Private equity investor (E2G)
Co-Treasurer @ EA UK
Trustee @ EA for Christians
Trustee @ ICM UK
Director @ EA Good Governance Project
MBA @ INSEAD
Grayden đ¸
Karma: 1,642
AnÂnouncÂing the new DirecÂtor of EA UK
I agree except that suitability is only part of the equation. Luck plays a very important role.
I agree and wrote about it here: https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/âânnf2GsSq9fhdRCvZj/ââkeynesian-altruism
You narrative talks about the movement switching from earn to give to career-focused. I think that has huge survivorship bias in it. There are now many GWWC pledgers who would not call themselves EA. As the movement became bigger, the career-focused side began to dominate discourse because thereâs a lot more to say if you are career-focused and trying to coordinate things rather than if you are head down earning money.
This article has a lot of downvoting (net karma of 39 from 28 votes and 3 disagree votes). Could some of the people who downvoted or disagreed explain their rationale?
You could try putting cash into a separate savings account earmarked for donation. When you are happy that you donât need it, donate it. (But maybe over a few years for tax efficiency)
Interest rates are much higher, which is partially offset by inflation (itâs real not nominal that matters) but not entirely. Today, US Treasuries have a +1.79% yield over 5 years in real terms, so higher than the â1.28% I mention in the article but still within the long-term range of â1% to +2% that I mention in the article. Importantly, thatâs still below real GDP growth expectations, so over time the amount you can buy as a proportion of global wealth declines.
I think all the points still stand albeit the numbers in the example look dated now! Anything you think should be changed?
Surely itâs not a case of either-or. EA exists because we all found that existing charity was not up to scratch, hence we do want EA to take different approaches. However, I think itâs important to also have people from outside EA (but with good value alignment) to provide diversity of thought and make sure there are no blindspots.
Doesnât CEA know any?
Do you get 1 karma just for posting this comment? đ
UpÂdate from the EA Good GoverÂnance Project
Estonia doesnât surprise me. Itâs very tech-heavy and EA skews heavily to tech people
What were the conditions of the grant? What follow-up was there after the grant was made? Was there a staged payment schedule based on intermediate outputs? If this grant went to a for-profit and no output was produced, can the money be clawed back?
Thanks for the great analysis!
The lack of interest in GHD by the Leaders Forum is often communicated as if GHD should be deprioritised, but I think a fair amount of causation goes the other way. Historically, people promoting GHD have not been invited to the Leaders Forum.
I think itâs similar with engagement. Highly engaged EAs are less likely to support GHD, but that ignores the fact that engagement is defined primarily based on direct work not E2G or careers outside EA, hence people interested in GHD are naturally classified as less engaged even if they are just as committed.
Sure, the claim hides a lot of uncertainties. At a high level the article says âA implies X, Y and Zâ, but you canât possibly derive all of that information from the single number A. Really whatâs the article should say is âX, Y and Z are consistent with the value of Aâ, which is a very different claim.
i donât specifically disagree with X, Y and Z.
I do think you should hedge more given the tower of assumptions underneath.
The title of the post is simultaneously very confident (âthe market impliesâ and âbut not moreâ), but also somewhat imprecise (âtrillionsâ and âvalueâ). It was not clear to me that the point you were trying to make was that the number was high.
Your use of âbut not moreâ implies you were also trying to assert the point that it was not that high, but I agree with your point above that the market could be even bigger. If you believe it could be much bigger, that seems inconsistent with the title.
I also think âvalueâ and ârevenueâ are not equivalent for 2 reasons:
Value should factor in the consumer surplus
Even if you only look at the producer surplus, then you should look at profit not revenue
Your claim is very strong that âthe market implies Xâ, when I think what you mean is that âthe share price is consistent with Xâ.
There are a lot of assumptions stacked up:
The share price represents the point at which the marginal buyer and marginal seller transact. If you assume both are rational and fundamental, then this represents the NPV of future cash flows for the marginal buyer /â seller. Note this is not the same as the median /â mean expectation.
You can use some other market expectations for discount rates etc. to translate that into some possible forecast of cash flow. If you are of the view that AI will fundamentally change the market economy, this assumption seems flawed.
The market does not tell you anything about the profile of those cash flows (i.e. all in the short-term vs. spread out over the long-term), so you need to make your own assumption on growth and maturity to get to a cash flow forecast.
You can use assumptions around financing, taxes, capex, etc. to convert from cash flows into pre-tax profit.
Then an assumption of margin to convert from pre-tax profit to revenue. This seems very difficult to forecast. Arguably, margin is at least as important as revenue in determining profit.
You cannot derive revenue, or the shape of revenue growth, from a stock price. I think what you mean is consensus forecasts that support the current share price. The title of the article is provably incorrect.
Iâm not commenting on this change specifically, but as someone who is a long-term EA but not working in EA full-time, I find there are way too many name changes in EA. Name changes are hugely expensive (both in terms of costs, lost brand equity and confusion among âcustomersâ) so should not be taken lightly.