You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Vaniver comments on Taking Effective Altruism Seriously - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: Salemicus 07 June 2015 06:59AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (122)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 07 June 2015 02:46:04PM 2 points [-]

That some company is about to be taken over? They don't care.

But by this reasoning, they also do not care about a $5M cash gift to get someone off the waitlist. If I know that my company is going to put in an offer for another company at 20% above the current trading price, that info is worth $5M if you have and can move $25M without raising any concerns. If anything, the larger a fund, the easier is it to make adjustments like that to take advantage of insider info without it appearing suspicious. ("Yeah, we bought $25M of that stock the day before the buyout offer was announced, but it was as part of $700M of rebalancing, because we like to adjust 2% of our total portfolio every month.")

Comment author: Lumifer 07 June 2015 02:57:39PM *  1 point [-]

But by this reasoning, they also do not care about a $5M cash gift to get someone off the waitlist.

Correct. The endowment managers absolutely don't care about a $5m cash gift. It's the admissions office which cares because it's a part of that minor side line in higher education and doesn't have free access to all those billions.

that info is worth $5M

Assuming an average return somewhere in the 8-10% area, the endowment generates each year $3-3.5 billion. Why risk an SEC investigation, a potential prosecution, a hit to reputation, etc. for a mere $5m which is about the rounding error in financial statements?

In general, I would recommend learning to distinguish between reality and caricatures drawn by enemies. It would seem to be... rational :-)

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 08 June 2015 03:02:48AM 1 point [-]

Why risk an SEC investigation,

Because the SEC wouldn't dare go after Harvard. And even if some prosecutor at the SEC who didn't get the memo decided to start something, it would get covered up. The issue is that Harvard has more moral authority then the SEC.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 June 2015 02:41:46PM 1 point [-]

Because the SEC wouldn't dare go after Harvard.

And on which basis do make such a confident pronouncement?