One of the most interesting parts of this is the choice to make Holdfast a C4. They really wanted to make this a political organization, and were willing to forgo a staggering amount of tax savings - in fact, $17m in tax donating away a $3b asset. Probably the least effective estate planning from a raw $ perspective in history.
Major props to the family for doing this - this is now the definition of "putting your money where your mouth is", and I hope this model is a success and serves as a template for others to follow.
> they really embody this notion that every billionaire is a policy failure.
If only more people realised this. Instead we do the opposite and worship the system which make them happen.
Very inspiring overall. I've always heard good things about the company but never knew of the founder. There's something about seeing one carry such dignified ideals throughout their life, without wavering to societal expectations, that is so admirable.
They created a company that people willingly buy over $1 billion of product from every year. Why shouldn’t creating that much value in the world result in the owners collectively benefiting? If that happens to be a million different people each having a $1000 stake or 1 family having a $1B stake, I don’t have a problem thinking that either is a valid outcome.
IMO, we should look at the value created and celebrate that rather than jealously fret over the concentration of the number of people who own it.
To be clear: I think what they did is admirable on both the building and the recent transaction. I respect them greatly for both parts.
I think it’s very interesting to see Americans are starting to realize that having the most million and billionaires is actually not a good thing for a society.
Those people got that rich by profiting wildly off the backs of others labor, instead of increasing the wealth and quality of life for everyone.
Countries like Australia and Norway don’t have many wildly rich people, and they also have very few extremely poor people.
I don’t think so. The very rich can really try things and build industries that we wouldn’t be able to do otherwise. Elon musk wouldn’t have been able to do anything he did without the money from PayPal. Same thing with the Rockefellers and the Hearsts in the early 20th century.
Apologies if this is an unpopular thing to ask -- but is a very wealthy person giving away his/her wealth to be held in trust in perpetuity (to accomplish some mission) an unambiguously good thing? Separate the question from this particular story today, that is not my intention to poke at specifically.
One thing I can see with wealth being transferred among generations, between actual people, is that people can die and their ideas (especially bad ones) can die with them. Even if the wealth is redistributed and misspent, it ends and turns over to someone else. New ideas and purposes for the wealth can take their place.
On the other hand, when a trust/foundation holds wealth, putatively forever, their mission might turn out not to be productive, or even good. I think of certain examples of charities which, by their holdings and activities, keep certain things in status quo and unable to change, which we would sometimes like to leave behind.
All this wealth transferring to entities that will not die and pass on their fortunes to other purposes. What does this cause in the long run that we haven't anticipated?
Like many things that are on my mind, our system is not just about incentivizing the good, but avoiding the inadvertent bad.
It's not really a concern so long as they are engaged in nonzero economic activity, in which case no money is permanently trapped within the vehicle. Money flows continuously in an economy and is only at rest in certain places such as bank reserves, mattresses, etc. But there is a very low incentive for it to remain at rest because our monetary system is inflationary. It certainly can be channeled into inefficient or unproductive economic activity (and often is), but the system ultimately keeps moving.
To get more concrete, if you have a charitable trust of the kind described in this article, then it will pay out salaries to employees and purchase various kinds goods and services. The recipients of those money flows will in turn put that money to work for their own ends: supporting a family with food, shelter, etc, paying other employees further along the value chain, acquiring other goods and services, and so on.
If someone accumulates this much wealth, they are well within their right to put it to work however they please. And doing so does not induce some permanent dysfunction in the system. In this case, I would argue that what the Patagonia founder has done is immensely commendable.
Good point. I really like how the quote in article itself frames it: "this notion that every billionaire is a policy failure".
I think wealth shouldn't have gotten concentrated to this degree in the first place. It's a structural failure that individuals can end up with control over that much money. If the economy was a software simulation, we'd call it buggy because it's clearly gotten some unbalanced positive feedback loops that lead to an unstable simulation.
But the system does have those bugs, and the wealth is concentrated today. So, relative to the other options (which is what every choice in life is), I think putting it in a trust is probably better for society than keeping it in the hands of the family.
Is a person swinging a hammer a good or bad situation? Depends on what they are swinging the hammer at.
Lots of people who are cheering this move by Chouinard probably have less kind things to say about Charles Koch, who has taken a lot of the wealth his private company has created and used it to fund nonprofits that promote causes typically aligned with conservative politics.
Opinions on this sort of thing typically align more with values than tactics.
