Move Over, 5%, and Let Mission Drive

1. Move Over, 5%, and Let Mission Drive
By Peter Frumkin, Chris Didier and David Klenke
Synopsis
Many donors to private foundations focus on the tax benefits and logistical
questions involved in setting them up and don’t pay as much attention
to the larger question of their missions. Of particular influence is the IRS
requirement that foundations distribute 5% of their net assets to charity each
year. Set by Congress, this arbitrary number dictates the spending policies
and corresponding investment strategy of most foundations. However, donors
may increase the likelihood of the success of their foundation by defining their
mission separately from tax law, creating spend policies that correspond with
those missions while meeting the minimum distribution requirement and,
finally, setting investment strategies that are appropriate for those policies.
Introduction
In May 2009, the two richest men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett,
presided over a confidential dinner meeting of billionaires in New York City.
In June 2010, the true purpose of that meeting was revealed. Gates and
Buffet challenged America’s billionaires to give away the majority of their
wealth to charity – either during their lifetimes or at death – in an effort
called the Giving Pledge. If successful, this effort could raise an estimated
$600 billion and may alter philanthropy for decades to come.
-1-

2. Many wealthy individuals, not To realize the social benefits their
The History of 5%
just billionaires, will likely follow donors seek, foundations must
Prior to 1969, the federal government
had little control over how foundation the example of Gates, Buffet and clearly define their missions, create
funds were used or managed. With countless others before them who spend policies that correspond with
the Tax Reform Act of 1969, Congress have taken philanthropy seriously. those missions and set investment
responded to concerns that had been Most want to solve a social strategies that suit those policies.
raised for decades regarding the size of problem or simply give back to the
assets in foundations and the role they Defining the Mission
communities that fostered their
played in society.
success. Many are also motivated From the start, foundation donors
The act prohibited self-dealing by have appreciated the tax and legal
by income and estate tax rules that
foundations, regulated their grants to
promote charitable giving. Setting implications of philanthropy but
individuals, restricted their ownership
of businesses and limited their up a private foundation, which struggled to pin down what their
involvement in legislation and political provides some measure of control foundations should achieve. We
campaigns. It also taxed foundations during the donor’s lifetime while believe that the one important driver
for the first time and required that creating a family legacy, may be the of this lack of focus on mission is the
they distribute the greater of their preferred giving platform for the IRS requirement to pay out 5% of
total investment income or 6% of their
bulk of these philanthropists. net investment income (see sidebar,
assets to grantees each year. Later
“The History of 5%”). This rule
legislation changed the distribution The tax code encourages charitable
highly influences the spending policy
policy to 5% of a foundation’s net giving in return for special treatment
investment assets. of the foundation and, in turn, the
under the assumption that some
way the assets are invested. What gets
By defining distribution policy, federal social benefit will be realized.
tax law may have unintentionally lost in the focus on the 5% payout
However, the code neither ensures
hijacked foundation spending policy. are the mission of the foundation
that significant social benefits
Because most private foundations base and the shape of the problem being
annual payouts on the 5% threshold
will be achieved or defines what
solved. It is our contention that
today, they may have lost the ability to a social benefit would be. It often
because the rules are defined and
be flexible in the spending policies that comes down to the intent of the
the mission is not, spend policy is
fulfill their missions. donor. Unfortunately, the history
predetermined, investment strategy
of philanthropy is littered with
standardized, and mission becomes
examples in which donor intent
a tertiary thought.
was fuzzy or misinterpreted once
the donor could no longer provide The most successful foundations,
guidance. In cases like these, the however, take the time to do a
results are often disappointing. little soul searching and clearly
define their intentions. Arabella
By focusing on the tax and
Philanthropic Investment Advisors
logistical issues involved in
suggests that a written mission
setting up foundations, lawyers,
statement be developed that reflects
accountants and other advisors
a donor’s values, guides the work of
may put off or ignore the
their foundation and helps others
opportunity to help donors
understand their larger purpose.
define the core missions of their
A mission statement defines the
foundations. Once the foundations
change the donor wishes to see
are up and running, the focus tends
and how it will be achieved.
to shift to managing assets and
complying with IRS guidelines.
-2-

