Mr Morgan has resigned from The Opportunities Party (Top) and will no longer be funding it. Some will dismiss the news as insignificant - after all, who needs an ''entitled rich-lister'' foisting his own peculiar views upon the rest of us?
But such dismissal is unhelpful. Certainly, Mr Morgan is wealthy and had no qualms about bringing his own ideals into the national political discourse. But he had earned the right to extol those views.
He has an economics PhD. He has experience establishing and growing successful companies. He has a track record of using his knowledge and hard-won experience to educate the populace on financial matters. He has been included in multiple government-appointed task forces. He was voted New Zealander of the Year in 2007.
And, more than that, his stated goal for Top was to extol evidence-based, research-backed policy. His political foray was, he repeated frequently during the 2017 election, not about him but about policy.
Whether he or his policies were liked or not, it is worth contemplating whether the inclusion of a political party extolling evidence, data, reason and objectivity over ideology would be of net benefit to our country's Parliament. It is hard to argue it would not.
Despite Mr Morgan's expertise, reputation, deep pockets and significant platform, Top only made it halfway to the necessary 5% threshold in 2017. And now, while the party still exists under different leadership, Mr Morgan has walked away.
What his resignation most starkly illustrates about New Zealand politics is that, with just one exception, political parties begun by individuals' visions struggle to survive.
Peter Dunne, Jim Anderton, Roger Douglas and Colin Craig have also dreamed up political parties only to see those parties struggle to maintain serious polling numbers. Even Tariana Turia, who began a party to represent a movement, had to watch that party dwindle as the movement lost steam.
Winston Peters is the exception, though he is a special case in New Zealand politics and even he has consistently struggled to keep his party inside Parliament.
Only three New Zealand parties appear capable of longevity; National, Labour and the Greens - though the Greens tend to have a base which hovers dangerously close to the 5% threshold. These are parties borne from movements which have elected people to represent them, rather than being borne from people hoping voters will follow them.
None of this bodes well for several parties, founded by individuals who have seen a cause or an opportunity, hoping to win election in 2020. In fact, it is possible the country could revert to its first-past-the-post roots and elect just two parties in 2020.
What could this indicate for the future of politics in this country - outside the two stalwart parties? Perhaps it suggests that only from pre-existing movements will we see new players rise in our political landscape.
Perhaps an organisation like Federated Farmers could make a decent play? Perhaps, in the future, a more out-and-out unionist party, representing teachers and nurses, among others? Perhaps a student party, collated from the country's university student associations?
While it achieves nothing ruminating on such possibilities, it is worth acknowledging that, despite voters choosing MMP, we appear to still see our Parliament as a two-party house.
That is a shame as parties with more concentrated ideals, like the Greens, Act and Top, can add a healthy level of representation to our political system. But as Mr Morgan has learned, it is the voters who decide. And they are not easily impressed by new arrivals.