I will say this is not a new thing, the great tycoons of 100 years ago created nonprofits too, some of which are still going strong. For example:
While the institutions may endure, the people running them do not, so it is possible for the mission to evolve with the surrounding culture. Doesn’t mean you will necessarily agree with them, though, even over time.
If your ideas are abstract and roughly "climate isn't fucked" they seem pretty perennial. They're also open to interpretation.
That said, sure, lots of periods in history would've produced trusts that are truly appalling. Something to be addressed case by case, for now, though, and collective social will can always disolve what is ultimately a social contract.
At least in this particular case it's not necessarily a perpetuity; the funding of the C4 is entirely reliant on Patagonia's profits; if people decide that the outcome is undesirable they can just boycott Patagonia.
A good question worth considering, IMO. Take the Susan G. Komen Foundation as a present-day example of a foundation that, although founded with a righteous cause in mind, has (in some folks' estimation) lost its way, and/or become a somewhat negative force on cancer treatment, women's health, and charity efforts generally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure#Co...
Of course for a foundation that relies heavily on continuing donations, the "market" (so to speak, in this case arranged for the generation of social good) can send a corrective signal by cutting donations. For a completely self-sustaining trust, it stands to reason that society would have little chance to "fix" a wayward organization.
You are completely right. For example, the Tories in the UK now receive more donations from dead donors than living ones. How crazy is that?
Many of these structures, like trusts, take on a life of their own which is parasitic to the general public. Ergo they should not exist, or at least they should not be allowed to be political far into the future.
It could be, but the greater risk is that the children squander the wealth or divert it from its original purpose (assuming the original purpose was a good one), which I'd say from history is more likely to be the case. It also avoids a huge legal battle between heirs and other parties trying to grab pieces, again wasting much of it on lawyers etc.
I think it's generally a good thing, when you look at what rich people do with their money otherwise. There is definitely a risk of what you describe, but there have also been many good things funded this way, and I think on balance it's been strongly positive.
> when a trust/foundation holds wealth, putatively forever, their mission might turn out not to be productive, or even good
Now apply the same reasoning to corporations, which are also immortal and which (over time, since the abandonment of binding charters) are even less likely to pursue any goal except profit.
This is why the Rule Against Perpetuities[1] exists which limits the existence of a trust to a life in being plus 21 years. There are various flavors of the rule with plenty of exceptions and longer waiting periods after the last existing life-in-being depending on the jurisdiction. I believe charitable trusts are usually exempt. Matt Levine has written about the “SPY kids”[2] used when the ETF was formed.
"As the company grew and became more successful, Bob found himself fending off one offer after another–large corporations that wanted to buy Bob’s Red Mill. But even though it would be immensely profitable for himself, Bob didn’t want to go down that road. After reviewing several options, Bob debuted an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) on his 81st birthday and announced that everyone would become an employee-owner, with a goal for Bob’s Red Mill to become 100% employee owned."
I don't know anything about how these things work, but I like they way Bob's Red Mill did it.
The employee ownership model is quite different than what Patagonia has done here, but it's still a powerful and useful way to organize a company and try to make it more equitable for those who work there.
A magazine for my home state did the same thing that Bob's did, upon the founder's retirement at a similar age. [0]
The Publix supermarket chain is also employee owned, outside of the founders [1].
Mondragon is a massive employee owned conglomerate that was recently on the front page of HN [2]
It serves as a reminder that we don't need billionaires to have nice things. Any company could be organized this way; the fact that they are not is a misfeature of our systems past and present.
In fact, you could reorganize every company to be like this, today, but you would encounter a whole lot of angry billionaires and the people they train to be angry on their behalf.
In the past 15+ years, I've never bought a piece of clothing, even the so-called "performance wear", that's not made from natural fibers - such as cotton, wool, linen. I am not sure about bamboo fibers - they are heavily processed and mostly in countries with less control. Looking into how much junk the dryer collects after drying plastic wear is enough for a person with a brain to stop buying those unhealthy and not eco-friendly clothes! All the microplastics goes into the environment - locally or deep in nature - and includes your lungs and digestive tract. Wearing plastic clothes at home is the worst - there are enough studies showing you inhale the plastic particles, and they start corrupting your health slowly but surely! The so called "fleece" to me is horrific comparable only to glitter! I can't believe that this is the type of material most kids love, and we make sure their lungs are full of it from an early age! Even scarier is the new trend of recycled plastics used for stuff that touches your skin or stays in your home! Who guarantees that the plastics are not containing micro toxins such as heavy metals, or compounds that could be released in time?! I am not hijacking the topic - brands such as Patagonia and Prana should be avoided, not glorified!
