全球视野 | 重塑慈善：富有的年轻继承人想要如何改变商业与公益？

全球视野

每周从全球各大与公益慈善或社会创新领域相关的媒体或专业网站，去浏览发现当下正在发生的案例和正在思考的观点，然后翻译整理成篇，传达第一手的新鲜资讯。栏目希望可以通过文章的视角或者表述，为会员伙伴们提供启发、打开视野。

文章《Wealthy Heirs Rethink What Giving Back Means/财富继承人重新思考回馈的意义》发布在Worth上。这是一本美国的金融、财富管理和生活方式杂志。作者是Sean Captain。这篇文章讲的是继承了巨额财富的年轻一代，是如何看待慈善事业以及他们如何利用手中的财富创造社会影响。以前的亿万富翁们捐款可能只是为了弥补商业模式的缺陷，而非真正改善问题。然而，年轻一代的继承人们正在改变这种观念。他们更希望通过投资可持续发展的新企业或是改造家族企业的方式，从源头上解决问题，而非仅仅捐款。

The multi-millionaires and billionaires of the past donated fortunes to the arts, education, conservation, and other charitable causes. But they often amassed those fortunes on the backs of the environment, workers, or communities. The gifts may have been an effort to make up for the downsides of their business models in place of reforming those models. 

过去的千万富翁和亿万富翁为艺术、教育、自然保护和其他慈善事业捐献了大量财富。但他们往往是在牺牲环境、员工或社区利益的情况下，积累了这些财富。这些捐赠可能是为了弥补其商业模式的弊端，而不是改革这些模式。 

That’s changing, to some extent, among the younger generations of high net worth ($1-5 million in liquid assets) through ultra-high net worth ($30 million or more)—especially those who are inheriting their fortunes. Surveys, anecdotes, and hard data show that at least some (though it’s hard to say how many) are looking to erase the line between commerce and the common good. They are trying to clean up the family business or invest in sustainable new ventures rather than just cutting checks to charity. And when they donate money, it’s often to different causes, with different timetables and expectations. 

在一定程度上，这种情况正在改变。尤其是在年轻一代的高净值人群（拥有100万至500万美元的流动资产）到超高净值人群（拥有3000万美元或更多）中间，特别是那些继承了财富的人。调查、传闻和确凿的数据表明，至少有一部分人（虽然很难说有多少人）希望消除商业与公益之间的界限。他们试图清理家族企业或投资于可持续发展的新企业，而不仅仅是向慈善机构捐款。而当他们捐钱时，往往是捐给不同的事业，会有着不同的时间安排和期望。

“They tend to have a different perspective on the purpose of the wealth. They tend to want to be more involved in awareness of social, environmental, and political issues that advocate causes like climate change, social justice, and mental health,” says Nikè Anani. The daughter of a wealthy Nigerian entrepreneur (whom she declined to identify) works with her Millennial inheritor peers as director of next-gen advisory at Northern Trust. “They want to bring onboard more technology, or infuse more sustainability measures into the family business, or take the philanthropy or investing in a different direction,” she says of the “next-gen” and “third-gen”, AKA the children and grandchildren of fortune-building entrepreneurs. 

“他们往往对财富的目标有不同的看法。他们往往希望更多地参与对于社会、环境和政治问题的认知，来倡导气候变化、社会正义和心理健康等事业，”尼基·阿纳尼说道。她是一位尼日利亚富裕企业家的女儿（她拒绝透露其身份），在北方信托公司担任次世代咨询总监，与她的千禧世代继承人同辈一起工作。当阿纳尼谈到了“下一代”和“第三代”（即积累了财富的企业家的子女和孙子女）时，她说：“他们希望引入更多的技术，或者将更多的可持续措施融入家族企业，或者将慈善事业或投资引向不同的方向。” 

If widespread, this trend could substantially remake business and philanthropy. The world is in the midst of a massive generational wealth transfer, with Baby Boomers poised to shift up to $53 trillion to their heirs through 2045 (according to research by Cerulli). At the pinnacle of affluence, UBS estimates that 1,000 billionaires will pass $5.2 trillion to their children in the coming 20 to 30 years. (In 2023, for the first time, more new-billionaire wealth came from inheritance than from self-made fortunes, according to the UBS/PwC Billionaires database.) 

