The fluff is important to have a engaged super users. It is also important to get acceptance in certain circles.
It just seems like every wiki results in defensive mod cabals
It's not a bad strategy. I've looked at Wikimedia's financial statements and have no problem giving a small monthly amount to them considering how much value I get from the site.
I certainly prefer my money going to them than to Zuckerberg or Altman or MSFT shareholders.
If you look at revenue vs spend they are net positive by about 7mm last year.
No it wouldn't, because
> the money is still at risk (from a shareholder’s point of view) if something bad happens to the company (lawsuit or market problem).
retained earnings by definition are the accumulation of net incomes, and net income by definition is post tax
what went into the produce the retained earnings (profit) has been taxed
but the retained earnings themselves are not subject to additional taxation (with a few exceptions)
I recently visited Scotland and on a visit to a distillery they mentioned they bought land in the US to grow trees that will make their barrels one day. The trees take over 100 years to grow (if I remember correctly). How is it we can invest ~200 years into a glass of scotch, yet we aren’t willing to take the same care and long term thinking in most other areas.
Even without being around for 1,000 years, I’d think doing this would de-stress and de-risk. Somewhere along way it became a bad thing to have a good, stable, long-lasting business. The only thing that seems to matter now is growth, even if they means instability, stress, excessive risk, and a short stay.
Humans don't live that long, and there's a constant onslaught of fleeting fancies, especially in business (Wikipedia foundation should buy some crypto for it's treasury!)
Tradition is simply brand value to be monetized for most businessmen (to add to your criticism). Just look at scotch whisky and multinational conglomerate acquisitions. They would never plant trees in America, they simply order giant vats used for the strongest PX Sherry to get maximum flavor per euro for their blending process.
[] Indifferent, spoiled rotten progeny seeking maximum return upon inheritance, selling distillery to Seagram's for an immediate gratification windfall fortune.
[] John Cooper VII, the last barrel maker, skill lost at retirement, or Master Cooper VIIth lost savings to Mister Market, or an expensive clandestine affair, extorts 16X per barrel.
[] Seagram's hires brilliant Bill Burr(Breaking Bad car wash business) to pose as EPA agent, threatening federal lawsuit for illegal violation of dumping distillery toxic runoff for past centuries, and/or white oak barrels cause cancer and the distillery has killed victims for hundreds of years.
[] A society grows fallow when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in, while the president's daughter threatens to enforce federal white oak forest's toxic(false, but that's ok!) leaching prosecution if landowners do not immediately purchase a fortune of President altCoin.
In this painfully craven hostile world, Benedictine liqueur would seem to be more durable spirit than any Scotch.
Having a war chest wasn’t going to help any of the retail companies, the technology companies who couldn’t pivot, etc. There is no reason for a company to live forever.
Typically, individuals want to pile up money so that they don't need outside income to keep going, and the shareholders of a "quarterly earnings" company will squeeze the entity to get it for themselves in the form of dividends or higher share-price.
It sounds weird, but this is better for shareholders and the economy (and companies can raise capital as needed down the line) than having all companies hold 3x the cash on the balance sheet.
The argument would be different for a foundation by wikipedia, albeit you still have problems between what the wikipedia management might want (high wages, little accountability) and everyone else.
But the management is aware that the shareholders can apply (direct or indirect) pressure for the money to be used in certain ways. Ultimately the shareholder can sue the management if they think the money is misused.
I always wondered why more companies or organizations didn’t do this. Pile up money during the good years to allow themselves to not need continued outside income to keep going, so they can do what is right instead of compromising their vision for the sake of hitting quarterly earnings. That isn’t to say they can’t keep making money, but do it for the right reasons that will keep the core business around for the long run.