From one perspective, large accumulations of money are "a good thing". They represent sustained effort over time, and the power to accomplish things. But perhaps the situation is more nuanced.

There is an axiom in economics call "local non-satiation", according to which having more of a good is always preferable. This doesn't take into account that preferences involve choices between or among alternatives. Getting back to the large accumulations of money, even if we could make them larger, is there a preferable alternative?

Such an alternative doesn't need to include a plan for every eventuality (which would be a "strategy" in the game theoretic sense). Also, a preferable alternative need not be "optimal" - economics Nobel laureate Herb Simon emphasized the wisdom of not focusing on perfection at the expense of getting by.  Rather, an alternative being preferable to accumulation should be enough, and even represents an opportunity to learn.

Example: redeploying an overhang of foreign exchange reserves by aggressively investing in local economy along a trajectory of sustainable development.

Reference: “The Endowment Effect at MIT”, The MIT Tech, Vol. 124, Nos. 26 & 27 (2004)
Part #1: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/PDF/N26.pdf (p. 5),

Part #2: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/PDF/N27.pdf (pp. 5,6)