如果这一趋势得到广泛传播，将会极大地重塑商业和慈善事业。全球正处于大规模的财富代际转移中，根据Cerulli的研究，婴儿潮一代将在2045年前把高达53万亿美元的财富，转移给他们的继承人。据瑞银集团的估计，在未来20到30年内，1000名亿万富翁将把5.2万亿美元的财富转移给他们的子女。（根据瑞银/普华永道的亿万富翁数据库：2023年，来自继承的新亿万富豪财富，首次超过了白手起家的。） 

“I am in touch with a younger generation of people who are inheriting wealth, who definitely have different priorities there,” says Chuck Collins, a Boomer who directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies. A nonprofit advocacy salary wasn’t the expected path for Collins. In 1986, this heir to the Oscar Meyer fortune donated to charity his entire trust fund of $500,000—about $1.4M in today’s money. He describes the journey in his 2016 book Born on Third Base. 

查克·柯林斯是美国政策研究所（Institute for Policy Studies）不平等与共同利益项目的负责人，他是婴儿潮一代。对于柯林斯来说，非营利性倡导机构的薪水，并不是他所预期的职业道路。1986年，这位奥斯卡·迈耶财富的继承人将自己50万美元的信托基金全部捐给了慈善机构。按现在的汇率计算，约合140万美元。他在2016年出版的《Born on Third Base》（直译为“出生在三垒”，意思是指一出生就在终点上）一书中描述了自己的心路历程。 

Collins’s give-it-all-away is an extreme case. The notion that they will still be well off, no matter what, may be giving young inheritors more courage to take a different path. They have the “psychological and the physical or financial wherewithal to take risks,” says sociology professor Paul Schervish. The founder and director of Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy has been researching the values and motivations of affluent people around giving since the 1980s. 

柯林斯的全部捐赠是一个极端的例子。无论如何他们都会过得很好的想法，可能会让年轻的继承人更有勇气走上不同的道路。社会学教授保罗·舍维什说，他们有“心理、物质或财务上的资本去冒险”。作为波士顿学院财富与慈善中心的创始人和主管，舍维什自80年代以来，一直在研究富裕人士在捐赠方面的价值观和动机。 

“My daughters are fine,” says Jen Risher, author of We Need to Talk: A Memoir About Wealth. “Because of the way their trusts were set up when we first came into money, they don’t have to worry.” She and her husband, Lyft CEO David Risher, struck it rich in the dotcom boom at Microsoft and Amazon. 

《我们需要谈谈：关于财富的回忆录（We Need to Talk: A Memoir About Wealth）》一书的作者珍·里舍说：“我的女儿们都过得很好。因为我们在刚开始赚钱的时候就设立了信托，所以她们不用担心。”她和她的丈夫、Lyft首席执行官大卫·里舍在微软和亚马逊的互联网热潮中发家致富。 

Risher, who’s 58, says that her 24-year-old daughter is especially focused on putting resources towards climate and the environment, while the 26-year-old is concerned about “racial justice.” 

58岁的里舍说，她24岁的女儿特别注重于将资源用于气候和环境，而26岁的女儿则关注“种族正义”。 

The parents are leading a movement encouraging the wealthy to give away money quicker, with fewer strings attached. “I think there’s definitely a trend for people kind of saying, ‘I don’t think I want this money,’” she says, although concedes it’s “probably pretty niche.” 

这对父母正领导一场运动，鼓励富人更快地捐赠资金，减少附加条件。珍·里舍说：“我认为现在肯定有一种趋势，人们在说，‘我不认为我想要这笔钱。’”尽管她承认这“可能相当小众”。

Shy of giving away the family fortune, some contingent is exploring new ways to direct that money. “Millennials are definitely changing the companies’ practices around labor and compensation and ecological principles,” says Collins, although the dynamics of privately held firms are murky. “We just know that there’s generational negotiating going on within those companies,” he says. 