I'm currently reading Yvon's book "Let my people go surfing"[^1] and so far, I can highly recommend it.
The first, shorter half, is about how Patagonia grew, which is interesting from an entrepreneurial point of view. The second half is about their philosophies and contains a lot of wisdom on creating great, lasting products.
In my opinion, Patagonia's recent non-profit restructuring is one of few corporate arrangements that BESTS the Indian conglomerate TaTa's donation strategy; at TaTa, by corporate structuring/design/ownership, 2/3rds of all profits are donated to vetted non-profits.
The TaTa cousins (not actual name: the people running it) are able to keep a Top-100 marketcap entity functional with just a third of the profits. IMHO companies are definitely entitled to profits, when earned, but employees should be involved in some sort of profit-/ownership- sharing arrangement, perhaps after limited vesting periods.
MAD RESPECT TO PATAGONIA! I'll add their products to my Paul Newman's Own list (i.e. products where all/most profits are donated to charities, even if the price is higher [as long as quality/reputation is maintained]).
Patagonia mostly sells fossil fuel based products (polyester, etc). The idea of reserving all profits from such a company towards fighting climate change just makes sense to me.
We live in a fossil fuel based economy; the profit from fossil fuel based companies should be reinvested towards transitioning away from fossil fuels. This just makes sense.
I doubt more companies will follow suit, but if they do, that would be a sign of hope for the world. (Imagine, for example, if all the major oil extraction companies dedicated most of their profits to genuinely fighting climate change.)
edit: I've never gotten downvotes so quickly on a post. I don't mind downvotes, but would appreciate a thoughtful reply in response. Thank you. :)
Thousands of clothing items are an insignificant usage of oil; you are emptying a swimming pool into the ocean in South Africa and looking for sea level rise in Japan. Focusing on that misses core problems, but it does make good marketing and companies _exploit the hell out of that_ to see products. Spoken in plain language: It wouldn't make a difference even if all of Patagonia's clothes were made from bamboo. This is the simple science of the situation, yet people _vacuum_ this greenwashing marketing BS up like hotcakes.
Curbing emissions from power generation is the #1 most effective way to reduce c02 and we have the answers right now: Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and battery storage.
A few thousand jackets are a waste of time and is detrimental to causes that actually matter.
>"We live in a fossil fuel based economy; the profit from fossil fuel based companies should be reinvested towards transitioning away from fossil fuels. This just makes sense."
These sentences seem like a non-sequitur to me, I'm not sure you're wrong, but why? Is it because transitioning away from fossil fuels is your top priority? If so, why?
I'm more concerned about plastic fibers getting into the air via laundering (or simply regular activity of wearing them and little bits of plastic occasionally coming loose) than I am about the use of oil in the clothing.
I believe there should be more restrictions on the use of plastic in society, seeing as "Plastic Fibers Are Found in 83% of the World's Tap Water, a New Study Reveals"[1]
Polyester products sequester oil that might otherwise be burned, releasing carbon. Disposing of them appropriately is important, but that holds true for any article of clothing -- sea turtles don't like to choke on rubber or wool either!
Maybe the plastic garments are somehow more visible or well known, but I can assure you that they sell plenty of natural fiber clothing as well. Their hemp cotton blend is second to none in the summer heat.
They have been supporting grassroots environmental activists for a very long time. Back in the mid-90s our very small environmental group (6 to 8 people) received gear from Patagonia. It was quite helpful because we were doing non-violent protests in Clayoquot Sound, a temperate rainforest in the coast of British Columbia. They sent us excellent rain jackets, pants, and climbing gear and we were grateful.
> “What makes capitalism so successful is that there’s motivation to succeed,” said Ted Clark, executive director of the Northeastern University Center for Family Business. “If you take all the financial incentives away, the family will have essentially no more interest in it except a longing for the good old days.”
Pretty telling that a business school administrator has no concept of being motivated by anything other than pure profit. Always a depressing wake up call to remember that these kinds of people exist and that people actually take anything they have to say seriously.
Knowing there are people with that much money who are thoroughly motivated by the same ideals they were back when they were eating cat food, makes me feel less alone.