3. The following is an example of a the amount of money was so great
A Focus on Mission
written mission statement: that the foundation needed outsiders
In Chicago, the Steans Foundation
decided to focus its philanthropic “The Sara Hutcheson Foundation’s as well as family members to serve as
energies on fashioning a mission is to ensure that the trustees. It was a decision he would
comprehensive and sustained poorest families are treated with regret for the rest of his life.
intervention in the Lawndale
the respect and dignity all people The next several decades were
neighborhood on the west side of the
city. Lawndale is an area with all the
deserve. We believe that helping filled with many adventures and
problems that can beset a community, women and children is the most misadventures. The “outsiders” led
including violence, high levels of effective way to improve life in the Ford Foundation into areas that
unemployment and poverty, and weak under-served communities.” were well beyond its founder’s vision
schools. Rather than rush in and begin and values. By 1976, Henry Ford II
developing programs and funding
Most donor families have specific
passions that can serve as the basis resigned from the board saying he no
activities, this small family foundation
took a very different route. for foundation goals. If these longer recognized the institution –
passions are not obvious, there are an acrimonious parting between the
They hired an executive director who
professionals, like Arabella, who Ford family and the philanthropy it
had credibility in the community,
having run popular youth programs. can help the family identify their had spawned. In spite of this, many
He was charged with the task of setting goals and define a mission that suits have argued, the Ford Foundation
up a store front office in Lawndale these goals. Taking the time to be has produced significant public
and listening to what residents
thoughtful upfront can alleviate benefits. Still, it may have failed to
thought were the real needs of the achieve the benefits that Henry Ford
neighborhood. Additionally, the Steans
guesswork by others in the future.
had expected.
Foundation hosted a policy conference The story of the Ford Foundation
on urban poverty to learn about offers a well-documented example of Creating a Spend Policy
approaches that had been tried and
what can happen when the charitable Once a foundation clearly defines
studied in other neighborhoods. As the
Foundation became more confident
mission is open to interpretation. In its mission, it can more successfully
about its ability to assess and respond 1936, shortly after Congress raised create a spend policy with a payout
to the neighborhood’s true needs, it the top estate tax rate above 70%, rate that supports that mission.
began to fashion a broad program Henry Ford sought to protect his There are three primary issues that
aimed at assisting residents. family’s control of the Ford Motor influence this rate:
Because it was a relatively new player Company by creating the Ford
in the nonprofit scene, the Steans Effectiveness – whether an
Foundation. When Henry Ford
Foundation began by listening to accelerated payout will help to
died in 1947, the Ford Foundation
the community and then sought resolve a social issue sooner, or just
received 95% of the economic interest
out partners to aid in its work. The use up funds that may be more
focus of it mission, which was a single
in the Ford Motor Company while
greatly needed down the road
neighborhood, never changed. By his family maintained voting control.
taking their time to understand how Generational equity – whether an
From the outset, Ford’s grandson,
to best match their spending policy accelerated payout can help to even
Henry Ford II, decided that the
with their mission they increased their out the relative benefits and tax
chance of success.
family would not try to control the
burdens of different generations
(continued) foundation. Although Henry Ford II
was chairman of the board of both Values expression – whether donors
the Ford Motor Company and the want to see their goals fulfilled
Ford Foundation, he believed that during their lifetimes or in perpetuity
-3-

4. Effectiveness problem a donor wishes to solve.
(continued from previous page)
Consider how a foundation might This requires an understanding of
The Steans Foundation
Mission Statement: address environmental problems the degree to which the problem is
versus curing polio. Plotting likely to increase, decrease, or stay
“ The Steans Family Foundation
concentrates its grant making environmental problems over time the same.
and programs in North Lawndale, would create a relatively steep Generational Equity
a revitalizing neighborhood on ascending curve (Figure 1) that
Chicago’s west side. By dedicating Foundation payout rates also have
represents increases in greenhouse
time, money, and skills, this serious fairness implications –
small family foundation works in
gases, air and water pollution, and other
especially given the exponential
partnership with local residents and global indicators of environmental
growth in philanthropic assets that is
institutions to build and enhance distress. Plotting the progression of
expected in coming decades. When
the North Lawndale community. polio over time would produce a
The Foundation’s work supports the donors fund private foundations,
downward slope, as the number of
idea that effective revitalization can they receive current tax benefits.
children victimized is projected to
occur within the embedded social Because these benefits reduce tax
drop precipitously. As you can see
and economic networks that create revenue, they decrease government
and sustain communities.” below, the “shapes” of these issues
resources for current social programs.
are quite different.
If a foundation exists in perpetuity,
Giving away larger amounts of future generations will receive
money in the short and near term, benefits, but the generation that
as Gates and Buffet have urged with experienced the lost tax revenue may
the Giving Pledge, may make it easier not. Although there is no moral or
to cure social problems rather than legal obligation to use money earned
merely treat their symptoms. in one generation to benefit the same
To determine the effectiveness of generation, some donors want to
such a strategy, one must understand return some of their wealth to the
the shape of the specific social generation that helped them earn it.
FIGURE 1:
Projected Severity, Over Time, of Environmental Issues and Polio
Relative
severity
of social Global
problem environment
Polio
Time
Source: Xxxxxx Xxxxxx
-4-