在不愿意捐出家族财富的情况下，一些人正在探索将这笔钱用于新途径的可能性。尽管私营企业的动态仍不明朗，柯林斯说：“千禧一代肯定正在改变公司在劳工、薪酬和生态原则方面的做法。我们只知道这些公司内部正在进行代际间的谈判。” 

Sometimes, fulfilling their values means striking out independently (though perhaps with family backing). Anani sees a rising trend with “more of them asking, ‘How can I do this and contribute to the family’s legacy while also building out my own career or building out a wider business and building out my activities?’” 

有时，实现他们的价值观意味着独立出击（尽管可能有家族的支持）。尼基·阿纳尼看到了一种上升的趋势，她说：“他们中越来越多的人在问，‘我怎样才能做到这一点，在为家族的传承做出贡献的同时，又能发展自己的职业或扩展更广泛的业务和活动？’” 

There are few “pure philanthropists” writes UBS, based on a survey of 79 clients in its 2023 Billionaire Ambitions Report. But it identifies a widespread “sustainable innovation” trend—putting sustainability at the center of business decisions. The report mentions two German brothers investing in projects such as recycling and green hydrogen production. However, UBS doesn’t name names. (I asked both UBS and Northern Trust if any of their clients would consent to an interview, even anonymously. There were no takers.) 

瑞银集团在其《亿万富豪雄心报告》中，根据对其79名客户的调查写道，“纯粹的慈善家”很少。但报告指出了一种普遍的“可持续创新”趋势，即将可持续发展置于商业决策的中心。该报告提到了两名德国兄弟正在投资于回收利用和绿色氢气生产等项目。然而，瑞银没有透露具体姓名。（作者问过瑞银集团和北方信托公司是否有任何客户同意接受采访，即使是匿名的。没有人接受采访。） 

Whether called climate, sustainability, or environment, concern for the planet is likely the biggest focus for heirs looking to make positive changes. It was the one clear signal in the billionaires survey, says Judy Spalthoff, head of the UBS Family Office Solutions Group (which focuses on ultra-high net worth clients). “Creating companies that have a sustainable edge, investing in companies that have a sustainability focus, things like that—we’re seeing that more and more,” she says. 

无论是气候、可持续发展还是环境，对于希望做出积极改变的继承人来说，对地球的关注可能是最大的焦点。瑞银家族办公室解决方案小组（专注于超高净值客户）负责人朱迪·斯巴尔托夫表示，这是亿万富翁调查中的一个明确信号。她说：“我们越来越多地看到这种情况：创建具有可持续发展优势的公司，投资于注重可持续发展的公司，诸如此类的事情。” 

Collins also sees value in keeping or even putting money into companies that may not be so socially or ecologically forward thinking—to exert pressure from within, such as through shareholder resolutions. Tech billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes (born just two years too early to be a Millennial) has dropped $460 million for a 10% share in AGL, the largest electricity generator and CO2 emitter in his native Australia. That’s allowed him to thwart some of the company’s plans and install four new board members. 

柯林斯也认为，保留甚至投资于可能并不那么社会或生态前瞻的公司也是有价值的，比如通过股东决议等方式从内部施加压力。科技亿万富翁迈克·坎农-布鲁克斯（比千禧世代早两年出生），在他的祖国澳大利亚投资4.6亿美元，购得了AGL公司10%的股份，该公司是澳大利亚最大的发电厂和二氧化碳排放者。这使得他能够阻止该公司的一些计划，并安排了四名新的董事会成员。 

“I think the main argument tends to be in a lot of brown sectors, there needs to be more investment to fund the transition from brown to green,” says Dean Frankle of Boston Consulting Group. He serves as lead for asset and wealth management in the UK, Europe, the Middle East, South America, and Africa. 

迪恩·弗兰克尔是波士顿咨询公司的英国、欧洲、中东、南美和非洲资产与财富管理部门的负责人，他说：“我认为，主要的争论在于许多的棕色产业。它们需要更多的投资，来为从棕色向绿色的过渡提供资金。”

There’s a spectrum of ways that young people are rechanneling their wealth, falling under broad umbrella terms such as social or impact investing. These may include bonds and low-interest loans to companies or projects promising positive social results. “Social and development impact bonds are becoming increasingly mainstream,” says Spalthoff. “They were really, really, really niche for a long time.” 

