全球视野 | 慈善捐赠日益金融化：是创新还是初心丧失？

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《DAFs, Wall Street, and the Changing Culture of Giving/捐赠人建议基金、华尔街和不断变化的捐赠文化》发布在慈善纪事报上，作者是Drew Lindsay。这篇文章探讨了华尔街对慈善领域的深远影响，特别是捐赠人建议基金（DAFs）和慈善基金会在捐赠文化中日益主导的地位。文章揭示了DAFs和慈善基金会在现代慈善体系中的双重角色：既提供了资金管理的便利，也引发了关于财富集中和慈善初心丧失的广泛争议。

Wall Street is engineering a not-so-hostile takeover of charity.

华尔街正在对慈善业发起一场“不那么强硬”的接管行动。

That’s the message of a new report that examines the growing assets in donor-advised funds and foundations and the implications for the culture of giving. It projects that by 2028, DAFs and grant makers together will take in half of the dollars donated to charity by individuals. Already, they collect 35 percent. 

这是一份新报告所传达的信息，该报告研究了捐赠人建议基金（DAFs）和基金会不断增长的资产，及其对捐赠文化的影响。报告预测，到2028年，DAFs和拨款机构将吸收个人捐赠给慈善机构资金的一半。而目前这一比例已达到35%。

Assets held by DAFS and foundations will top $2 trillion by 2026, the report says, a warehousing of enormous wealth that benefits a growing array of intermediaries whose processing fees and asset-management commissions siphon off money intended to do good. The result? Altruism, the driving force of charity for centuries, is losing ground to profit motives and donors’ self-interest, the report contends, with philanthropy increasingly structured to benefit business, not charities. 

报告称，到2026年，DAFs和基金会持有的资产将超过2万亿美元，这些存储着的巨额财富会使越来越多的中介机构受益。这些机构通过手续费和资产管理佣金，从本应用于慈善事业的资金中抽取利润。这会造成什么结果？报告认为，几个世纪以来，慈善事业的原动力——利他主义，正逐渐被盈利动机和捐赠人的自身利益所取代。慈善事业的结构越来越有利于商业，而非慈善机构。 

“Philanthropy has become captured by the wealth preservation industry,” declares the report by the Institute for Policy Studies, a critic of DAFs and a proponent for legislation to force DAFs and foundations to distribute more of their assets annually. 

这份由政策研究所（Institute for Policy Studies/IPS）发布的报告宣称：“慈善事业已被财富保值行业所俘虏。”该研究所是DAFs的批评者，并提倡通过立法强制要求DAFs和基金会每年分配更多资产。 

The report is the latest salvo in a long-running debate over whether nonprofits are losing out as charitable giving is conducted through investment-like vehicles often managed by for-profit ventures. Three of the five largest DAF sponsors are nonprofit spinoffs of investment firms: Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard. 

长期以来，人们一直在争论：用通常是由营利性企业管理的投资类工具来进行慈善捐赠，是否会使非营利组织蒙受损失。该报告是这场争论中的最新一击。五家最大的DAFs发起者中，有三家是由投资公司衍生出来的非营利组织：富达/Fidelity、嘉信/Schwab和先锋/Vanguard。 

“We do see a muddying of the boundary between investing and philanthropy,” says Bella DeVaan, associate director of IPS’s Charity Reform Initiative and an author of the report. 

IPS慈善改革倡议副主任、本报告作者贝拉·德万说：“我们确实看到了投资和慈善事业之间的界限在变得模糊。” 

DAFs, DeVaan says, provide extraordinary benefits to everyone but charities. DAF account holders enjoy significant tax advantages, can dispose of illiquid assets quickly, and still decide how to invest the money. Account administrators profit by charging fees on the assets and sometimes the donation transactions. 

德万表示，DAFs为除了慈善组织以外的所有人，都提供了巨大的利益。DAF的账户持有者可以享受显著的税收优惠，可以快速处置非流动性资产，并且仍然可以决定如何投资这些资金。账户管理者则通过对资产收取费用，有时还会对捐赠交易收取费用，来从中获利。 

It may be years, meanwhile, before a donation that has triggered a tax deduction is put to use for the common good. “We just think that the benefits should go down” to charities themselves, DeVaan says. 

与此同时，触发了税收减免的捐赠，可能要在数年后才能用于公益事业。德万说：“我们只是认为，这些利益应该直接流向慈善组织。” 

Earlier IPS research found DAF sponsors that promote benefits for donors such as tax advantages and investment options attract more donations than those that emphasize their charitable purpose and the impact of donating. 

早前的IPS研究发现，比起那些强调慈善目的和捐赠影响力的DAFs发起者，那些宣传可以为捐赠人提供税收优惠和投资选项等好处的DAFs发起者，能够吸引更多的捐赠。 

The new report suggests the growth of limited liability companies and impact investing also contribute to what it calls the increasing “financialization” of charitable giving. It points to a Bank of America study that found the number of high-net-worth families participating in impact investing had doubled over three years, with 40 percent using such investments in lieu of some or all of their charitable giving. 

新的报告认为，有限责任公司和影响力投资的增长，也是慈善捐赠日益“金融化”的原因之一。报告指出，美国银行的一项研究发现，参与影响力投资的高净值家庭数量在三年内翻了一番。其中40%的家庭，用此类投资代替了部分或全部的慈善捐赠。 

Advocates for charity investment vehicles reject the IPS argument and say that treating donations as investments ensures they will have greater impact. Once money is donated to a DAF, it has to go to charity, says Matt Nash, head of the Blackbaud Giving Fund, a DAF sponsor. “It’s OK to try to maximize that money” and its impact. 

慈善投资工具的倡导者反驳了IPS的论点，并表示将捐赠视为投资，可确保其产生更大的影响力。DAFs发起者Blackbaud Giving Fund的负责人马特·纳什表示，一旦钱捐给了DAFs，那就必须用于慈善事业。纳什说：“试图最大限度地利用这笔钱”，并发挥其影响力是可以的。 

Also, DAFs allow donors to be more intentional and strategic in their giving. “I can make the decision to spend those funds in times when people really need it,” like the pandemic, adds Nash, a member of the Generosity Commission’s research task force. 

此外，DAFs使捐赠人能够在捐赠时更加有目的性和战略性。纳什补充道：“我可以决定在人们真正需要帮助的时候，使用这些资金，比如在疫情期间。”纳什是慷慨委员会（Generosity Commission）的研究小组成员。 

Adam Nash, co-founder of the DAF sponsor Daffy, says the funds provide individuals the means and incentive to consistently put aside money for charity and work toward a goal, just like individual-retirement and college-savings accounts. 

DAFs发起者Daffy的联合创始人亚当·纳什表示，这些基金为个人提供了途径和动力，让他们能够像个人退休账户和大学储蓄账户一样，持续为慈善事业留出资金，并为实现目标而努力。 

“It’s fundamentally a good thing for charitable giving for us to take the best practices and benefits that the financial services sector has learned long ago to help people save and meet their financial goals,” Adam Nash says. “If our goal is to get more people to give more money to the causes and organizations doing this work, at some point, putting the money aside for charity is the top of the funnel.” 

亚当·纳什表示：“从本质上来讲，将金融服务行业早已学到的最佳做法和好处应用于慈善捐赠，是一件好事。这些做法帮助人们储蓄并实现他们的财务目标。如果我们的目标，是让更多人捐赠更多资金给那些从事这项工作的事业和组织。那么在某个阶段，将资金预留给慈善事业就是整个过程的起点。”