5. Making a Difference Values Expression Long-Term Missions
Donors who want to “do something Current spending strategies may be Donors that fund long-term missions
bold, break new ground, and address particularly attractive to donors who have concluded that their funds have
the root cause of an issue” must take
wish to participate fully in the act a greater effectiveness in the future
the time to thoroughly research their
missions, says Curtis Meadows Jr.,
of giving. They may also alleviate than they would have today. Warren
past president and director emeritus concern about having others make Buffett, who continues to control
of the Dallas-based Meadows decisions about donors’ gifts after Berkshire Hathaway, seems a good
Foundation. “If they care about how they’re gone. example of such donors.
their money is spent, they have to
There is little doubt that donors Achieving sufficient returns over
get involved up front.”
who spend the bulk of their wealth time will likely involve more risk,
Meadows, an attorney who also
while still alive ensure that their however. For long-term missions, it
advises other charitable foundations,
notes that “the biggest problem in
philanthropy is animated by their is appropriate to seek a rate of return
being effective is time.” Some donors specific passions – convictions that maintains the corpus (core
who’ve spent their lives making money that professional foundation assets) over time. The 5% minimum
don’t want to be the driving force in managers may not share. Having set by the IRS may make this effort
their philanthropy. the philanthropic principals, rather more challenging. To meet the IRS
“People do care,” he says. “They just than their agents, make the actual requirement, a foundation must earn
don’t always recognize that disposing gifts is also the best way to ensure at least 5% just to stay even. Larger
of wealth wisely requires the same
that philanthropy’s unique voice distributions require higher returns
effort as creating that wealth. If a
continues to be heard in the public and, typically, greater risk.
donor has strong feelings about the
mission of the foundation, there is sphere in ways that are different and When the Economic Recovery Tax
no one better suited to carrying out less constrained than the voices of Act of 1981 set the payout minimum
that desire.” government agencies. at 5%, the 10-year Treasury (which
The Meadows Foundation, a perpetual
Setting an Investment Strategy many would consider a “risk-free”
institution, has a very simple mission: investment) was yielding about 15%.
benefitting the people of Texas. Still, Once a foundation establishes its Given current yields, a foundation
“the trustees have been carefully mission and creates a spend policy
trained in applying the vision of the
must thus take much greater risk
based on the shape of the problem,
founder in an ever-changing world,” today to reach the 5% threshold
it must design an investment strategy
Meadows says. (and avoid invading its corpus) than
to support the spend policy. While when the law was written. Greater
foundation missions are as unique as risk means investing in instruments
their donors, they can be placed in that have higher volatility and the
three primary categories: potential for large losses.
• Long-term missions In seeking higher returns, a
• Short-term missions foundation may actually find itself
• Long-term missions with with less money to give away when
inflection points
-5-

6. losses occur. Table 1 below shows In the 1980s and 1990s, foundations
four portfolios that invest $100 minimized the impact of volatility
million over two years at different on returns by using modern portfolio
rates of return. Assuming no interim theory to allocate investments to
distributions, all the portfolios end cash, bonds, and stocks. They still
up with the same arithmetic average experienced significant volatility,
return. (See the Average Returns however. Following the volatile
column.) However, Portfolios C markets of 2000–2002, more
and D, which have lower volatility, embraced the “endowment model”
end Year 2 with $3 million more of investing.
than Portfolios A and B, which have Made popular by foundations at
higher volatility. (See Assumption Yale and Harvard, the endowment
#1 column.) approach seeks to lessen volatility by
Now assume Portfolios A through D allocating significant assets to non-
represent four foundations that must public, illiquid markets. Typically,
make distributions. Each commits fixed-income investments are
to paying $5 million at the end of replaced with market-neutral hedge
each year for two years. Once again, funds. Equities are replaced with
volatility matters. Portfolios C and private equity funds, venture capital
D have more money at the end of funds, and real estate. Because there
Year 2 than Portfolios A and B (see may be times (such as 2008) when
Assumption #2 column). It is also most asset classes decreased in value
clear that the timing of returns matter at the same time, this strategy is most
when distributions are introduced. appropriate for foundations with
Portfolios A and C, which have longer spending horizons that will
negative returns in Year 1, both give their investments enough time
end Year 2 with less money than to normalize in price. Even with a
Portfolios B and D, which have longer-term horizon, a foundation
negative returns in Year 2. must maintain an appropriate level
of liquidity to meet the IRS
distribution requirements.
TABLE 1
Short-Term Missions
Portfolio Returns Initial Capital Ending Capital – Year 2
An endowment strategy becomes
Assumption #1 Assumption #2
less appropriate for short-term
Year 1 Year 2 Average* No Distributions Annual $5M Distributions missions because a financial crisis
A -20% 20% 0% $100 $96 $85 could cause the riskier assets to
decrease in value simultaneously
B 20% -20% 0% $100 $96 $87
and for potentially long periods of
C -10% 10% 0% $100 $99 $89 time. Foundations with shorter time
horizons should thus invest primarily
D 10% -10% 0% $100 $99 $90
in less risky, lower-return assets such
as cash equivalents and bonds, with
perhaps a minor amount allocated
to liquid equities.
-6-