年轻人正在通过各种方式重新调配他们的财富，这些方式可以归入社会或影响力投资等宽泛的范畴。这些方式可能包括向承诺产生积极社会效果的公司或项目提供债券和低息贷款。朱迪·斯巴尔托夫说：“社会和发展影响力债券正日益成为主流。它们曾经在很长一段时间里都非常、非常、非常小众。” 

“We think of it as investments that are intentionally focused on generating positive and measurable social and environmental impacts, alongside financial returns,” says Tim Freundlich, founder of nonprofit investment firm ImpactAssets. The organization reports over 2,000 clients (many high net worth Millennial and Gen Z heirs) and over $3 billion in assets under management. The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) tallied up 308 impact investors internationally, totaling 371 billion AUM, in its 2023 allocations report. 

非营利性投资公司ImpactAssets的创始人蒂姆·弗赖恩德里奇说：“我们认为，这是一种在获得经济回报的同时，有意专注于产生积极的、可衡量的社会和环境影响力的投资。”该机构拥有2000多名客户（许多是千禧一代和Z世代的高净值继承人），管理着30多亿美元的资产。全球影响力投资网络（GIIN）在其2023年分配报告中统计了全球308家影响力投资机构，总资产管理规模达3710亿美元。 

Not all investing that promises social good requires special effort, especially in the environmental realm. For instance, UBS’s Billionaire Ambitions Report shows plenty of new money going into the green-energy transition—a process already goosed by tax incentives and other funding, including hundreds of billions in the U.S. by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. 

并非所有承诺社会效益的投资都需要特别的努力，尤其是在环保领域。例如，瑞银集团的《亿万富豪雄心报告》显示，有大量新资金正在投入到绿色能源转型中。这一过程已经得到了税收优惠和其他资金的支持，包括美国《2022年通货膨胀削减法案》提供的数千亿资金。 

“An investment about achieving renewable technology is a great investment, as an asset class,” says Frankle. “You’d be missing out if you weren’t seeking to address or seeking to invest in these particular areas.” 

迪恩·弗兰克尔说：“作为一种资产类别，投资于可再生技术是一项很好的投资。如果你不寻求解决或投资于这些特定领域，你就会错失良机。” 

In Bank of America Private Bank’s 2022 Study of Wealthy Americans, 73% of millennials surveyed reported owning some assets that are considered “sustainable investments”—vs. 21% of older participants. 

在美国银行私人银行的《2022年美国富人研究》中，73%的千禧世代受访者表示拥有一些被认为是“可持续投资”的资产，而年长受访者的这一比例仅为21%。 

But impact investing often focuses on causes that are neglected or need an extra nudge, providing what the industry calls catalytic capital. “It’s applied to filling gaps in environmental and social problems in the world,” says Freundlich, “and designing solutions to fill them…that can be a very good risk-adjusted-return investment.” 

但影响力投资往往关注被忽视或需要额外推动的事业，提供业内所称的催化资本。蒂姆·弗赖恩德里奇说：“它被应用于填补世界上的环境和社会问题的空白，并设计出填补这些空白的解决方案......这可能是一项非常好的风险调整回报投资。” 

He names affordable housing. The Federal Community Reinvestment Act requires U.S. financial institutions to support affordable housing in disadvantaged communities (if banks want to maintain good ratings). But projects need to get to a certain stage before the CRA kicks in, says Freundlich. So impact investors have created revolving funds to cover the earlier stages. “That’s something where it really wasn’t that high risk,” he says. “These were really well-tenured, successful community development corporations that had done whole portfolios of projects.” 

弗赖恩德里奇提到了经济适用房。美国的《联邦社区再投资法案》要求美国金融机构为贫困社区的经济适用房提供支持（如果银行想保持良好评级的话）。但弗赖恩德里奇表示，项目需要在达到一定的阶段之后，《联邦社区再投资法案》才能生效。因此，影响力投资者创建了循环基金，以覆盖早期阶段。他说：“这并不是什么高风险项目。这些都是久经考验的、非常成功的社区开发公司，他们已经完成了一系列项目组合。” 

Some experts, such as Anani, do see young heirs’ interests ranging beyond the environment. “I’ve seen climate, I’ve seen education, I’ve seen health, I’ve seen gender. It’s really across the board,” she says. 

