EAB BOTEC
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
2
Probabilites of scenarios
3
P(Scenario 1) [Total failure; incubator doesn't lead to any new top charities]30%
4
P(Scenario 2) [Incubator leads to 1.5 new top charities, with cost-effectiveness similar to AMF]
50%
5
Conditional on Scenario 2, Probability of full RFMF being utilized where counterfactual for that spending is 2.5x cash
10%
Sum of scenario 2 sub-conditions
Sum of all 4 conditions
6
Conditional on Scenario 2, Probability of half RFMF being utilized where counterfactual for that spending is 2.5x cash
0%100%100%
7
Conditional on Scenario 2, Probability of no RFMF being utilized (because counterfactual is 5x cash) [This scenario is essentially failure]
90%
8
P(Scenario 3) [Incubator leads to 1 new top charity with cost-effectiveness 2x AMF]15%
9
P(Scenario 4) [Incubator has huge upside impact, with cost-effectiveness chosen below]
5%
10
11
Misc Key inputs
12
Full cost of EAB to create top charities assuming it doesn't totally fail (cost for scenarios 2-4)
\$15,000,000
13
Full amount of annual RFMF that one new top charity from EAB will have\$10,000,000
14
Default number of years that new top charity RFMF will be utilized10
15
In huge upside scenario (scenario 4), how many times more cost-effective is EAB, relative to cash?
25
16
17
Bottom line estimates
18
Bottom line figure: EAB grant is X times more cost-effective than cash8.7
19
What % of total benefits is coming from each scenario?
20
Scenario 10%
21
Scenario 216%
22
Scenario 354%Sum
23
Scenario 430%100%
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100