7. Unfortunately, not all shorter-term In 1991, the foundation’s board
The Beldon Fund
foundations take this approach. sensed an inflection point in
The Beldon Fund was created by
John Hunting in 1982 as a national In 1999, Steven Kirsch created their cause. Despite significant
foundation committed to promoting the Steven and Michele Kirsch technological advancements
sound environmental policies. In 1998, Foundation and endowed it with in the 1980s, few universities
Beldon received a major infusion of $50 million. He set a relatively had biomedical engineering
money from the sale of Hunting’s stock high payout rate of 10% to departments. The foundation
in the Steelcase Company. Hunting
12%, indicating a commitment decided it could have a greater
set his foundation on a new course
by deciding to spend all its principal
to making a difference sooner impact by spending its assets down
and earnings over the next 10 years rather than later. The foundation’s than by continuing in perpetuity.
on efforts that would build a national board invested 90% of the assets It then fully distributed its assets
consensus for achieving and sustaining in high-tech stocks – the same over the next 14 years.1
a healthy planet.* investment from which Mr. Kirsch Foundations that have long-term
Foundations with short-term missions, had earned the wealth that made missions with inflection points can
like Beldon, conclude that the present his gift possible. When the dot-com combine the endowment method
value (discount rate) of future cash flow bubble burst, the foundation’s assets
is greater than the return they could with short-term portfolio strategies.
plunged to $9.2 million. Clearly How far they stray from the
earn on financial assets. Because these
foundations believe their effectiveness
the foundation’s funding status endowment approach will depend
is greatest in the short term, their would no longer allow Mr. Kirsch on the frequency and magnitude
investment goals should thus focus on to make the difference he perhaps of the expected inflection points.
preserving the wealth that they expect had planned.1 The greater the frequency and/or
to disburse.
Long-Term Missions With magnitude, the more they should
Inflection Points depend on shorter-term strategies.
* Beldon Fund, “Giving While Living:
The Beldon Fund Spend-Out Story,” 2009. Many foundations with long-term No matter what time horizon a
missions recognize that near-term foundation chooses, it is important
opportunities to increase benefits to correlate investment strategy
may arise from time to time. The with mission. For example, assume
HKH Foundation strives to protect a hypothetical foundation seeks
civil liberties and the environment, to maintain and protect the Gulf
which most would see as a long- of Mexico and splits its portfolio
term mission. During the 2004 evenly between non-traditional
election, however, HKH saw a equities and bonds, which are
short-term opportunity for using a considered to be less risky. The
large payout to make a significant values of these two types of
impact. With the potential to be investments would appear, at least
highly effective during this window on the surface, to have relatively
of time, HKH disbursed funds low correlation with each other.
beyond its typical 5% target.2 But what if both the bond and
Another example is the Whitaker equity allocations had a heavy
Foundation, created in 1975 weighting in energy companies?
by Uncas Whitaker to pioneer Suddenly, the BP oil rig accident
advances in biomedical engineering. of 2010 occurs, and charitable
1
Deanne Stone, “Alternatives to Perpetuity: A Conversation that Every Foundation Should Have,” 2005.
2
http://www.ncg.org/s_ncg/bin.asp?CID=9349&DID=24751&DOC=FILE.PDF
-7-

