
The $13 Billion Mystery Angels - defective
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-08/three-mysterious-philanthropists-fund-fourth-largest-u-dot-s-dot-charity#p1
======
Htsthbjig
This is not as rare as the article says. In fact, giving my experience around
rich people I would say it it the normal thing.

Most people believe what mass media tells them. The media talks about the
actors, but not about the producers, they talk about the young sport star but
not so much about the owner of the team, and so on.

And the main reason is: Most of them don't want to be famous, they don't want
people stalking them for money whenever they go, or someone kidnapping their
children. They don't need to show off their money. They live in good, but
normal houses, and drive a 10 year car.

Most of them already made themselves, they don't need external recognition
when they have the internal one. Most of them were naysed when they started
their business(most people tell you "it wont work") or wanted to create
something new and survived extreme negativity, so they are quite indifferent
about what other people think about them(when you are super rich everybody
wants to be your friend and the same person who told you "it wont work" the
most now tells you "I always believed you were going to make it").

You have lots of them writing in HN with pseudonym. Like writers they want
their words to carry a message from itself, not from the authority of the
person who writes them, and it lets them interact with intelligent people in
an equal level.

~~~
trentmb
> they don't need external recognition when they have the internal one.

If I may borrow a phrase from the Geto Boys:

"Real gangsta-ass niggas don't flex nuts, cause real gangsta-ass niggas know
they got em"

It's an attitude I find quite endearing.

------
joosters
IMO the media should leave these donors alone. Charity is a great thing, and
anonymous donors should be encouraged. They are giving their money without
seeking any fame or other publicity from their generosity.

~~~
shutupalready
> anonymous donors should be encouraged

This story is disturbing in that it shows how little financial privacy we have
left in the US (and Western Europe and Canada too).

Just look at the incredible lengths these guys went to:

[http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-05-09/billionaires-970-popup....](http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-05-09/billionaires-970-popup.jpg)

to preserve their privacy.

That the federal government and thousands of random people that work for the
federal government have all your finances at their fingertips is bad enough,
but then they also make this information available to basically anybody (a
reporter with no subpoena power) if you're willing to make the magic
incantation (FOIA request or whatever).

Transparency of government is good, but personal data government should be
private. (Even better if we gave a whole lot less personal info.)

~~~
_delirium
I don't feel particularly disturbed by it, I guess. What proportion of a
country's resources are controlled by whom seems like something the citizens
of that country might legitimately want to know, especially when the
proportions are large enough to affect matters of public policy.

Incomes aren't public here (Denmark), but our neighbors to the northwest
publish lists of everyone's income and net worth once a year, which doesn't
seem to have ruined Norway. I don't think I'd find it disturbing if Denmark
did the same, though I don't know of any plans to do so. If anything it might
increase some government transparency— there are some very large family
fortunes (Mærsk, Carlsberg/Jacobsen, etc.) that have longstanding and often
rather cozy relationships with the government. It might add some insight into
things if the public better understood who controlled which parts of those
fortunes.

------
oskarth
This is voyeurism, not journalism. These people are not interested in being
public persons, and it doesn't take much thought to understand why. Leave them
alone so they can do their work in peace.

~~~
UVB-76
Is there not a legitimate public interest in knowing the source of enormous
contributions to charities and political causes?

The scale of these contributions mean they have the potential to significantly
distort markets, and reorder societal priorities, arbitrarily refocusing vast
resources from one cause to another on the whim of a single individual.

With great wealth comes great power, with great power comes great
responsibility, and with great responsibility comes a great need for
transparency and oversight.

~~~
michaelt
Why stop at contributions, when one could refocus resources just the same
transacting with a corporation or partnership, or investing or loaning as well
as donating?

And at the level of local politics (which in many cases has a greater impact
on our day-to-day lives than national politics) you can become a high school
or politician's largest donor for less than the cost of a house or high-end
car.

And of course you wouldn't want large donors to disguise large donations by
making them as many small, indirect donations!

Shouldn't we make everyone's finances totally public?

~~~
_delirium
I think it's perfectly fine for interested citizens and journalists to
investigate those cases, too. There is quite a bit of investigative journalism
like that that happens at the local level, at least in some places. For
example, if a previously unknown company suddenly starts buying up a lot of
local land, it's natural that residents would want to look into what this
company is and where their money comes from. Is it a front for another
company? Who are its investors? Does it have ties to politicians?

