Group items tagged

Late last week, Governor Deval Patrick and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts quietly released a Request-for-Information (RFI) on an esoteric new public financing concept. The state cautiously issued its RFI without much fanfare. No trumpets or flags, just an understated press release announcing its interest in the issuance of a Social Impact Bond.

Let's be clear: SIBs are not a silver bullet. The very nature of a capped return probably means that SIBs will need to be kick-started by philanthropists and other "impact-first" investors with PRIs before they gain mainstream acceptance. Unlike conventional fiduciaries, philanthropists more easily can square SIBs with their investment priorities. Nonetheless, if this model is proven to work, such experimental philanthropy might be viewed as the venture capital of an era of social innovation.

As the field evolves, we should expect to see a flurry of new groups seeking to design such public-private partnerships. Today the field is sparse. Social Finance, a US group launched by Sir Ronald and Mr. Blood, presently appears to be the only significant player in the field. But, many more will come as impact investors, social entrepreneurs and new intermediaries spring up to scale SIBs and launch new innovations.

This webinar will take the format of a roundtable discussion. All participants are invited to consider a set of questions before the webinar and participate in an open discussion to be moderated by David Wood David Wood, Director, Initiative for Responsible Investment, Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University. The aim of the webinar is to generate a lively debate between academics, experts and practitioners around some of the key questions surrounding the concept of impact investing.

The human capital performance bond proposal differs from the more familiar social impact bond in three important ways: It is truly a bond.  The social impact bonds -- as used in the UK, explored by the Rockefeller Foundation and Nonprofit Finance Fund in the U.S., and profiled here on SocialFinance.ca -- are really equity investments where the investor’s capital is at risk. Consequently, rates of return can run as high as 14%. Not the case in Minnesota. Rather, investors are essentially guaranteed their money back and the rate of return is expected to be around 4%. The anticipated upside of this model is that a lower required rate of return means more organizations will be able to demonstrate economic value that beats that rate and thus allows them to compete for these new funds. The payment timeline is different. In the social impact bond model, organizations receive the cash upfront and must hit pre-determined benchmarks in order for investors to get their money back. With human capital performance bonds, the organizations (mostly nonprofits) carry most of the risk and are only paid if and when they achieve their goal. They would need to secure PRIs or patient capital to meet their interim cash flow needs. The incentives are different. Social impact bonds depend on investors engaging in a due diligence process to evaluate the likely effectiveness of particular social interventions. The model thus uses investors to create the market forces that purportedly will enhance the efficiency of resource flows. The human capital performance bond proposal, in contrast, does not give investors that role.  An intermediary (details yet to be worked out) would fill this gap.