一些专家，比如尼基·阿纳尼，确实看到了年轻继承人对环境以外的领域的兴趣。她说：“我看到了气候、教育、健康、性别。这确实是全方位的。”

Frankle sees interest from younger people around cause-based investing, especially on energy and resources—to a point. “I think you will find clients that are very passionate about all these factors,” he says. “But the moment you show them the investment returns, they say, ‘Well, I care about it, but I don’t care about it that much to lose money on it.’” I press him on the notion of losing money. Does it mean negative returns, or just lower returns than with other investments? “I think it’s both,” he says. 

迪恩·弗兰克尔认为年轻人对基于事业的投资表现出了兴趣，尤其是在能源和资源方面，但有一个限度。他说：“我认为，你会发现客户对所有这些因素都充满热情。但是一旦你向他们展示投资回报，他们会说，‘嗯，我很关心这个，但我还没关心到要为此亏钱的程度。’”作者就亏钱的概念向弗兰克尔追问：这是指负回报，还是仅仅比其他投资低的回报？弗兰克尔说：“我认为两者都有。” 

According to the 2023 GIIN report, 74% of impact investors are targeting market-rate returns (others are willing to settle for less, or just keep up with inflation). Seventy-nine percent reported either outperforming or performing in line with their financial expectations; and 88% said they met their “impact” expectations. “Almost 90%, nine out of 10 impact investors, [feel they] are having their impact intentions met,” says Freundlich. “Which is really important because that’s the whole point, right?” 

根据2023年GIIN的报告，74%的影响力投资者以市场回报率为目标（其他投资者愿意接受较低的回报率，或仅仅是跟上通胀）。79%的投资者表示，他们的投资回报超过或符合他们的财务预期；88%的投资者表示，他们达到了“影响力”预期。蒂姆·弗赖恩德里奇说：“几乎90%，10个影响力投资者中有9个（认为）他们的影响力预期得到了实现。这一点非常重要。因为这才是关键所在，不是吗？” 

While it may not be for everyone, the broad movement to social/sustainable/impact investing is creating a demand for financial advice—one that’s not being met. “Their financial advisors aren’t providing it. Their wealth advisors are kind of like, ‘Talk to the hand,’” says Freundlich. 

尽管这种投资并非适合所有人，但社会/可持续/影响力投资的广泛运动，正在创造对金融建议的需求，而这种需求并未得到满足。弗赖恩德里奇说：“他们的财务顾问没有提供这方面的建议。他们的财富顾问有点像是在说‘懒得理你’。” 

“I think the major impediment is often upskilling the relationship managers to be able to feel confident enough to have a conversation on it,” says Frankle. “Because it can become quite technical. And often it’s…outside of their skill set.” Some firms are trying to build this expertise in-house, he says, while others are tapping outside specialists. 

迪恩·弗兰克尔说：“我认为主要的障碍往往在于提高客户经理的技能，使他们能够有足够的信心就此展开对话。因为这可能变得相当技术性。而且通常来说，这超出了他们的技能范围。”弗兰克尔表示，一些公司正试图在内部建立这方面的专业知识，而另一些公司则在寻求外部专家的帮助。

The move to investing in, rather than simply giving to, social good is already nipping at traditional philanthropy. But the ultra-rich are still donating, just in different ways. “The rising generation is not just interested in local impacts, but also these global causes,” says Anani. Risher says that, while their parents gave to hospitals, the arts, or their university, young heirs are thinking harder about what matters to them personally, and these are often more global than local causes. 

对社会公益事业进行投资，而不仅仅是捐赠，这种趋势已经开始侵蚀传统的慈善事业。但超级富豪们仍在捐款，只是方式不同。尼基·阿纳尼说：“正在崛起的一代不仅对当地的影响力感兴趣，还对这些全球性事业感兴趣。”珍·里舍表示，虽然他们的父辈会捐赠给医院、艺术或大学，但年轻的继承人会更多地考虑什么是对他们个人更重要，而这些往往是全球性的，不是地方性的。 

This fits into a more hands-on approach overall. “They don’t just want to write a check. They want to use the human skills of human capital, social capital. They want to be involved in debate,” says Anani. “They want to evaluate the impact and the results that they’re giving on an ongoing basis.” 