------
DanielBMarkham
Sorry. I had to bail out on the second page when the author wanted to pivot
from "hey look, all these billions showing up to save the world!" to "the
public has a right to know how these people made their money and why they're
spending it the way they are"

No, we do not.

Then there was an argument that if these people hadn't have spent their money
anonymously, the money would be available to the government to spend as it
chose.

At that point I decided my 20 minutes were best spent somewhere on the net
that had a higher caliber of analytic thought.

~~~
bloat
"No, we do not."

Why not? If I am rich enough to have my pick of the best researchers and
doctors, and to divert their attention to a disease or condition of my
choosing, then shouldn't there be some oversight of that?

Perhaps all that money could have been better spent on malaria or cancer,
rather than a rarer condition.

I don't know why an arbitrary rich individual should be able to direct
medicinal research better than a public body, and get the most benefit for
humanity or, at a lower level, their fellow citizens,

~~~
noir_lord
That's a horribly slippery slope to just blunder on to.

~~~
bloat
You, and the parent of my comment, are not backing up your arguments.

I posted a reasoned comment which does not worship the power of private
enterprise, and asserts that the public sphere is better at some things than
private wealth.

This is not an outrageous and thoughtless idea, and it is not one that
deserves a downvote simply for being expressed.

Many enterprises in history have been organized by governments instead of
wealthy capitalists. It is not unacceptable to suggest that medical research
is one of those areas that could be done better in this way.

------
lancewiggs
I suspect there are many many more very high net worth individuals who are
unknown, and we can only hope that they act as well as these guys.

------
rfrey
Off-topic question for the professional scientists in the room.

The OP reports individual donors contributing in excess of $100 million to
particular causes. We've spoken often here about the various inefficiencies in
the current research structures: top scientists spending too much time writing
grants; disincentives for the curiosity-driven research that often leads to
breakthroughs, etc.

So the question: is investment on the order of $100M+ sufficient to set up a
private research facility with research "done right"? (By which I mean, of
course, the way I would do it. :) ) It's easy to imagine a private facility
that recruits top-notch but frustrated scientists from various schools, sets
some important problems for them, and sets them free from grant writing,
publishing pressures, etc.

The obvious objection is that the donor would call the shots and subvert the
research... but on the other hand these sorts of donors are already willing to
just fund research with no personal input into process.

~~~
jessriedel
This is pretty much what Mike Lazaridis of RIM did to set up The Perimeter
Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_Institute_for_Theoret...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_Institute_for_Theoretical_Physics)

[http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/](http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/)

It was an initial donation of $100M in 2000, followed up by $50M in 2008. I
believe Lazaridis' financial support has ended with the difficulties at RIM,
but PI is by now self-sufficient and supported by the Canadian government.

The place is well known for hosting some pretty crazy and speculative
research. It is the only institution I know of that has a Quantum Foundations
department. But they have enough money that they have been able to attract
some big names to lend significant degree of respectability to the place.

(I'm starting a postdoc at PI in the fall, and the complete freedom available
there was a big part of the attraction.)

------
rgo
I think the article raises some legit questions on how nearly $50B of tax
money is being managed, not by the government, but by the criteria of private
donors. The author also implies some lack of coordination in between
scientists' and donor's priorities. I wonder how the public could measure
philanthropy's performance. Having competing or independent research groups a
productive thing? Or is it better to centralize efforts? Could it end up
raising health care costs due to increased demand on biotech resources? Are
there flaws in Gates' education initiatives? How can the public get a better
saying on how this money is funneled into public institutions or even
politics?

Not that I think government is immune to uncoordinated, flawed spending. Or
that we need regulation. Or that we need to tax the rich to the fullest.
Charity is a great thing. But imagine the absurd: that private donors donated
to road construction foundations, and you end up getting two parallel highways
that go from A to B. Wouldn't that be just a plain waste of a country's
wealth, even if it belongs to private donors?

This reminds me of the story about how certain NGOs took used clothes from
rich countries straight to Africa, only to realize how that was damaging these
countries' textile industry. Nowadays many NGOs have adopted a more
constructive approach in Africa or countries simply banned these shipments
[1].

