I’m curious as to whether people are giving to AMF, and if so what they think of its room for more funding. I used to favour it but haven’t done so since GiveWell stopped recommending it due to room for more funding concerns. Their financial information suggests that they still have a large cash reserve, but I’d be interested to hear from anyone who’s looked into this.
Here are some reasons to think AMF could still be worth giving to:
AMF net distributions come in large (and varied) sizes, and they generally only arrange distributions after they have the money to cover them. This means that a larger cash reserve may open up extra opportunities for distributions that they wouldn’t have with a smaller cash reserve; it’s therefore not lossless to just wait until they run down the cash reserves before giving. Of course the opportunity value created by a marginal dollar in their cash reserves may well be lower now than when the cash reserves were lower, but it’s not obvious how big this effect is (it depends on the distribution of prices of possible net distribution opportunities).
Also note that incentives as a private donor differ from the incentives GiveWell has in making recommendations (at least as far as risk-aversion goes). GiveWell is in the business not just of making good recommendations, but of building a reputation for making good recommendations. A small chance that money going to AMF now will be wasted should act as a small discounting factor on the expected value for a private donor—but rears much larger than this for GiveWell, for whom the bad outcome translates not just to the waste of donations, but a reduction in trust from donors who say with hindsight that they should have known better.
Additionally, GiveWell have to consider whether they have enough room for more funding for all GiveWell donors (i.e. $ millions per year), which is more difficult case to make than simply having room for more funding from a single donor (presumably $ hundreds or $ thousands per year)
Some of it I think depends on the “if all people who thought similarly did this” principle. If enough small individual donors all thought there was enough RMRF for their small, individual donation, they might collectively run out of RMRF.
True, though GiveWell give the impression of that AMF have room for more funding even for small individual donors, given their cash reserve. Does anyone know whether that’s not in fact what they think?
I don’t personally donate to AMF (I think top animal charities are more effective), but I’ve heard a few people who still do. They are confident that AMF will successfully mobilize its current funds within the next couple of years or so.
It’s some kind of balancing act between supporting GiveWell-recommended charities as a way of supporting GiveWell, and recognising that our best guess is that bednets are substantially more cost-effective than deworming/cash transfers. (Pending the forthcoming update....)
Not to begrudge you too much because I’m delighted that you’re donating, but do you think GiveWell is wrong about AMF? Presumably they’ve already factored in the relative strength of bednets.
Presumably they’ve already factored in the relative strength of bednets.
I don’t think this is relevant to GiveWell’s decision not to recommend AMF.… Immunisations are super-cost-effective, but GiveWell don’t make a recommendation in this area because GAVI or UNICEF or whoever already have committed funding for this.
I’ve got two choices if I want to donate all my donation money this year:
Donate to AMF, which is likely higher impact, but maybe my money won’t be spent for a couple of years.
Donate somewhere else, likely lower impact.
I think an AMF donation looks a pretty decent option here. I would say that the EA-controversial part of my thinking is the insistence on donating all my donation money this year, rather than using a donor-advised fund (to which I say, “Eh, whatevs...”).
You might say “well there’s a 50-percentage-point difference at each of those two steps” and think I’m being inconsistent in donating to AMF and not GAVI. But if I try some expectation-value-type calculation, I’ll be multiplying the impact of AMF’s work by 50% and getting something comparable to SCI, but getting something close to zero for GAVI.
I’d feel a bit weird holding on to the money instead of donating it.
A middle ground would be to put the money into a donor-advised fund, and then wait and see if AMF gain room for more funding. That way, you can direct the money elsewhere if they don’t.
As I said to Peter in our long thread, “Eh whatevs”. :P
I don’t think I can make anything more than a very weak defence of avoiding DAF’s in this situation (the defence would go: “They seem kinda weird from a signalling perspective”). I’m terrible at finance stuff, and a DAF seems like a finance-y thing, and so I avoid them.
I hope you don’t feel like Peter and I have been attacking your choice of donation—I see where you’re coming from, and AMF is a great charity, RFMF concerns apart!
[AMF and its RFMF]
I’m curious as to whether people are giving to AMF, and if so what they think of its room for more funding. I used to favour it but haven’t done so since GiveWell stopped recommending it due to room for more funding concerns. Their financial information suggests that they still have a large cash reserve, but I’d be interested to hear from anyone who’s looked into this.
