Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@MSF I resent the implications of "Had it appeared somewhere else before?" It belies the many interviews and hours of research I spent writing this story. Did one article inspire the other? It was one of many inspirations. But that happens in journalism all the time, including with my own work inspiring others. That doesn't mean I didn't do my own hard work analyzing this subject, conducting lengthy interviews and reviewing the various DAF programs and their investment options before writing my take on this subject. I did.
What concerns me about DAFs actually is in the last paragraph regarding their implications for charitable giving overall and how these accounts could hoard the assets instead of giving them to charity. But the format and the space allowed for this story precluded going into too much detail there. There's no question that from an investor's and tax perspective DAFs are superior vehicles. But from a charitable giving perspective their implications are far more ambiguous.
I did not mean to say that something like this had appeared elsewhere. I was wondering whether your work had appeared, not something like it, perhaps in a slightly edited form somewhere else.
They're superior because of convenience. I'm not sure of other benefits - they cost not that much less than wrap accounts and they don't come with investment advice for that fee. They are asset-gathering vehicles for the mutual funds, though they do serve a good purpose.
Edit: I'm not implying plagiarism, rehashing, or any other negative thing one might infer. It was more a matter of the flow, structure, and organization of the material leaving me feeling like I'd seen your work before. It was meant as a positive statement. Perhaps I'd better stop now before my foot goes even deeper into my mouth.
Another Fidelity link to understanding Charitable Remainder Trusts (CRTs) and Charitable Lead Trusts (CLTs) which both can fund a DAF and where the DAF only holds the distributed "donation" from the Trust.
Using donor-advised funds “One planning tip we suggest for those setting up a charitable trust is to make your donor-advised fund your charitable beneficiary,” says Segal. “Using donor-advised funds in conjunction with your charitable trust gives you the flexibility to change your ultimate charitable recipients, rather than locking yourself in,” says Segal.
Here’s how this strategy works: You direct the proceeds from your charitable trust—whether the interest payments from a CLT or the remainder from a CRT—to your donor-advised fund rather than to a different charity. Because you, as donor, retain privileges over how donor-advised fund assets are distributed, you can recommend a charity at a later date or change your mind about charities previously chosen. “With this strategy,” says Sarkaria, “not only do you have some flexibility, you can get your family involved in recommending charities and establish a family legacy of giving.”
@Ted@MSF No, not guilty. I accept MSF's response. It's just something any writer would be sensitive to. To me the big story here is the tremendous influence DAFs now have in the charitable world and what that means. I had to cover the investment side given the format and readership. For anyone interested in the ethical questions this trend raises I suggest Googling the name Ray Madoff.
Comments
Thanks,
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fidelitycharitable.org/giving-strategies/give/donor-advised.shtml
In any case, this fall M* ran a series of five columns on donor advised funds: intro, one each on Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, then a comparison.
Is a Donor-Advised Fund Right for You?
How Does Fidelity Charitable's Investment Menu Stack Up? (previously linked by Ted)
A Closer Look at Schwab's Donor-Advised Fund
Under the Hood at Vanguard Charitable
5 Questions to Ask When Choosing a Donor-Advised Fund
There's a very detailed/lengthy 2015 Kitces column, previously linked by heezsafe in this MFO thread.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/rules-strategies-and-tactics-when-using-donor-advised-funds-for-charitable-giving/
One curious gotcha is that you cannot use these funds to receive your IRA RMD (i.e. they cannot accept qualified charitable distributions).
What concerns me about DAFs actually is in the last paragraph regarding their implications for charitable giving overall and how these accounts could hoard the assets instead of giving them to charity. But the format and the space allowed for this story precluded going into too much detail there. There's no question that from an investor's and tax perspective DAFs are superior vehicles. But from a charitable giving perspective their implications are far more ambiguous.
They're superior because of convenience. I'm not sure of other benefits - they cost not that much less than wrap accounts and they don't come with investment advice for that fee. They are asset-gathering vehicles for the mutual funds, though they do serve a good purpose.
Edit: I'm not implying plagiarism, rehashing, or any other negative thing one might infer. It was more a matter of the flow, structure, and organization of the material leaving me feeling like I'd seen your work before. It was meant as a positive statement. Perhaps I'd better stop now before my foot goes even deeper into my mouth.
Regards,
Ted