TGS Management's money is also somewhat exaggeratedly, if not suspiciously,
split into many cascading foundations and companies, which also should raise
an eyebrow or two whatever their reasons may be. Investigative journalism, and
hopefully the transparency and insight it provides, can be powerful for
setting long-term, effective goals for donors and charity that are in
everyone's interest.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-
char...](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mariah-griffinangus/africa-
charity_b_1623561.html)

------
baking
"For any prime number larger than 3, prove that p^2-1 is always divisible by
24."

That seems like an easy interview question.

~~~
akrolsmir
Yeah. Quick sketch of proof: Any prime is 1 or 2 mod 3, and 1, 3, 5, or 7 mod
8. Squaring each value means that every p^2 is 1 mod 3 and 1 mod 8, which must
be 1 mod 24 (Chinese remainder theorem).

Or you could algebraically bash it out.

~~~
tinco
Ah. Little clever realisations like any prime is 1,3,5 or 7 mod 8, that's
something that comes very hard to me even though when I see it it looks so
trivially true. Did you just realize that property for solving this question
or was the property taught to you (directly or through solving some homework
assignment)?

~~~
mdda
Here's an "elementary" proof :

If n is prime>3 then it's definitely odd.

n^2-1 = (n+1).(n-1)

But n is odd, so (n+1) and (n-1) are both even. So overall, we have a factor
of 4.

But, since one of those two is 2 different from the other, it must also be
divisible by 4.

Now, looking at this sideways too, we also have a run of 3 numbers {(n-1), n,
(n+1)}. So one of them must be divisible by 3. But n isn't (since it's prime).
Therefore at least one of the other two is.

So,overall, we have 2.4.3 as a minimum set of factors...

~~~
tinco
How do you trivially construct `n^2-1 = (n+1).(n-1)` ? I feel like I'm failing
at basic algebra here, but I don't see it.

~~~
pluies
(n+1).(n-1) = n^2 - n + n - 1 = n^2 - 1

------
georgeoliver
Bear with me as I'm an econ neophyte, but if as Wikipedia suggests the US
stock market holds about 20 trillion USD, and the average rate of return is
10%, is 2 trillion a good estimate for how much is made in the US stock market
annually?

~~~
jacques_chester
It depends what you mean by "made in the US stock market".

The ROR can include capital gains (the price of your stocks rise) and income
(you get paid a dividend). These are different, but both contribute to your
returns.

------
Steko
_His investing success, he told the newspaper, was “all a matter of chance. It
certainly wasn’t because I worked 5,000 times as hard as the average person,
or was 5,000 times smarter than the average person.”_

Huh, turns out he's about 5,0000 times smarter than the average billionaire
that never realizes this.

~~~
arfliw
What makes you think they don't realize it?

~~~
kylebrown
Because the average mill/billionaire isn't very humble, and tends to emphasize
that their earnings came through hard work and merit.

~~~
arfliw
"tends to emphasize that their earnings came through hard work and merit."

Examples?

------
tom_jones
The world needs more people like these 3 angels...Great story.

~~~
brazzy
No, what the world needs is a system of finance where these "angels" could not
earn a single dime by pushing around numbers instead of parasitically skimming
billions off the real economy of companies that actually produce stuff, and
where they would instead use their intellectual resources to do something
useful.

That they use their gains for good is wonderful, but should not be necessary,
and is not as great as transparent and accountable charity that is coordinated
by democratically determined public policy would be.

~~~
tomrod
The finance market provides needed liquidity. I'm glad these guys took the
risk to offer their resources. That they are relatively better at it than you
or I is no skin off my back.

~~~
kylebrown
They are relatively better at playing a zero-sum game. Not that algo/hft
traders are any worse than most of the rest of Wall Street, but it really is
skin off the back of retirement funds of every mom & pop.

------
ilaksh
Hmm.. yup.. looks like the stock market is just chalk full of Robin Hoods who
are so humble they don't want any recognition.

Either that or some guys got filthy rich using questionably legal means, felt
guilty so they started giving a lot of it away, and are worried they might get
caught if they become well-known.

------
hasancc
Mind = Blown! One of the most exciting stories I read on the internet. Not
only the story is awesome, the writing also stands out. Kudos to the author:
Zachary R. Mider.