8. demands on the foundation rise Foundations should consider both
dramatically. Because the accident liquidity and portfolio correlation
was caused by an energy company, when contemplating a program-
all investments in that industry are related investment (PRI). With PRIs,
punished. The energy bonds decrease foundations use their investment
in value – as do the non-traditional portfolio to provide capital through
investments, which cannot be equity investments or loans directly
liquidated. At a time when the need to the non-profit organizations
is greatest, the foundation’s capacity they support on preferred terms.
to help is reduced because its These strategies include private
investment portfolio correlates equity or loan funds (partnerships)
too closely with its mission. that provide diversification while
complementing a foundation’s
Distribution Challenges With overall mission. Generally, PRIs are
the Endowment Approach illiquid and highly correlated to the
While using non-traditional foundation’s mission. As a result,
investments can smooth out volatility, even though they don’t count when
they generally have lock-up periods considering net investment assets
on the front end and limited and the minimum distribution
liquidation windows. This can keep requirement, the more liquid portion
a foundation from accessing the of the total investment portfolio
funds it needs. still must be managed differently to
Assume a foundation with $100 provide the flexibility and the return
million splits its investments evenly the foundation needs to achieve the
between traditional and non- rest of its mission.
traditional vehicles. To make grants, Factoring Taxes Into Returns
it must raid the traditional portfolio,
where the only liquidity exists. Over While tax savings is often a major
time, if not carefully monitored, the force behind the establishment of
investment mix becomes more heavily a private foundation, once up and
weighted toward the non-traditional, running, they can be overlooked.
less liquid investments. If a financial Currently, there is a 2% maximum
crisis strikes before corrective excise tax on the net investment
measures are taken, the foundation income (including capital gains)
may find itself in a liquidity bind of private tax-exempt foundations.
However, the rate was historically
and be forced to sell illiquid assets at
higher. The Tax Reform Act of 1969
drastically reduced values. This was
first imposed this tax at a rate of 4%.
the experience of many who followed Given that the IRS now claims that
the endowment model during the the tax does not raise enough revenue
financial crisis of 2008. Because of to cover audit and compliance costs,
this experience, many will likely adjust Congress could decide to raise the
that model to make more room for rate in the future.
cash or equivalents.
-8-

9. Regardless of the rate, foundations
Case Study: Matching Investment Strategy to Mission
can reduce the impact of this tax by
Mike and Linda Smith set up a $100 million, Texas-based family foundation prior to the
matching capital gains and losses.
partial sale of their business to support local inner-city educational programs. Their goal
was to give back to a community that had helped them and their family and make a
During the financial crisis of 2008,
difference in the lives of those less fortunate than themselves. most foundations saw the value
of their assets decline. Many then
The Smiths worked with their advisors to set up a structure that would handle
realized those losses in 2009 as
administrative tasks, grant making and investment management for the foundation.
Their investment strategy was built on traditional asset allocation concepts and the
they made distributions or adjusted
Endowment Model popularized by major universities like Yale and Harvard. Anxious
their investment strategies. Unlike
to make an immediate impact, they quickly made several very large grants and easily individuals, however, they could
exceeded the 5% annual payout rate used by many private foundations. not carry the losses forward to offset
gains in future years. If a foundation
With the financial crisis of 2008, the foundation’s assets declined substantially at the
same time that the needs of organizations it served grew dramatically. This strain caused
recognizes $50 million in gains in
significant concern for the Smiths and their advisors. In February of 2009, their primary the year following a loss, it pays the
investment advisor was asked to update an analysis of spending policy that been 2% tax on those gains (or $100,000).
completed shortly before the crisis. If the foundation claims the $50
The original analysis had yielded the following conclusions:
million gain and the $50 million loss
in the same year, it would eliminate
• Spend policy, like any planning, requires flexibility.
the $100,000 tax.
• Spend policy should also relate to the foundation’s time horizon.
Staying True to the
• This time horizon is a function of the purpose of the foundation and the expected role,
Long-Term Mission
if any, of future generations.
• Asset liquidity should match both horizon and spending policy.
Preserving a donor’s intent over
time requires accountability systems
• A foundation’s “return” on giving, while difficult to measure, must be considered.
that help to preserve a foundation’s
Upon revisiting the foundation’s spend policy seven months later, these conclusions mission once the donor is no
helped improve both the spend policy and the investment strategy. The Smiths and their longer on the scene. Some donors
advisors had realized that their original investment strategy had too many moving pieces try to maintain control and avoid
to provide the flexibility they required. Multiple advisors, essentially doing the same thing,
mission drift by specifying that
had not provided additional diversification, just additional complexity – making it difficult
family members, long-time business
to make changes efficiently. Even rebalancing the foundation’s investment portfolio had
associates, attorneys, and other
become an overwhelming task.
influential members of the local
Just as importantly, the Smiths zeroed in on what they wanted their foundation to community serve as trustees. Others
accomplish and the role that their children might eventually play. Because this had not define the selection criteria for
been clear at the beginning, the foundation had, by default, ended up with an asset naming trustees in the future. But
allocation designed for a long-term horizon that included many illiquid investments. most donors rarely foresee how the
As other foundations that follow the endowment model had found, a lack of liquidity tension between time and mission
can be a serious problem during a financial crisis. will play out.
Examples of mission conflicts after
a donor dies are legendary and
numerous. One of the most high-
profile disputes has pitted the friends
and associates of Milton Hershey
against each other in a struggle for
control of the chocolate magnate’s
philanthropic legacy.
-9-