这符合总体上更为实践性的方法。阿纳尼说：“他们不只是想写支票。他们想要利用人力资本、社会资本的人事技能。他们希望参与辩论。他们希望持续评估他们所做的贡献的影响力和结果。”

There’s an interesting dichotomy here. Growing up in a tech-rich, data-driven world, some young donors are focused on systemic change and verifiable results, but they may also trust the nitty gritty to the recipients. “They do not want to micromanage those donations as much. There’s a humbleness and a realization that those closest to the causes are able to solve the problems the best,” says Northern Trust’s chief fiduciary officer, Pam Lucina. However, “they still want the data and the accountability, that those are making an impact. And if they don’t make an impact, they’ll be the first to move those donations elsewhere.” 

这里有一个有趣的对立面。一些年轻的捐赠人成长于一个科技发达、数据驱动的世界，他们关注的是系统性变革和可验证的结果，但他们也可能会把细枝末节的事情托付给受捐赠人。北方信托公司的首席受托人官帕姆·卢西娜说：“他们不想对这些捐赠进行过多的微观管理。他们有一种谦逊的态度，并认识到那些最接近问题的人能够最好地解决问题。然而，他们仍然希望获得数据和问责制，以确保这些捐赠产生影响力。如果没有产生影响力，他们会第一时间将捐赠转移到其他地方。” 

Though she’s not a Millennial, MacKenzie Scott keeps coming up in these conversations. The 53-year-old novelist and early Amazon employee exited her marriage to Jeff Bezos in 2019 with over $38 billion in Amazon stock. Since then, she’s given away over $16 billion. (Although with the appreciation of her assets, she still has over $34B, according to Forbes.) 

尽管她不是千禧世代，但麦肯锡·斯科特一直出现在这些对话中。这位53岁的小说家和亚马逊早期员工，于2019年带着超过380亿美元的亚马逊股票退出了与杰夫·贝索斯的婚姻。从那时起，她已经捐出了160多亿美元。(尽管根据福布斯的数据，随着资产的增值，她仍然拥有超过340亿美元的资产。） 

“What a leader in the space,” says Risher. “I love the speed with which she’s given, the amount which she’s given…very community-centered, where the people on the front line know best how to put money to use.” 

珍·里舍说：“她是这一领域的领军人物。我喜欢她捐赠的速度和数额......非常以社区为中心，第一线的人们最了解如何把钱用在刀刃上。”

Another dichotomy, or tension, shows up in the mechanisms for giving away money. Lucina says she’s seeing a trend away from traditional foundations toward donor-advised funds. These charitable investment funds are administered under a nonprofit, but with the donor retaining some influence. A DAF could better embody the active-participant ethos of younger donors. (ImpactAssets’ clients invest through DAFs.) 

另一个分歧，或者说是紧张关系，出现在了捐款机制上。帕姆·卢西娜表示她注意到人们正在远离传统基金会，转向捐赠人建议基金（DAF）。这些慈善投资基金由非营利组织管理，但捐赠人保留一定影响力。DAF可以更好地体现年轻捐赠人的积极参与精神。(ImpactAssets的客户通过DAF进行投资。) 

But DAFs have developed a bad reputation. “The IRS is aware of a number of organizations that appeared to have abused the basic concepts underlying donor-advised funds,” reads the Service’s information page on DAFs. Among the abuses, it lists “questionable charitable deductions,” “impermissible economic benefits to donors and their families,” and improper “management fees for promoters.” 

但是DAF已经形成了不好的名声。美国国税局（IRS）在关于DAF的信息页面上写道：“IRS知道一些组织似乎滥用了DAF背后的基本概念。”在滥用行为中，IRS列举了“可疑的慈善捐赠扣除”，“给捐赠人及其家人带来了不被允许的经济利益”以及不当的“发起者管理费”。 

They’re also just slow to part with money, says Risher. U.S. tax law requires foundations to give away 5% of their net asset value annually; DAF’s have no distribution requirements. “The idea of them is great in the way to streamline and make it easy to give,” she says. “However, there’s no impact requirements. It’s a big problem.” To mobilize donations during the pandemic, she and her husband launched the #HalfMyDAF initiative on May 1, 2020. It provided matching funds to DAFs that gave away half of their assets by September of that year and has had the same terms and timeframes in subsequent years. The project has shaken $50 million loose so far. 

