I agree that it could be easier for people in EA to build a track record that funders take seriously.
I struggle to know if your project is underfunded—many projects aren’t great and there have to be some that are rejected. In order to figure that out we have to actually discuss the project and I’ve appreciated our back and forth on the other blog you posted.
Yeah, the central idea is that PFGs can have operational parity (or superiority) because how they do good is in the identity of the shareholder, rather than through some way they do their operations. And stakeholders (consumers, employees, media, suppliers, partners, lenders) have a non-zero preference for the PFG (they’d rather a charity benefit from their transaction than a random shareholder). This is why they should have a competitive advantage over normal firms.
From this competitive advantage, you potentially have an arbitrage opportunity by philanthropists. Basically channel your money through PFGs and you get more than what you pay for.
This is a very simple and intuitively plausible mechanism for leverage for philanthropists, yet there has been very little curiosity on the potential of this model to multiply philanthropic funding.
I agree that it could be easier for people in EA to build a track record that funders take seriously.
I struggle to know if your project is underfunded—many projects aren’t great and there have to be some that are rejected. In order to figure that out we have to actually discuss the project and I’ve appreciated our back and forth on the other blog you posted.
Yeah, the central idea is that PFGs can have operational parity (or superiority) because how they do good is in the identity of the shareholder, rather than through some way they do their operations. And stakeholders (consumers, employees, media, suppliers, partners, lenders) have a non-zero preference for the PFG (they’d rather a charity benefit from their transaction than a random shareholder). This is why they should have a competitive advantage over normal firms.
From this competitive advantage, you potentially have an arbitrage opportunity by philanthropists. Basically channel your money through PFGs and you get more than what you pay for.
This is a very simple and intuitively plausible mechanism for leverage for philanthropists, yet there has been very little curiosity on the potential of this model to multiply philanthropic funding.
Let’s discuss this on the other blog, not sure it’s good to do it in two places at once.