RE: Re:

how did the enriques / connie meeting go?

It was a good discussion.

We have a meeting where they recommend how things should work on 4/29 which is right after I come back from 2 weeks of Spring break.

They are looking at how to structure things. Ideally we wouldn't get involved in a deep way in the tax related issues — even aggressive positions being taking on valuation.

We are basically promising that the silos will be well run. We discussed that we might add a few silos in areas we don't work in like Cancer research or International Education where we would pick someone else and make sure they do a super job. That way the big thematic areas (not religion or culture) that help with equity would mostly be covered.

couldn't agree more. no agressive strategies, would be vastly counterproductive. I would wait on creating new silos until you had input from a donor group, so they feel part of the decision process. just setting it up appropriately so that you can accept bequests on death ( without bells and whistles ) would be a huge benefit to both .

Your idea of getting donor input on what silos we should add is a good one.

We can tell them we are open minded to adding a few and find out from them what they think is missing.

This part of the discussion goes along with the piece where we are telling them how much giving needs to go to the silos.

Let's take a case where someone puts $1B into their DAF. If they had put that into a foundation they would be paying out $50M per year.

If 70% of their giving was going to the silos it would be $35M per year.

In return for us letting them use the silos do we ask that they pay into them at least $100M in the first five years?

We don't want to have no requirement at all. The requirement could be total giving with a minimum percent for the silos or it could just be an amount that needs to go to the silos.