Most donors get risk wrong

Philanthropists with concentrated AI wealth often face an imbalance: most of their money sits in a single volatile stock, yet they give away only to heavily-evidenced nonprofits. LessWrong contributor Jack Ultraphil argues they have risk backwards. When over one trillion dollars left semiconductor and AI hardware equities in July, investors sitting in one stock felt the exposure. Ultraphil cites research showing just four percent of stocks account for all gains in the American market since nineteen twenty-six; concentration amplifies that risk. His recommendation for large donors: diversify the wealth, then take more risk in grantmaking—roughly seventy percent to proven organizations, twenty to thirty percent through risk-tolerant funds, and a small slice to moonshots. The barrier? Donors rarely tolerate grant failures the way venture funds do, so failed nonprofits keep their funding. Without robust monitoring and the stomach for cancellation, most donors act inconsistently with their actual risk tolerance.

Listen to this story

Hear this and more stories in a personalized audio briefing.

Open The Chonkerton