Gyroscopic Investing

It look like law enforcement aid organizations are well-represented in the fraudster ranks. 

The whole list is pretty sad.

Doesn't the head of the American Red Cross make an exorbitant salary?

Here it is:

http://www.redcross.org/templates/rende ... ty-CEO-Pay

The Red Cross is actually saying that her salary is justified at 500K. I think not!

Well, it actually could be.  The Red Cross is an enormous organization.  You wouldn't want Joe Schmo off the street running the whole works.  Perhaps this person could command a million dollar salary in the for-profit world.

The United Way has distributed less than 1% of the funds that people donated to the families of the Newtown, Ct. massacre. They are still holding over $11 million that was meant for those families.

Makes me wonder if most big charities are kind of a scam (or at least, highly inefficient):

James Altucher: 10 Reasons Why I would Never Donate to a Major Charity (or, How to be a Superhero, Part 2)

I haven't researched the Red Cross, but I once wrote to the Acumen Fund, to which I am a serial contributor, complaining about the CEO's take. US$250+K. I got a heartfelt response explaining how a big salary is important to attract talent. Despite the fact that the CostCo CEO only took a salary of 100K, I kind of believe the letter writer. And so, I still give. They're better than most charities, IMO.

Gumby wrote: Makes me wonder if most big charities are kind of a scam (or at least, highly inefficient):

James Altucher: 10 Reasons Why I would Never Donate to a Major Charity (or, How to be a Superhero, Part 2)

If you compare their actual operations to the way most donors perceive their operations, these charities are definitely a scam.

I think that most donors probably imagine these organizations' expenses to be in the 10-15% of revenue (i.e., donations) range, rather than 50% or more.

There is something really sick about using a commercial with a picture of a badly abused dog and Sarah McLachlan singing in the background to collect money that is mostly going to go in your own pocket.

Regarding high salaries for executives of large charities, I think of it this way...

Even though one would think the ceo's should donate a huge chunk of their salary, if paying a CEO $500k more than the next option will yield results of another $5,000,000 in donations and a more efficient delivery mechanism to the people they're trying to help, they have an easy choice to make. 

Besides, employment is just another contract... No different than paying fair value for toilet paper or a re-tiling of a goodwill store.

moda0306 wrote: Regarding high salaries for executives of large charities, I think of it this way...

Even though one would think the ceo's should donate a huge chunk of their salary, if paying a CEO $500k more than the next option will yield results of another $5,000,000 in donations and a more efficient delivery mechanism to the people they're trying to help, they have an easy choice to make. 

Besides, employment is just another contract... No different than paying fair value for toilet paper or a re-tiling of a goodwill store.

I don't have a problem with senior executives being paid competitive salaries.

It just seems like the charities should be more transparent about the fact that donating to them does a lot more for the employees who work at the charity and their families than anyone else.

How cool would it be to have one of those "Feed The Children" commercials feature, instead of pathetic looking hungry African kids, people who actually work at the charity with them talking about the different types of food they like to eat.  At the end of the commercial it could say "Your donations make all of this possible, and it also feeds a few of those African kids with whatever is left over."  (Maybe that would make a better SNL skit.)

Does anyone ever wonder why the camera crews filming those hungry kids don't just give them some food?  If I knew I was going to Africa to film hungry kids I would take some extra food with me and give it to them (especially if I knew my salary was being paid by people who thought their contributions were going to feed these kids in the first place).  Maybe the film crews do this, but I'll bet they tell the kids they have to look as pathetic as possible while they are filming them before they give them any food.  (That sounds like something Jack Handey would say.)

you can look up details and ratings for charity's here http://www.charitynavigator.org/

I used to get these phone calls from people purporting to be from the "Fraternal Order Of Police." They wouldn't take no for an answer and definitely sounded shady. I almost felt threatened by them.

Reub wrote: I used to get these phone calls from people purporting to be from the "Fraternal Order Of Police." They wouldn't take no for an answer and definitely sounded shady. I almost felt threatened by them.

I get calls from people who say they "are with the police department" or "with the sheriff's department" before admitting that they want money for these scams.  The first time it rattled me a little (which, of course, it's designed to do), but after that I always just ask them for their badge numbers and they quickly back off.

I've always shied away from the big charities for exactly this reason.  I remember being nudged into giving United Way a payroll deduction when I first started working.  After I researched them a little (they should definitely have been on this list btw), I cancelled it.

There are enough worthy local charities that there's no need to look at these mega con operations.  Also I've given to Central Asia Institute (of "Three Cups of Tea" fame), despite the brief flurry of bad press.  They have almost no overhead to speak of, and I like what they do.