Spend Now or Forever?
Rethinking the Philanthropy Timeline
When Atlantic Philanthropies closed its doors in 2020, it had given away more than $8 billion over four decades. Its founder, Chuck Feeney, famously wore a $10 watch, flew economy, and gave away his fortune while he was still alive, championing the philosophy of "giving while living." In contrast, the Ford Foundation, established in 1936, continues to operate with a corpus of over $16 billion, granting approximately 5% of its endowment annually to advance social justice for generations to come.
This begs the question: Should philanthropy act with urgency and spend down its resources, or is there merit in building giving strategies that last forever?
Two Roads Diverged in a Generous Wood
In philanthropy, two dominant models shape how wealth is distributed:
Spend-Down Philanthropy: Foundations and donors who plan to deploy all assets within a fixed period, often within their lifetime or by a set sunset date.
Perpetual Philanthropy: Structures that preserve capital, distributing only a small portion of earnings annually to ensure continued giving over generations.
Each model carries distinct motivations, benefits, and risks. Understanding the nuances of both is crucial for philanthropists seeking to leave a meaningful legacy.
The Case for Spending Down
The argument for spending down is often rooted in moral and practical urgency. Why wait when the world is facing immediate crises?
Key proponents and examples:
Chuck Feeney (Atlantic Philanthropies): One of the earliest and most visible advocates for spending down, Feeney directed his foundation to wind up operations by 2020. His approach enabled bold, large-scale interventions in global health, education, and peace-building.
Laurene Powell Jobs (Emerson Collective): While not a formal foundation, the Emerson Collective operates with a philosophy of deploying significant capital now to drive impact across education, immigration, and climate.
Patagonia's founder Yvon Chouinard: In 2022, Chouinard transferred ownership of Patagonia to a trust and nonprofit dedicated to fighting climate change, effectively unlocking billions for present-day environmental activism.
The Skoll Foundation: While not planning to spend down imminently, Skoll has significantly accelerated grantmaking over the past decade to meet urgent global challenges.
Advantages of spend-down:
Delivers impact now
Avoids administrative bloat and mission drift
Enables philanthropists to witness the results of their giving
Risks and challenges:
No capital left for future crises
Pressure on grantees to scale quickly
Requires robust strategy to ensure sustainability post-funding
The Enduring Case for Perpetuity
Perpetual foundations take a long view. They’re built to last, supporting causes consistently and adapting to societal shifts over time.
Examples of perpetual giving:
The Ford Foundation: Grants over $500 million annually while maintaining a corpus that enables continued support for human rights, democracy, and culture.
The Wellcome Trust (UK): One of the largest medical research funders in the world, investing endowment returns to advance global health.
Ian Potter Foundation (Australia): Operates with a traditional perpetual model, ensuring long-term support for Australian arts, science, environment, and health initiatives.
The Myer Foundation and Sidney Myer Fund: Represent enduring family philanthropy in Australia, using perpetual structures to support cultural, environmental, and community causes since 1959.
Benefits of perpetual giving:
Ensures long-term funding stability
Provides intergenerational support
Helps build institutions and fund systemic change over time
Downsides to consider:
Slower response to urgent needs
Can accumulate wealth but slower distribution(s)
Risks becoming disconnected from evolving community priorities NB: The Myer Foundation is a great example of still being able to keep nimble and identifying modern issues that require funding and focus (like climate change)
It's Not Either/Or Anymore
While the debate has historically been framed as binary, many modern philanthropists are embracing hybrid approaches:
The Gates Foundation initially operated as a perpetual entity, but now plans to spend down its endowment by 2063.
Paul Ramsay Foundation (Australia) has chosen to spend down over 30 years, enabling large-scale giving with a time-bound focus.
Trawalla Foundation, led by Carol Schwartz, remains active in debates around feminist and place-based philanthropy, exploring models that prioritise flexibility and responsiveness, even within long-term structures.
Legal and Structural Considerations
From a legal and governance perspective, the structure you choose—Public Ancillary Fund (PuAF), Private Ancillary Fund (PAF), or Charitable Trust—can define how flexible or fixed your timeline is. PAFs, for instance, must distribute at least 5% of assets each year, but are commonly used for perpetual giving. Spend-down models require clear wind-down strategies, beneficiary transition plans, and often a final audit of impact.
What’s Right for You?
As a philanthropy advisor and lawyer, I often encourage clients to ask:
What do I want my legacy to be?
Do I want to see the impact of my giving in my lifetime?
What are the needs of the community or issue I’m trying to serve—short-term intervention or long-term systems change?
There is no right answer. But there is power in being intentional.
Conclusion: Rethink the Timeline
Whether you're considering a family foundation, launching a giving vehicle, or establishing a trust, the question of spend-down vs. perpetuity deserves more than a passing thought.
Your giving timeline isn't just a financial decision—it's a philosophical one. And perhaps, the best legacy is not in how long the money lasts, but how deeply it transforms lives.
What do you think? Should philanthropists give it all away now or preserve resources for future generations? Share your thoughts and subscribe for more insights on strategic giving, ethical fundraising, and building partnerships that matter.