b'I. Funds. (I for integral.) I. Funds will be a new class of 501(c)(3)foundations (perhaps requiring their own new 501(c) desig-nation), organized to use investments, rather than grants, to pursue their charitable purpose. Discussion. There is something particularly galling, and telling, to most folks other than professional philanthropists, about the degree to which the investing of foundation assets is divorced from the charitable purpose for which the foundation was estab-lished. You mean, a $100 million foundation is established and the $100 million is invested without concern as to whether investments conflict with a charitable purpose, in order to generate $5 million per annum to give away? To most people who are learning about it for the first time, this seems far worse than the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. It seems like the left hand working against what the right hand is doing. It seems insidious, as if systemic economic imperatives are largely unchallenged, safe behind fiduciary veils, with grantmaking working around the edges but not effecting change at the center. The Gates Foundation took some flack a few years back for investing in oil companies that do business in Nigeria, while some of its grants were going to communities whose health was directly degraded by those same oil companies. Seems like the stuff of common sense, common decency, ethics or, at least, cognitive dissonance, doesnt it? Not when seen through the lens of industrial-strength financial thinking that considers it efficient to externalize social purpose from investment decision-making in order to maximize economic growth. To this way of thinking, there is absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with using foundation assets to earn as much money as possible so there is more to give away. If, in pursuit of maximum profit, a healthcare founda-tion finds itself invested in a junk food manufacturer so that it can give a grant to a community health clinic, so be it.22'