Pretty good illustration of the concept that no matter how much wealth you have, it's always the other guy that is rich:
"Even today, he wears raggedy old clothes, drives a beat up Subaru and splits his time between modest homes in Ventura and Jackson, Wyo. Mr. Chouinard does not own a computer or a cellphone."
...
"“I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really, really pissed me off,” he said. “I don’t have $1 billion in the bank. I don’t drive Lexuses.”"
Yeah, raggedy old clothes and a Subaru. Got it. Definitely middle class.
> Barre Seid, a Republican donor, is the only other example in recent memory of a wealthy business owner who gave away his company for philanthropic and political causes. But Mr. Seid took a different approach in giving 100 percent of his electronics company...
The company was Tripp Lite, and he sold it to Eaton for $1.65B:
I'm curious about the ownership, profits, and dividends to ownership for a private company. Obviously, details on this are not easy to come by. It seems like Patagonia is self-sustaining from a cash flow perspective.
So Patagonia is 50 years old and did an estimated $1.5 billion in revenues in 2022 (according to Wikipedia). From the article, it seems like Yvon, his wife, and his two children held both ownership and control. It might even have been 100% within the family, given that NYT explicitly writes that, "the family irrevocably transferred all the company’s voting stock, equivalent to 2 percent of the overall shares" and "The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia"
I wonder how much of the company's profits over the years were reinvested back into the company and how much went to Yvon and the other Chouinards. Seems like most or all of his wealth derives from Patagonia and he lives modestly but comfortably.
EDIT: Even at a 1% profit margin, at $1.5 billion, that's still $15 million.
Does anyone know of any companies where this strategy has worked?
Obvs lesser of the evils but the fear is that, at some point, the family or the fund, gets too far removed from the mission / founder (as is common with many companies) and ultimately chooses profits > environment.
[+] [-] tinalumfoil|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celestialcheese|3 years ago|reply
One of the most interesting parts of this is the choice to make Holdfast a C4. They really wanted to make this a political organization, and were willing to forgo a staggering amount of tax savings - in fact, $17m in tax donating away a $3b asset. Probably the least effective estate planning from a raw $ perspective in history.
Major props to the family for doing this - this is now the definition of "putting your money where your mouth is", and I hope this model is a success and serves as a template for others to follow.
[+] [-] potamic|3 years ago|reply
If only more people realised this. Instead we do the opposite and worship the system which make them happen.
Very inspiring overall. I've always heard good things about the company but never knew of the founder. There's something about seeing one carry such dignified ideals throughout their life, without wavering to societal expectations, that is so admirable.
[+] [-] sokoloff|3 years ago|reply
IMO, we should look at the value created and celebrate that rather than jealously fret over the concentration of the number of people who own it.
To be clear: I think what they did is admirable on both the building and the recent transaction. I respect them greatly for both parts.
[+] [-] randyrand|3 years ago|reply
It only matters when billionaires convert that paper into food, housing, jets, etc, for themselves does it actually affect anyone.
But, by a huge margin, the largest expense billionaires have is investment in other people and companies.
If billionaires squandered their wealth on short term self indulgence that would be one thing, but they don't. They typically give it all away.
I don't see the big policy failure here, or why that is a currently a problem that needs solving.
[+] [-] grecy|3 years ago|reply
Those people got that rich by profiting wildly off the backs of others labor, instead of increasing the wealth and quality of life for everyone.
Countries like Australia and Norway don’t have many wildly rich people, and they also have very few extremely poor people.
[+] [-] FredPret|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bergenty|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] avalys|3 years ago|reply
"Every person who ever created a successful company and retained ownership of a lot of it is a policy failure".
Would you support that statement?
[+] [-] supernova87a|3 years ago|reply
One thing I can see with wealth being transferred among generations, between actual people, is that people can die and their ideas (especially bad ones) can die with them. Even if the wealth is redistributed and misspent, it ends and turns over to someone else. New ideas and purposes for the wealth can take their place.
On the other hand, when a trust/foundation holds wealth, putatively forever, their mission might turn out not to be productive, or even good. I think of certain examples of charities which, by their holdings and activities, keep certain things in status quo and unable to change, which we would sometimes like to leave behind.
All this wealth transferring to entities that will not die and pass on their fortunes to other purposes. What does this cause in the long run that we haven't anticipated?
Like many things that are on my mind, our system is not just about incentivizing the good, but avoiding the inadvertent bad.
