cashed out

/i have nothing to compare to that
 
2012-12-20 08:12:55 AM

TNel:

If I found $100 and gave it to the bell ringers that $100 didn't cost me anything, same thing here he made those shares up and then gave them away, it didn't cost anything.


If you have $100 and then you take away $100 how much did you lose?
 
2012-12-20 09:46:22 AM
You're confusing him with Art Vandelay.
 
2012-12-20 12:30:16 PM

tbhouston: TNel:

If I found $100 and gave it to the bell ringers that $100 didn't cost me anything, same thing here he made those shares up and then gave them away, it didn't cost anything.

If you have $100 and then you take away $100 how much did you lose?


But I didn't earn that $100 I found it so therefore it didn't cost me any extra effort other then bending down to pick it up.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report