If the aspiration to spend wealth now in hopes of solving or mitigating major problems facing society is the driving reason for spending assets down, why are virtually all of today’s spend-down foundations continuing to make grants that are little different from what they have spent money on in prior years? If the purpose of spending down is to put large amounts of assets to work in the short run in order to achieve greater impact, why are the foundations that are committed to spending down not consistently making the “big bets” that are called for by their theory for spending down? Why are such foundations continuing to do what they’ve been doing but perhaps with an incrementally larger amount of money? Why are they reluctant to adopt new courses of action? Why aren’t they willing to take the risks inherent in betting the farm?
In the next few chapters, we will consider some answers and examine more closely the rationales for spending everything soon rather than providing for the future. Some of those rationales, as we shall see, are based on fear—of losing control, of institutional lethargy, of mission drift—and some on aspirations, like the hope of solving an urgent present-day problem or of achieving something that pays huge future benefits to society or simply the hope of a joyful experience in helping others. All of these rationales are reasonable, to a point. But they are easily overstated and oversimplified. And when that happens, the result can be both disappointing and chastening.