Am I totally off / this is not a concern?
[+] [-] rebelos|3 years ago|reply
To get more concrete, if you have a charitable trust of the kind described in this article, then it will pay out salaries to employees and purchase various kinds goods and services. The recipients of those money flows will in turn put that money to work for their own ends: supporting a family with food, shelter, etc, paying other employees further along the value chain, acquiring other goods and services, and so on.
If someone accumulates this much wealth, they are well within their right to put it to work however they please. And doing so does not induce some permanent dysfunction in the system. In this case, I would argue that what the Patagonia founder has done is immensely commendable.
[+] [-] munificent|3 years ago|reply
I think wealth shouldn't have gotten concentrated to this degree in the first place. It's a structural failure that individuals can end up with control over that much money. If the economy was a software simulation, we'd call it buggy because it's clearly gotten some unbalanced positive feedback loops that lead to an unstable simulation.
But the system does have those bugs, and the wealth is concentrated today. So, relative to the other options (which is what every choice in life is), I think putting it in a trust is probably better for society than keeping it in the hands of the family.
[+] [-] snowwrestler|3 years ago|reply
Lots of people who are cheering this move by Chouinard probably have less kind things to say about Charles Koch, who has taken a lot of the wealth his private company has created and used it to fund nonprofits that promote causes typically aligned with conservative politics.
Opinions on this sort of thing typically align more with values than tactics.
I will say this is not a new thing, the great tycoons of 100 years ago created nonprofits too, some of which are still going strong. For example:
https://mellon.org
While the institutions may endure, the people running them do not, so it is possible for the mission to evolve with the surrounding culture. Doesn’t mean you will necessarily agree with them, though, even over time.
[+] [-] jsolson|3 years ago|reply
If your ideas are abstract and roughly "climate isn't fucked" they seem pretty perennial. They're also open to interpretation.
That said, sure, lots of periods in history would've produced trusts that are truly appalling. Something to be addressed case by case, for now, though, and collective social will can always disolve what is ultimately a social contract.
[+] [-] aidenn0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javadocmd|3 years ago|reply
Of course for a foundation that relies heavily on continuing donations, the "market" (so to speak, in this case arranged for the generation of social good) can send a corrective signal by cutting donations. For a completely self-sustaining trust, it stands to reason that society would have little chance to "fix" a wayward organization.
[+] [-] iroh2727|3 years ago|reply
Many of these structures, like trusts, take on a life of their own which is parasitic to the general public. Ergo they should not exist, or at least they should not be allowed to be political far into the future.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dead-tories-prop-up-t...
[+] [-] insane_dreamer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jefftk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyuser583|3 years ago|reply
The Catholic Church has this reputation, but the Episcopalian Church is probably a better example, because it has so few memebrs.
A local Indian tribe is flush with cash despite from casinos despite having few actual members.
Best example is the American Prohibition Party. It was endowed by some rich guy 100 years ago, so it’s still around.
I have a hard time seeing anything pernicious in these examples.
Living people donate wealth to silly things all the time.
It’s hard to find a powerful institution that has power only because of some wealthy person long ago.
[+] [-] notacoward|3 years ago|reply
Now apply the same reasoning to corporations, which are also immortal and which (over time, since the abandonment of binding charters) are even less likely to pursue any goal except profit.
[+] [-] wwqrd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliekelly|3 years ago|reply
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
[2]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-09/the-sp...
[+] [-] germinalphrase|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _whiteCaps_|3 years ago|reply
"As the company grew and became more successful, Bob found himself fending off one offer after another–large corporations that wanted to buy Bob’s Red Mill. But even though it would be immensely profitable for himself, Bob didn’t want to go down that road. After reviewing several options, Bob debuted an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) on his 81st birthday and announced that everyone would become an employee-owner, with a goal for Bob’s Red Mill to become 100% employee owned."
I don't know anything about how these things work, but I like they way Bob's Red Mill did it.
[+] [-] JeremyNT|3 years ago|reply
A magazine for my home state did the same thing that Bob's did, upon the founder's retirement at a similar age. [0]
The Publix supermarket chain is also employee owned, outside of the founders [1].
Mondragon is a massive employee owned conglomerate that was recently on the front page of HN [2]
[0] https://greensboro.com/news/local_news/for-employees-our-sta...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publix
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
[+] [-] banannaise|3 years ago|reply
In fact, you could reorganize every company to be like this, today, but you would encounter a whole lot of angry billionaires and the people they train to be angry on their behalf.