Here are some reasons to think AMF could still be worth giving to:
AMF net distributions come in large (and varied) sizes, and they generally only arrange distributions after they have the money to cover them. This means that a larger cash reserve may open up extra opportunities for distributions that they wouldn’t have with a smaller cash reserve; it’s therefore not lossless to just wait until they run down the cash reserves before giving. Of course the opportunity value created by a marginal dollar in their cash reserves may well be lower now than when the cash reserves were lower, but it’s not obvious how big this effect is (it depends on the distribution of prices of possible net distribution opportunities).
Also note that incentives as a private donor differ from the incentives GiveWell has in making recommendations (at least as far as risk-aversion goes). GiveWell is in the business not just of making good recommendations, but of building a reputation for making good recommendations. A small chance that money going to AMF now will be wasted should act as a small discounting factor on the expected value for a private donor—but rears much larger than this for GiveWell, for whom the bad outcome translates not just to the waste of donations, but a reduction in trust from donors who say with hindsight that they should have known better.
Additionally, GiveWell have to consider whether they have enough room for more funding for all GiveWell donors (i.e. $ millions per year), which is more difficult case to make than simply having room for more funding from a single donor (presumably $ hundreds or $ thousands per year)
Some of it I think depends on the “if all people who thought similarly did this” principle. If enough small individual donors all thought there was enough RMRF for their small, individual donation, they might collectively run out of RMRF.
True, though GiveWell give the impression of that AMF have room for more funding even for small individual donors, given their cash reserve. Does anyone know whether that’s not in fact what they think?
My comment on Niel’s post above also should be addressed to you. :)
Thanks Owen, that’s helpful.
I don’t personally donate to AMF (I think top animal charities are more effective), but I’ve heard a few people who still do. They are confident that AMF will successfully mobilize its current funds within the next couple of years or so.
Interesting, do you know why they don’t just wait to see if it manages to do so and GiveWell re-recommends it?
About a quarter of my donations this year will go to AMF. I’d feel a bit weird holding on to the money instead of donating it.
Why AMF and not somewhere else?
It’s some kind of balancing act between supporting GiveWell-recommended charities as a way of supporting GiveWell, and recognising that our best guess is that bednets are substantially more cost-effective than deworming/cash transfers. (Pending the forthcoming update....)
Not to begrudge you too much because I’m delighted that you’re donating, but do you think GiveWell is wrong about AMF? Presumably they’ve already factored in the relative strength of bednets.
I don’t think this is relevant to GiveWell’s decision not to recommend AMF.… Immunisations are super-cost-effective, but GiveWell don’t make a recommendation in this area because GAVI or UNICEF or whoever already have committed funding for this.
I’ve got two choices if I want to donate all my donation money this year:
Donate to AMF, which is likely higher impact, but maybe my money won’t be spent for a couple of years.
Donate somewhere else, likely lower impact.
I think an AMF donation looks a pretty decent option here. I would say that the EA-controversial part of my thinking is the insistence on donating all my donation money this year, rather than using a donor-advised fund (to which I say, “Eh, whatevs...”).
So why not donate to immunizations, then?
AMF is far more likely to need the money soon than GAVI.
But SCI is far more likely to need the money soon than AMF.
Probability that they’ll need my money soon:
GAVI: ~0%
AMF: ~50%
SCI: ~100%
You might say “well there’s a 50-percentage-point difference at each of those two steps” and think I’m being inconsistent in donating to AMF and not GAVI. But if I try some expectation-value-type calculation, I’ll be multiplying the impact of AMF’s work by 50% and getting something comparable to SCI, but getting something close to zero for GAVI.
A middle ground would be to put the money into a donor-advised fund, and then wait and see if AMF gain room for more funding. That way, you can direct the money elsewhere if they don’t.
As I said to Peter in our long thread, “Eh whatevs”. :P
I don’t think I can make anything more than a very weak defence of avoiding DAF’s in this situation (the defence would go: “They seem kinda weird from a signalling perspective”). I’m terrible at finance stuff, and a DAF seems like a finance-y thing, and so I avoid them.
Well I can’t argue with “whatevs” ;)
I hope you don’t feel like Peter and I have been attacking your choice of donation—I see where you’re coming from, and AMF is a great charity, RFMF concerns apart!
That’s OK, even if I had perceived it as an attack, I’ve thought enough about this topic for it not to bother me!
As of December 1, 2014, GiveWell has reinstated AMF as a top charity. GiveWell believes that AMF now has room for more funding. See http://blog.givewell.org/2014/12/01/our-updated-top-charities/