This comment felt quite snarky to me. I did apologise in case this point had been made before.
I agree the fact that the money comes a long way into the way is obvious, but I’ve never seen a quantitative examination of it before.
Looking at Charity Science’s review, I don’t see one. Glancing at the calculation of expected returns of EA legacy fundraising, it looks like no discounting was done at all, so the 18:1 expected ratio is overstated by at least several fold. I expect if they added discounting, it wouldn’t look much more attractive than other fundraising methods, and a whole project was launched on the basis of this report. The report also mentions that young people contribute a significant fraction of the EV, but I expect this would go away if discounting was included properly.
My comment was agreeing with Claire’s observation that “people who legacy fundraise… strategically engage with more senior individuals in order to generate donations in the nearer future”- nothing to do whether whether your “point had been made before” because it’s directly referring to Claire’s point.
I’ll address these new points you raise about Charity Science’s projected ratio in a separate comment if no-one from Charity Science gets there first since they’re quite distinct from the point above (after all, you don’t mention Charity Science in the OP).
Hi David,
This comment felt quite snarky to me. I did apologise in case this point had been made before.
I agree the fact that the money comes a long way into the way is obvious, but I’ve never seen a quantitative examination of it before.
Looking at Charity Science’s review, I don’t see one. Glancing at the calculation of expected returns of EA legacy fundraising, it looks like no discounting was done at all, so the 18:1 expected ratio is overstated by at least several fold. I expect if they added discounting, it wouldn’t look much more attractive than other fundraising methods, and a whole project was launched on the basis of this report. The report also mentions that young people contribute a significant fraction of the EV, but I expect this would go away if discounting was included properly.
http://www.charityscience.com/uploads/1/0/7/2/10726656/legacy_fundraising_pdf.pdf
My comment was agreeing with Claire’s observation that “people who legacy fundraise… strategically engage with more senior individuals in order to generate donations in the nearer future”- nothing to do whether whether your “point had been made before” because it’s directly referring to Claire’s point.
I’ll address these new points you raise about Charity Science’s projected ratio in a separate comment if no-one from Charity Science gets there first since they’re quite distinct from the point above (after all, you don’t mention Charity Science in the OP).
Sorry I misunderstood. I noticed several downvotes for the post so interpreted your comment as directed at the main post.