[+] [-] nikolay|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BasilPH|3 years ago|reply
The first, shorter half, is about how Patagonia grew, which is interesting from an entrepreneurial point of view. The second half is about their philosophies and contains a lot of wisdom on creating great, lasting products.
[^1]: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/let-my-people-go-surfing/s...
[+] [-] omwow|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProllyInfamous|3 years ago|reply
The TaTa cousins (not actual name: the people running it) are able to keep a Top-100 marketcap entity functional with just a third of the profits. IMHO companies are definitely entitled to profits, when earned, but employees should be involved in some sort of profit-/ownership- sharing arrangement, perhaps after limited vesting periods.
MAD RESPECT TO PATAGONIA! I'll add their products to my Paul Newman's Own list (i.e. products where all/most profits are donated to charities, even if the price is higher [as long as quality/reputation is maintained]).
[+] [-] boplicity|3 years ago|reply
We live in a fossil fuel based economy; the profit from fossil fuel based companies should be reinvested towards transitioning away from fossil fuels. This just makes sense.
I doubt more companies will follow suit, but if they do, that would be a sign of hope for the world. (Imagine, for example, if all the major oil extraction companies dedicated most of their profits to genuinely fighting climate change.)
edit: I've never gotten downvotes so quickly on a post. I don't mind downvotes, but would appreciate a thoughtful reply in response. Thank you. :)
[+] [-] exabrial|3 years ago|reply
Curbing emissions from power generation is the #1 most effective way to reduce c02 and we have the answers right now: Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and battery storage.
A few thousand jackets are a waste of time and is detrimental to causes that actually matter.
[+] [-] nickff|3 years ago|reply
These sentences seem like a non-sequitur to me, I'm not sure you're wrong, but why? Is it because transitioning away from fossil fuels is your top priority? If so, why?
[+] [-] hellohowareu|3 years ago|reply
I believe there should be more restrictions on the use of plastic in society, seeing as "Plastic Fibers Are Found in 83% of the World's Tap Water, a New Study Reveals"[1]
[1] https://time.com/4928759/plastic-fiber-tap-water-study/
[+] [-] missedthecue|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JeremyNT|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ISL|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] retreatguru|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a4isms|3 years ago|reply
In 1967, he met a young woman named Joy Herron, and they went climbing together on a new route. The route is named "Jump for Joy" after her.
https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105866381/jump-for-joy
[+] [-] Reubend|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nluken|3 years ago|reply
Pretty telling that a business school administrator has no concept of being motivated by anything other than pure profit. Always a depressing wake up call to remember that these kinds of people exist and that people actually take anything they have to say seriously.
[+] [-] hrbf|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hprotagonist|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rufus_foreman|3 years ago|reply
"Even today, he wears raggedy old clothes, drives a beat up Subaru and splits his time between modest homes in Ventura and Jackson, Wyo. Mr. Chouinard does not own a computer or a cellphone."
...
"“I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really, really pissed me off,” he said. “I don’t have $1 billion in the bank. I don’t drive Lexuses.”"
Yeah, raggedy old clothes and a Subaru. Got it. Definitely middle class.
[+] [-] js2|3 years ago|reply
The company was Tripp Lite, and he sold it to Eaton for $1.65B:
https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-ba...
[+] [-] insane_dreamer|3 years ago|reply
Major props to Yvon and family for setting an example that few will follow but many should.
[+] [-] ENOTTY|3 years ago|reply
So Patagonia is 50 years old and did an estimated $1.5 billion in revenues in 2022 (according to Wikipedia). From the article, it seems like Yvon, his wife, and his two children held both ownership and control. It might even have been 100% within the family, given that NYT explicitly writes that, "the family irrevocably transferred all the company’s voting stock, equivalent to 2 percent of the overall shares" and "The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia"
I wonder how much of the company's profits over the years were reinvested back into the company and how much went to Yvon and the other Chouinards. Seems like most or all of his wealth derives from Patagonia and he lives modestly but comfortably.
EDIT: Even at a 1% profit margin, at $1.5 billion, that's still $15 million.
[+] [-] adaisadais|3 years ago|reply
Obvs lesser of the evils but the fear is that, at some point, the family or the fund, gets too far removed from the mission / founder (as is common with many companies) and ultimately chooses profits > environment.