珍·里舍也表示，DAF在分配资金方面也相当缓慢。美国税法要求基金会每年捐出其净资产价值的5％；而DAF没有分配要求。里舍说：“DAF的理念在简化和方便捐赠方面，非常出色。然而它们没有影响力要求。这是一个大问题。”为了在疫情期间动员捐赠，她和她的丈夫于2020年5月1日启动了#HalfMyDAF倡议。该倡议向在当年9月之前捐出一半资产的DAF，提供配捐，并在后续年份采用了相同的条款和时间表。到目前为止，该项目已经筹集了5000万美元。

People across the financial spectrum—from those boosting billionaires to those trying to knock them down—agree that something is afoot among the affluent younger generations. But they don’t agree on the scale of this movement, or how to define it. 

金融界的人士，无论是支持亿万富翁的人，还是试图打击他们的人，都认为富裕的年轻一代正在发生一些事情。但他们并没有就这场运动的规模和定义达成一致。 

“I’d say a good 40% fall into that category,” says Anani of her change-minded clients. Lucina, her Northern Trust colleague, pegs it as larger. “I would say about 75% of our next-gen clients think this is very important,” she says. 

尼基·阿纳尼在谈到她那些改变了想法的客户中，说道：“我会说有大约40%的客户属于这一类别。”阿纳尼在北方信托公司的同事帕姆·卢西娜则认为这个比例更高。她说：“我会说大约75%的下一代客户认为这非常重要。” 

Chuck Collins has a more circumscribed view, noting that many young affluents are lobbying to abolish the estate tax or using charities in an unethical way to avoid other taxes. “It might be just a five or 10% segment,” he says, “that’s not just cheering and popping the champagne cork but thinking critically, reflecting on legacy differently.” But he concedes that his assessment, like all the ones I encountered, is anecdotal. The ultra-wealthy are often ultra-private (Collins cites the UBS Billionaires report, despite it being a small and extra-elite survey, as still one of the most-insightful sources.) 

查克·柯林斯则持有更为局限的观点，他指出许多年轻的富裕阶层正在游说废除遗产税，或者以不道德的方式利用慈善机构来避税。柯林斯说：“可能只有5%或10%的人，他们不只是欢呼雀跃、开香槟庆祝，而是批判性地思考，以不同的方式反思遗产。”但柯林斯承认，他的评估，就像作者遇到的所有其他评估一样，都是以个案为依据的。超级富裕者，往往也是超级私密的（柯林斯引用了瑞银集团的亿万富翁报告，尽管这是一项规模较小、超精英阶层的调查，但仍然是见解最深刻的来源之一）。 

What’s more, people define social consciousness in their own way, from radical to incremental. Activists like Collins and Risher may set the bar higher for transforming wealth distribution and abolishing dynasties. Wealth advisors are looking to positive reforms within the overall economic and financial order. 

更重要的是，人们以自己的方式定义社会意识，从激进的到渐进的。像查克·柯林斯和珍·里舍这样的活动家，可能会为改变财富分配和废除世袭制度设定更高的标准。财富顾问们正在寻求对整体经济和金融秩序的积极改革。 

And some portion is likely just focused on enjoying their riches. “You can chart this with the growth of private jets, the European villas, the cars, the horses, the ranches, the multiple homes,” says Paul Schervish of Boston College. 

而某些人可能只是专注于享受他们的财富。波士顿学院的保罗·舍维什表示：“你可以通过私人飞机、欧洲别墅、汽车、马匹、牧场、多处房产的增长，来衡量这一点。” 

“They are more able to be striking out on their own and more visibly as consumers, jet setters, philanthropists, environmentalists,” he says. “So, whatever their direction of choice, they have been granted greater capacity, both psychological wherewithal and financial wherewithal, both the ability to dream big and…the confidence to achieve it.” 

舍维什说：“他们能够更加独立自主。作为消费者、跨国旅行者、慈善家、环保主义者，他们会更加引人注目。因此，无论他们选择的方向如何，他们都被赋予了更大的能力，无论是心理上的能力还是财务上的能力，以及敢于梦想的能力和实现梦想的信心。”