Discussion about this post

User's avatar
AspiringRationalist's avatar

Actually, the EMH says that taking on additional risk is the only way to increase your expected return.

Expand full comment
Kris Zyp's avatar

I'll propose another way of assessing this trade-off. Generally in for-profit investing, most investments tend towards an equilibrium of return for the unknowledgeable or at least average-knowledge level investor. Investors often tend to make higher than average returns when they have a higher than average knowledge of a certain investment strategy (whether it be real estate, stocks, etc.). Perhaps charitable giving is governed by the same principle. One can expect greater returns (on average) in charitable investments (except not for oneself, for the recipient) by giving now, if one has greater expertise in development economics and health than they do in other investment opportunities, whereas if you are more of an expert in real estate, or stocks, you probably can get a greater return (on average over the long term) by investing now and giving later.

Anyway, this is just an idea I am toying with, do you think there is any merit to this approach?

Expand full comment
36 more comments...

No posts