10. In the Pennsylvania town bearing his created a major division within the
name, Milton Hershey endowed a community. Some argued that the
school for orphans. Today, the school creation of a research institute, far
serves 1,500 students, mostly from from allowing the school to help
single-parent families – not orphans. more children, abandoned the real
The school’s endowment, now at values and commitments of the
more than $5 billion, is greater than Hershey family. The battle led to
all but a small number of private court cases and ultimately went to
universities in the country. With the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
about 650 full-time employees, the in 2003. The Court decided to let
school spends more than $60,000 the state attorney’s office mediate
per student each year. It is located on between the embittered sides. The
a plush campus with a new library, dispute has quieted down for the
arts center, swimming pools, and moment as both sides are focused on
the latest technology. Given these celebrating the school’s centennial.
substantial expenditures, some Choosing between current giving
alumni and community members and the slow disbursal of funds in
believed the school should expand its perpetuity is ultimately a personal
mission rather than spending lavishly choice for donors that has profound
on new facilities. implications for the organizations
The school’s leadership created and individuals that benefit from
significant controversy in 1999, their gifts. One thing is certain,
however, when it proposed a foray however: treating time as something
into research and training related complex and contingent – rather
to educating needy children. To than simply accepting perpetuity as
make this important shift in the default – is critical to fulfilling
priorities, the school took the philanthropy’s goal.
unusual step of going to probate
Conclusion
court to seek permission to divert
$25 million to the construction of It is up to donors and their advisors
a Catherine Hershey Institute for to shift the focus from the tax
Learning and Development and benefits to the larger question of
use additional funds to support its missions. Once mission is defined,
future operating budget. appropriate spend policies that
correspond with those missions and
The school’s board had to show
investment strategies will follow.
that it was unable to use the funds
By putting “mission” in the driver’s
left to the school efficiently and
seat, donors may have a better shot
that the modification sought was in
at getting to where they want to go
keeping with the general charitable
with their philanthropic efforts.
intent of the Hershey’s. The move
- 10 -

11. ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Peter Frumkin is a professor of public affairs and director of the RGK Center for
Philanthropy and Community Service at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public
Affairs, University of Texas at Austin. His research and teaching focus on social
entrepreneurship and philanthropy. Frumkin is the author of numerous articles
on all aspects of philanthropy, and has lectured on philanthropy at meetings of
grant makers across the country. You can contact Peter at 512-232-7062.
Christopher G. Didier is a managing director of the Baird Family Wealth Group.
He holds an MBA from the University of Chicago and is a CFA Charterholder. Chris
was named to Worth magazine’s “Top 100 Wealth Advisors” in 2007.
David A. Klenke is a vice president with the Baird Family Wealth Group. He holds
an undergraduate degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is a CFA
Charterholder, a CPA, and a CFP® professional.
The Baird Family Wealth Group is a multi-family office committed to providing
customized and comprehensive wealth management services to business owners
or executives with at least $25 million in investable assets. Baird Family Wealth
Group has offices in Milwaukee, Wis., and Dallas, Texas. You can contact Chris at
414-765-7095 or Dave at 414-298-7434.
The opinions in this article are those of the writers and not Robert W. Baird & Co. Robert W. Baird & Co. does not
provide tax or legal advice.
Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. owns the certification marks CFP®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL
PLANNER™ and federally registered in the U.S., which it awards to individuals who successfully complete
CFP Board’s initial and ongoing certification requirement.
- 11 -
© 2010 Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated. baird.com 800-RW-BAIRD First use: 9/10. MC-30835.